The Federal Government's intellectual property rights to these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive licenses will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive licenses may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the licenses would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Title: National Animal Health Monitoring System (Feedlot '99 and Ongoing Monitoring).

OMB Number: 0579-XXXX.

Type of Request: Approval of a new information collection.

Abstract: The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for protecting the health of our nation's livestock and poultry populations by preventing the importation and interstate spread of contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases of livestock and poultry and for eradicating such diseases from the United States when feasible. In connection with this mission, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service operates the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), which collects, on a national basis, statistically valid and scientifically sound data on the prevalence and economic importance of livestock and poultry diseases. Information from these studies is disseminated and used by livestock and poultry producers, consumers, animal health officials, private veterinary practitioners, animal industry groups, policymakers, public health officials, the media, educational institutions, and others to improve agriculture's productivity and competitiveness.

NAHMS' national studies have evolved into a collaborative industry and government initiative to help improve product quality and to determine the most effective means of producing animal and poultry products. We are the only agency responsible for collecting national data on animal and poultry health. Participation in any NAHMS study is voluntary, and all data are confidential.

Feedlot '99: The Feedlot '99 study is NAHMS' second national study of the beef feedlot industry. The NAHMS' 1994 Cattle on Feed Evaluation results provided producer-requested baseline information that will be used with Feedlot '99 information to identify trends in animal health and management practices over the past 5 years. NAHMS is requesting approval to collect data from feedlot operators in the United States. The data collected through the national study will be used to: (1) Describe the changes in management practices and animal health in feedlots from 1994 to 1999; (2) describe management practices that might affect product quality; (3) identify factors associated with shedding of specific pathogens by feedlot cattle; (4) describe antimicrobial usage in feedlots; (5) describe animal health management practices in feedlots and the relationship to cattle health; and (6) identify priority areas for prearrival processing of cattle and calves.

Sentinel Feedlot Monitoring: Sentinel feedlot monitoring is a low-cost, high-impact method of continually monitoring the multibillion dollar cattle feeding industry for death and disease trends. NAHMS collects limited data from private veterinary practitioners and uses it to assess the industry and monitor for emerging issues. This ongoing monitoring activity originally started with data being reported on 15 percent of the cattle on feed in the United States. NAHMS is requesting that the number of cattle monitored be increased to 20 percent.

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Study: The ability of bacteria to resist the effects of antimicrobials has become a global issue affecting both animal and human health. Despite a growing concern that antimicrobial resistance is affecting health, there is a lack of data to monitor trends and make timely decisions about antimicrobial selection and use. An extensive amount of antimicrobial resistance testing is carried out in veterinary diagnostic laboratories across the country but, to date, has not been collected and analyzed. NAHMS is requesting approval to collect, aggregate, and summarize data from the veterinary diagnostic laboratories. The objectives of this study are to: (1) Survey diagnostic laboratories to determine how they conduct antimicrobial resistance testing, store data, and if they would be willing to contribute data to a central clearinghouse; and (2) initiate collection of data from a geographically diverse sample of laboratories to test the feasibility and usefulness of such a system.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve these information collection activities.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning these information collection activities. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our Agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0364 hours per response.

Respondents: Industry personnel, private veterinary practitioners, company and independent producers, academicians, State veterinary medical officers, State Public Health Officials as well as other interested parties involved with animal health and management practices in the United States.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 4466.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.2651.

Estimated annual number of responses: 5,650.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 5,856. (Due to rounding, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the average reporting burden per response.)

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

On May 15, 2000, FSIS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of and requesting comment on a petition received from a group of trade associations (65 FR 30952). The petition asked FSIS to amend sections of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations (9 CFR Part 417). The petitioners argued that the changes would increase the effectiveness of establishments' HACCP systems and would make the regulations more consistent with the HACCP principles published in 1997 by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Food (NACMCF). However, the petition was submitted with no data or examples to support the requests being made. The notice provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on July 14, 2000.

FSIS received a request from the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) to extend the comment period to allow the petitioners more time to provide specific examples and data to support the recommendations they posed in their petition. The NACMPI also requested that FSIS make available a set of side-by-side documents discussing definitions, principles, procedures, and prerequisites of FSIS, the Food and Drug Administration, the NACMCF, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission's HACCP procedures.

In response to the requests, FSIS is reopening the comment period for 60 days, making comments due September 12, 2000. Also, FSIS has prepared a set of side-by-side documents which are now available on the FSIS homepage at www.fsis.usda.gov and also in the FSIS Docket Room (see ADDRESSES ).

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this Federal Register publication in the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS Constituent Update, which is communicated via fax to over 300 organizations and individuals. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent fax list consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through these various channels, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. For more information and to be added to the constituent fax list, fax your request to the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-5704.

Prior to revision of the 1997 Routt National Forest Plan, FDT 1135 was located entirely within a Forest Plan Management Area that allowed motorized travel on designated routes. Consequently, the trail was managed to accommodate motorcycle use, as well as other non-motorized uses. Following revision of the Forest Plan, however, most of the area through which FDT 1135 runs was changed to a non-motorized Management Area prescription. As a result of this change, the middle portion (roughly 9 miles) of the trail is now located in Forest Plan Management Area 1.32, Backcountry Recreation, Non-motorized with Limited Motorized Use in Winter, whereas both trailheads and roughly 3 miles of the trail are located in Management Area 5.13, Forest Products. Allowing motorized travel to continue on portions of the trail currently falling within the non-motorized prescription conflicts with the 1997 Routt National Forest Plan.

Proposed Action: The Forest Service is proposing to close FDT 1135 to motorized use; all other forms of non-motorized recreation activities would continue to be allowed. The Forest Service would also create trailhead parking areas at both ends of the trail. The parking areas would be rough surfaced, approximately 2 acres in size, and would be built to accommodate horse trailers and other recreational parking. Informational signing, Interpretive Education bulletin boards, and other area improvements may also be installed in the future. Installation of these amenities would be based on public need and the Forest Service budget.

Preliminary Issues: The following preliminary issues were identified as a result of the January 4, 2000 scoping effort:

• Implement the Revised Routt Forest Plan by closing FDT 1135 to motorized use.

• Amend the Revised Routt Forest Plan to allow continued motorized use.

• Reduce the size of the proposed parking areas.

• Construct physical barriers to prevent motorized use of the trail.

• User conflicts due to use of motorized vehicles in back country settings.

• User conflicts due to potentially reduced motorized trail opportunities.

• Resource impacts from motorized use of FDT 1135.

• Impacts to roadless areas from motorized use of FDT 1135.

Preliminary Alternatives: The following preliminary alternatives were developed in response to the issues identified above:

(1) No Action: The Forest Service would allow continued motorized use of the trail and would not amend the Routt National Forest Plan. Trailhead parking areas would not be created, and informational signing and Interpretive Education bulletin boards would not be installed.

(2) Proposed Action: Please refer to the description above.

(3) Amend the Routt National Forest Plan to allow continued motorized use of FDT 1135: The Forest Service would amend the Routt National Forest Plan to create a motorized Management Area corridor around FDT 1135. This action would change a linear portion of the currently non-motorized prescription to one that accommodates motorized uses in back country settings for roughly 100 feet on either side of FDT 1135. The Management Area change would affect roughly 9 miles of the trail. All other activities associated with this alternative would be identical to the proposed action.

Selection of this alternative would likely result in a significant amendment to the Routt National Forest Plan.

Decisions to be Made: The Responsible Official must decide which alternative of those analyzed in the draft EIS to select for implementation. Based on the decision that is made, he will also decide what mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be required.

Reviewer Obligations: The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register . The comment period is expected to end August 21, 2000.

Release of Names: Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this Proposed Action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOLA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOLA, 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 ten (10) days.

Responsible Official: Charles T. Oliver, District Ranger; Parks Ranger District; Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests; PO Box 158; Walden, CO 80480.

As the Responsible Official, I will decide which, if any of the alternatives to be described in the draft Environmental Impact Statement will be implemented. I will document the decision and reasons for my decision in a Record of Decision.

On February 3, 2000, the Department initiated, and the Commission instituted, sunset reviews (65 FR 5308 and 65 FR 5371, respectively) of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. 1

On July 12, 2000, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (see, Glycine From China, 65 FR 43037 (July 12, 2000) and USITC Publication 3315, Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Review) (June 2000)).

The product covered by this order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, re-absorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The scope of this order includes glycine of all purity levels. In a separate scope ruling, the Department determined that D(-)PhenylglycineEthyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the order. 2

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on glycine from the PRC. The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to continue to collect antidumping and countervailing duty deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than June 2005.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Room 1104H, Washington, D.C. 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 84-11A12.”

Northwest Fruit Exporters' (“NFE”) original Certificate was issued on June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984) and previously amended on May 2, 1988 (53 FR 16306, May 6, 1988); September 21, 1988 (53 FR 37628, September 27, 1988); September 20, 1989 (54 FR 39454, September 26, 1989); November 19, 1992 (57 FR 55510, November 25, 1992); August 16, 1994 (59 FR 43093, August 22, 1994); November 4, 1996 (61 FR 57850, November 8, 1996); October 22, 1997 (62 FR 55783, October 28, 1997); November 2, 1998 (63 FR 60304, November 9, 1998); and October 20, 1999 (64 FR 57438, October 25, 1999). A summary of the application for an amendment follows.

Applicant: Northwest Fruit Exporters, 105 South 18th Street, Suite 227, Yakima, Washington 98901.

Contact: James R. Archer, Manager, Telephone: (509) 576-8004.

Application No.: 84-11A12.

Date Deemed Submitted: July 18, 2000.

Proposed Amendment: Northwest Fruit Exporters seeks to amend its Certificate to:

1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Apple Country, Inc., Wapato, Washington; Cashmere Fruit Exchange, Cashmere, Washington; Dole Northwest, Wenatchee, Washington; IM EX Trading Company, Yakima, Washington; Inland—Joseph Fruit Company, Wapato, Washington; (controlling entity: Inland Fruit & Produce Co., Inc.); PAC Marketing International, LLC, Yakima, Washington; Sage Marketing LLC, Yakima, Washington (controlling entities: Olympic Fruit, Columbia Reach and Valley Fruit); Voelker Fruit & Cold Storage, Inc., Yakima, Washington; and Washington Export, LLC, Yakima, Washington;

2. Delete the following companies as “Members” of the Certificate: Crandell Fruit Company, Wenatchee, Washington; George F. Joseph Orchard, Yakima, Washington; Gwin, White & Prince, Inc., Wenatchee, Washington; H & H Orchards Packing, Inc., Malaga, Washington; Inland Fruit & Produce Co., Wapato, Washington; Johnny Appleseed of WA/CRO Fruit Co., Wenatchee, Washington, Majestic Valley Produce, Wenatchee, Washington; and Valicoff Fruit Company, Inc., Wapato, Washington; and

3. Change the listing of the company name for the current Member “Blue Bird, Inc.” to the new listing “Washington Cherry Growers”.

In 1997, NIST began the development of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) to specify a symmetric key block cipher algorithm that would provide confidentiality for sensitive (unclassified) data. As the AES development process nears its conclusion, the specific modes of operation for its use need to be addressed. In 1980, Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 81, DES Modes of Operation, defined four encryption modes for the Data Encryption Standard (DES). The four modes are the Electronic Codebook (ECB) mode, the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode, the Cipher Feedback (CFB) mode, and the Output Feedback (OFB) mode. Each mode of FIPS 81 specifies a different way to use the DES block encryption algorithm to encrypt and decrypt data, with somewhat different security and operational characteristics, and each is best suited to different applications. Cryptographic system designers or security application designers need to select one or more of the modes when using the DES symmetric key block cipher algorithm in a cryptographic system or security application. However, FIPS 81 was written to be specific to DES and its key and block size. A new standard is needed that will address other symmetric key block cipher algorithms ( e.g., AES). The workshop will provide NIST with useful input as the standard is drafted.

It is NIST's intention that the planned standard be independent of specific key or block sizes of particular encryption algorithms and that the standard include the four modes specified in FIPS 81, plus other modes needed for current applications and technology. During the development of the AES, NIST received comments suggesting that additional modes should be included in a Modes of Operation standard, and that the development of a new modes standard should be carefully considered by the cryptographic community. To this end, the workshop will discuss appropriate secure modes that participants believe NIST should consider for the standard. Comments are requested prior to the workshop on any recommended modes so as to facilitate discussion of specific proposals at the workshop. Following the workshop, NIST intends to prepare a draft standard that will be made available for public review and comment.

Advance registration and a workshop fee is required for workshop attendance. Details of the workshop may be obtained at http://www.nist.gov/modes. Note that this workshop follows the National Information Systems Security Conference (NISSC) held in Baltimore, Maryland from October 16-19, 2000.

NIST solicits comments from interested parties, including industry, academia, voluntary standards organizations, the public, Federal agencies, and State and local governments concerning the Modes of Operation Standard issues and techniques for discussion at the workshop.

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has determined that Top Kid's, Inc. has violated the requirements for participation in the Special Access Program, and has suspended Top Kid's, Inc. from participation in the Program for the period August 1, 2000 through January 31, 2002.

Through the letter to the Commissioner of Customs published below, CITA directs the Commissioner to prohibit entry of products under the Special Access Program by or on behalf of Top Kid's, Inc. during the period August 1, 2000 through January 31, 2002, and to prohibit entry by or on behalf of Top Kid's, Inc. under the Program of products manufactured from fabric exported from the United States during that period.

Requirements for participation in the Special Access Program are available in Federal Register notice 63 FR 16474, published on April 3, 1998.

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: Annual Performance Report for the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology Grant Program.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 225—Burden Hours: 2,250.

Abstract: This submission requests approval for a web-based performance report needed by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to obtain baseline data and information on the progress and effectiveness of the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (PT3) grantees. The PT3 grant program was established to assist consortia of public and private entities in developing and implementing teacher training programs that prepare prospective teachers to use technology for improved instructional practices and student learning opportunities in the classroom. The performance reports will be completed by all 225 grantees and data gathered from the reports will be used by ED to determine which activities are most successful at training preservice teachers to integrate technology and to determine the overall effectiveness of the PT3 grant program.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Jacqueline Montague at (202) 708-5359 or via her internet address Jackie_Montague@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Title: NSPS, Subpart MM, for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating (OMB Control Number 2060-0034; EPA ICR Number 1064.09; expiring 9/30/2000). This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for automobile and light duty truck surface coating operations were proposed on October 5, 1979 and promulgated on December 24, 1980 (45 FR 85415). These standards apply to the following automobile and light duty truck assembly plant lines: each prime coat operation, guide coat operation, and top coat operation commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after October 5, 1979. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the pollutants regulated under the standards.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following one time-only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test (not required under section 60.393(a)); and the results of the initial performance test.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on January 21, 2000 (65 FR 3443). Comments were received from industry representatives. The representatives believed the EPA substantially underestimated the number of burden hours associated with this regulation.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 228 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Automobile and light duty truck surface coating plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 45.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 39,039.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital O&M Cost Burden: $6,750.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1064.09 and OMB Control No. 2060-0034 in any correspondence.

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

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

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

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-957. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-957 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

2 . In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov ,” or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-957. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition 0F6130 from Monsanto Company, 600 13th St., NW., Suite 660, Washington, DC 20005 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 residues of glyphosate ( N -phosphonomethyl)glycine from the application of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt of glyphoste, the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate, and the ammonium salt of glyphosate in or on the raw agricultural commodity grass forage, fodder, and hay group at 300 parts per million (ppm). These tolerances would replace the existing tolerances for Bahia grass, Bermuda grass, bluegrass, bromegrass, fescue, orchard grass, rye grass, timothy, and wheat grass at 200 ppm, and forage, grasses at 0.2 ppm, grasses forage, at 0.2 ppm, and grasses forage, at 0.1 ppm. The Agency has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. Studies with a variety of plants including corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat indicate that the uptake of glyphosate or its metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), from soil is limited. The material which is taken up is readily translocated. Foliarly applied glyphosate is readily absorbed and translocated throughout the trees or vines to the fruit of apples, coffee, dwarf citrus (calamondin), pears, and grapes. Metabolism via N -methylation yields N -methylated glycines and phosphonic acids. For the most part, the ratio of glyphosate to AMPA is 9 to 1 but can approach 1 to 1 in a few cases (e.g., soybeans and carrots). Much of the residue data for crops reflects a detectable residue of parent (0.05-0.15 ppm) along with residues below the level of detection (<0.05 ppm) of AMPA. The terminal residue to be regulated in plants is glyphosate per se.

2. Analytical method . Adequate enforcement methods are available for analysis of residues of glyphosate in or on plant commodities. These methods include GLC (Method I in Pesticides Analytical Manual (PAM) II; the limit of detection is 0.05 ppm) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with fluorometric detection. Use of the GLC method is discouraged due to the lengthiness of the experimental procedure. The HPLC procedure has undergone successful Agency validation and was recommended for inclusion in PAM II. A gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method for glyphosate in crops has also been validated by EPA's analytical chemistry laboratory (ACL).

Adequate analytical methods are available for residue data collection and enforcement of the proposed tolerances of glyphosate in or on grass forage, fodder, and hay group.

3. Magnitude of residues . The available crop field trial residue data support the establishment of tolerances in grass forage, fodder, and hay at 300 ppm. This new tolerance will be sufficient to replace the existing tolerances for specific grass species at 200 ppm. Any secondary residues occurring in the liver or kidney of cattle, goats, horses, sheep, liver, and kidney of poultry will be covered by existing tolerances, and the available data indicate that residues of glyphosate are not anticipated to occur in any other livestock commodities as a result of this action.

1. Acute toxicity . Several acute toxicology studies placing technical-grade glyphosate in toxicity category III and toxicity category IV. Technical glyphosate is not a dermal sensitizer.

2. Genotoxicty . Mutagenicity data included chromosomal aberration in vitro (no aberrations in chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were caused with and without S9 activation); DNA repair in rat hepatocyte; in vivo bone marrow cytogenetic test in rats; rec-assay with B. subtilis ; reverse mutation test with S.typhimurium ; Ames test with S. typhimurium ; and dominant-lethal mutagenicity test in mice (all negative).

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . A developmental toxicity study in rabbits given doses of 0, 75, 175, and 350 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) with a developmental no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 175 mg/kg/day (insufficient litters were available at 350 mg/kg/day to assess developmental toxicity); a maternal NOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs of toxicity and mortality at 350 mg/kg/day highest dose tested (HDT).

A multi-generation reproduction study with rats fed dosage levels of 0, 3, 10, and 30 mg/kg/day with the parental and reproductive (pup) NOAELs at 30 mg/kg/day HDT based on no adverse effects related to dosing at any level tested.

In a 2-generation reproduction study, rats were fed dosage levels of 0, 100, 500, and 1,500 mg/kg/day with a systemic NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day based on soft stools in Fo and F1 males and females at 1,500 mg/kg/day HDT and a reproductive NOAEL 1,500 mg/kg/day HDT.

4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 2-day dermal toxicity study, rabbits were exposed to glyphosate at levels of 0, 10, 1,000, or 5,000 mg/kg/day. The systemic NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 5,000 mg/kg/day based on decreased food consumption in males. Although serum lactate dehydrogenase was decreased in both sexes at the high dose, this finding was not considered to be toxicologically significant.

5. Chronic toxicity . A 1-year feeding study with dogs fed dosage levels of 0, 20, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day. A 2-year carcinogenicity study in mice fed dosage levels of 0, 150, 750, and 4,500 mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic effect at the highest dose tested HDT of 4,500 mg/kg/day.

A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in male and female rats fed dosage levels of 0, 3, 10, and 31 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 3, 11, or 34 mg/kg/day (females) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study at dose levels up to and including 31 mg/kg/day HDT (males) and 34 mg/kg/day HDT (females) and a systemic NOAEL of 31 mg/kg/day HDT (males) and 34 mg/kg/day HDT (females). Because a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached, this study was classified as supplemental for carcinogenicity.

A second chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in male and female rats fed dosage levels of 0, 89, 362, and 940 mg/kg/day (males) and 1, 113, 457, and 1,183 mg/kg/day (females) with no carcinogenic effects noted under the conditions of the study at dose levels up to and including 940/1,183 mg/kg/day (males/females) HDT and a systemic NOAEL of 362 mg/kg/day (males) based on an increased incidence of cataracts and lens abnormalities, decreased urinary pH, increased liver weight and increased liver weight/brain ratio (relative liver weight) at 940 mg/kg/day (males) HDT and 457 mg/kg/day (females) based on decreased (bwt) body weight gain 1,183 mg/kg/day (females) HDT. There was no carcinogenic response at any dose level.

6. Animal metabolism . The qualitative nature of the residue in animals is adequately understood. Studies with lactating goats and laying hens fed a mixture of glyphosate and AMPA indicate that the primary route of elimination was by excretion (urine and feces). These results are consistent with metabolism studies in rats, rabbits, and cows. The terminal residues in eggs, milk, and animal tissues are glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA; there was no evidence of further metabolism. The terminal residue to be regulated in livestock is glyphosate per se.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The metabolite AMPA has been determined to not be of toxicological significance.

8. Endocrine disruption . The toxicity studies required by EPA for the registration of pesticides measure numerous endpoints with sufficient sensitivity to detect potential endocrine-modulating activity. No effects have been identified in subchronic, chronic or developmental toxicity studies to indicate any endocrine-modulating activity by glyphosate. In addition, negative results were obtained when glyphosate was tested in a dominant-lethal mutation assay. While this assay was designed as a genetic toxicity test, agents that can affect male reproduction function will also cause effects in this assay. More importantly, the multi-generation reproduction study in rodents is a complex study design which measures a broad range of endpoints in the reproductive system and in developing offspring that are sensitive to alterations by chemical agents. Glyphosate has been tested in two separate multi-generation studies and each time the results demonstrated that glyphosate is not a reproductive toxin.

1. Dietary exposure — From food and feed uses . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.364) for the residues of ( N -(phosphonomethyl)glycine resulting from the application of the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, and/or the ammonium salt of glyphosate, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Tolerances are established on the kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 4.0 ppm; liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.5 ppm; and liver, and kidney of poultry at 0.5 ppm based on animal feeding studies and worst-case livestock diets. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from glyphosate as follows.

i. Food —a. Acute exposure and risk . Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. An acute dietary risk assessment was not performed because no endpoints attributable to single dose were identified in the oral studies including rat and rabbit developmental studies. There are no data requirements for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of the toxicity studies at very high doses. The Agency has concluded with reasonable certainty that glyphosate dose not elicit an acute toxicological response, and that an acute dietary risk assessment is not needed.

b. Chronic exposure and risk . The chronic dietary exposure analysis was conduced using the reference dose (RfD) of 2.0 mg/kg/day based on the maternal NOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day from a developmental study and an uncertainty factor of 100 (applicable to all population groups) the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) analysis assumed tolerance levels residues and 100% of the crop treated. These assumptions resulted in the following theoretical maximum residue contributions and percent RfDs for certain population subgroups. The theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) for the U.S. population (48 contiguous states) was 0.029960 or 1.5% of the RfD; 0.026051 or 1.3% of the RfD for nursing infants (less than on 1-year old); 0.065430 or 3.3% of the RfD for non-nursing infants less than 1-year old; 0.064388 or 3.2% of the RfD for children (1-6 years old); 0.043017 or 2.2% of the RfD for children (7-12 years old); 0.030928 or 1.5% of the RfD for females (13+/nursing); 0.030241 or 1.5% of the RfD for non-hispanic whites; and 0.030206 or 1.5% of the RfD for non-hispanic blacks. These exposure levels are unaffected by the proposed tolerances on grass forage, fodder, and hay group. These commodities are only consumed by livestock, and the existing tolerances in liver and kidney fractions of cattle, goats, horses, sheep, and poultry are considered sufficient to account for any additional dietary burden these animals may encounter.

c. Chronic risk-carcinogenic . Glyphosate has been classified as a group E chemical no evidence of carcinogenicity in two acceptable animal species.

ii. Drinking water . Generic Expected Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) and Screening Concentration and Groundwater (SCI-GROW) models were run by EPA to produce maximum estimates of glyphosate concentrations in surface and ground water, respectively. The drinking water exposure for glyphosate from the ground water screening model, SCI-GROW, yields a peak and chronic estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of 0.0011 parts per billion (ppb) in ground water. The GENEEC values represent upper-bound estimates of the concentrations that might be found in surface water due to glyphosate use. Thus, the GENEEC model predicts that glyphosate surface water concentrations range from a peak of 1.64 ppb to a 56-day average of 0.19 ppb. The model estimates are compared directly to drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOC) (chronic). The DWLOC (chronic) is the theoretical concentration of glyphosate in drinking water so that the aggregate chronic exposure (food + water + residential) will occupy no more than 100% of the RfD. This assessment does not take into account expected reductions in any glyphosate concentrations in water arising from water treatment of surface water prior to releasing it for drinking purposes. The Agency's default body weights (bwts) and consumption values used to calculate DWLOCs are as follows: 70 kg/2 liter (L) (adult male), 60 kg/2L (adult female), and 10 kg/1L (child).

a. Acute exposure and risk . An acute dietary endpoint and dose was not identified in the toxicology data base. Adequate rat and rabbit developmental studies did not provide a dose or endpoint that could be used for acute dietary risk purposes. Additionally, there were no data requirements for acute or subchronic rat neurotoxicity studies since there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of the toxicology studies at very high doses.

b. Chronic exposure and risk . The DWLOC (chronic, non-cancer) risk is calculated by multiplying the allowed chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) x bwt/kg divided by the consumption (L) x 10 3 μg/mg. The DWLOCs are 69,000 μg/L for the U.S. population in 48 contiguous states, males (13+), non-hispanic whites, and non-hispanic blacks; and 19,000 for non-nursing infants (less than 1-year old) and children (1-6 years). Although the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models are known to produce worst-case estimates, the resulting average concentrations of glyphosate in the surface and ground water are more than 10,000-fold less than the DWLOC (chronic). Therefore, taking into account present uses and uses proposed in this action, Monsanto concludes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic aggregate exposure to glyphosate.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Glyphosate is currently registered for use on the following residential non-food sites: Around ornamentals, shade trees, shrubs, walks, driveways, flower beds, and home lawns. Based on the registered uses of glyphosate, the potential for residential exposures exists. However, based on the low acute toxicity and lack of other toxicological concerns, glyphosate does not meet the Agency's criteria for residential data requirements and a residential exposure assessment is not required since there are no toxicological endpoints selected for either dermal or inhalation exposure. Exposures from residential uses are not expected to pose undue risks or harm to public health.

i. Acute exposure and risk . There are no acute toxicological concerns for glyphosate. Glyphosate has been the subject of numerous incident reports, primarily for eye and skin irritation injuries, in California. Some glyphosate end-use products are in toxicity categories I and II for eye and dermal irritation. The reregistration eligibility decision document for glyphosate (SEP-1993) indicated that the Agency is not adding additional personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements to labels of end-use products, but that it continues to recommend the PPE and precautionary statements required for end-use products in toxicity categories I and II.

ii. Chronic exposure and risk . Although there are registered residential uses for glyphosate, glyphosate does not meet the Agency's criteria for residential data requirements, due to the lack of toxicological concerns. Incidental acute and/or chronic dietary exposures from residential uses of glyphosate are not expected to pose undue risks to the general population, including infants and children.

iii. Short- and intermediate-term exposure and risk . EPA identified no toxicological concerns for short-, intermediate-, and long-term dermal or inhalation routes of exposures for glyphosate. The Agency has concluded that exposures from residential uses of glyphosate are not expected to pose undue risks.

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

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether glyphosate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, glyphosate does not produce a toxic metabolite that is also produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA should assumed that glyphosate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

1. U.S. population —i. Acute risk . There was no acute dietary endpoint identified, therefore there are no acute toxicological concerns for glyphosate.

ii. Chronic risk . Using the TMRC exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to glyphosate from food will utilize 1.5% of the RfD for the U.S. population. The major identifiable subgroup with the highest aggregate exposure is non-nursing infants (less than 1-year) and children (1-6) as discussed below. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Despite the potential for exposure to glyphosate in drinking water and from non-dietary, non-occupational exposure, the aggregate exposure will not exceed 100% of the RfD. EPA has previously concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to glyphosate residues at this level.

iii. Short- and intermediate-term risk . Short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation risk is not a concern due to the lack of significant toxicological effects observed with glyphosate under these exposure scenarios. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water (considered to be a background exposure level) plus indoor and outdoor residential exposure.

iv. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . Glyphosate has been classified as a group E chemical, with no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans in two acceptable animal studies.

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

2. Infants and children— i. Safety factor for infants and children . In general, when assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of glyphosate, EPA considers data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from maternal pesticide exposure gestation. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. EPA believes that reliable data support using the standard uncertainty factor (usually 100 for combined interspecies and intraspecies variability) and not the additional ten-fold MOE/uncertainty factor when EPA has a complete data base under existing guidelines and when the severity of the effect in infants or children or the potency or unusual toxic properties of a compound do not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the standard MOE/safety factor.

ii. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity . The oral perinatal and prenatal data demonstrated no indication of increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in utero and postnatal exposure to glyphosate.

iii. Conclusion . There is a complete toxicity data base for glyphosate and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. Based on these data, there is no indication that the developing fetus or neonate is more sensitive than adult animals. No developmental neurotoxicity studies have been required at this time. A developmental neurotoxicity data requirement is an upper tier study and is required only if effects observed in the acute and 90-day neurotoxicity studies indicate concerns for frank neuropathy or alterations seen in fetal nervous system in the developmental or reproductive toxicology studies. The Agency has concluded that reliable data support the use of the standard 100-fold uncertainty factor for glyphosate, and that a ten-fold (10x) uncertainty factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children.

iv. Acute risk . There are no acute toxicological endpoints for glyphosate. The Agency has concluded that establishment of the proposed tolerances would not pose an unacceptable aggregate risk.

v. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that aggregate exposure to glyphosate from food utilizing present tolerances will utilize 3.0.% of the RfD for infants and children. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. These dietary exposure levels are unaffected by the proposed tolerances on grass forage, fodder, and hay group, because these commodities are only consumed by livestock, and the existing tolerances in liver and kidney fractions of cattle, goats, horses, sheep, and poultry are considered sufficient to account for any additional dietary burden these animals may encounter. Although there is a low likelihood, potential exposure to glyphosate in drinking water and from non-dietary, non-occupational exposure, EPA has previously concluded that the aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed 100% of the RfD.

vi. Short- or intermediate-term risk . Short-term and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation risk is not a concern due to the lack of significant toxicological effects observed with glyphosate under these exposure scenarios.

vii. Determination of safety . Based on these risk assessments, EPA has previously concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to glyphosate residues at these levels.

A Codex Maximum Residue Level exists for “hay or fodder (dry) of grasses” at 50 ppm.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0773.

Title: Marketing of RF Devices Prior to Equipment Authorization, 47 CFR Section 2.830.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 3,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: N.A.

Needs and Uses: FCC rules permit the display and advertising of radio frequency (RF) devices prior to equipment authorization or a determination of compliance, providing that the advertising or display contains a conspicuous notice as specified at 47 CFR Section 2.803(c). A notice must also accompany RF prototype equipment devices offered for sale, as stated in 47 CFR Section 2.803(c)(2), prior to equipment authorization or a showing of compliance, that the equipment must comply with FCC rules prior to delivery. This information informs third parties of the FCC's requirement for the responsible party to comply with its rules.

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Respondees interested in licensing the invention will be required to submit an Application for License to Public Health Service Inventions. Inventions described in the patent application are available for either exclusive or non-exclusive licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR Part 404. Information about Patent Application(s) and pertinent information not yet publicly described can be obtained under the terms of a Confidential Disclosure Agreement.

A “Cooperative Research and Development Agreement” or “CRADA” is the anticipated joint agreement to be entered into by NIDA and a collaborator pursuant to the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 as amended by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113 (Mar. 7, 1996)) and by the Executive Order 12591 of October 10, 1987. The CRADA would pertain to inventions conceived or reduced to practice after the effective date of the CRADA. CRADA applicants should be aware that a license to the above mentioned patent rights may be necessary in order to commercialize products arising from a CRADA.

A CRADA is an agreement designed to enable certain collaborations between Government laboratories and non-Government laboratories. It is not a grant, and is not a contract for the procurement of goods/services. The NIDA is prohibited from transferring funds to a CRADA collaborator. Under a CRADA, NIDA can contribute facilities, staff, materials, and expertise to the effort. The collaborator may contribute facilities, staff, materials, expertise, and funding to the collaboration. The CRADA collaborator receives an exclusive option to negotiate an exclusive or non-exclusive license to Government intellectual property rights arising under the CRADA in a pre-determined field of use and may qualify as a co-inventor of new technology developed under the CRADA.

NIDA's principal objectives under a License and/or CRADA would be the development and timely commercialization of new diagnostics and/or therapeutics for specific neuropsychiatric disorders and rapid publication of results related to these research projects.

Scientists at NIDA have discovered that distinct isoforms of N-CAM are elevated in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brains of patients diagnosed with specific neuropsychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression. A distinct isoform with molecular weight 105-115 kDa is present in elevated levels in both the CSF and brain tissues of patients with schizophrenia. The secreted (SEC) N-CAM isoform was elevated in brain tissue from bipolar disorder patients. Elevation of at least one isoform, the variable alternative spliced exon, or VASE isoform, is correlated significantly with behavioral ratings in patients with schizophrenia but not affective disorders. Thus, patients with neuropsychiatric disorders exhibit variations in N-CAM isoforms which are specific for their particular disorder. The specific association of these variations in N-CAM isoforms with particular neuropsychiatric disorders suggests the potential for development of therapeutic interventions, clinical trials for monitoring treatment response, and diagnostic methods of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and related diseases.

Present treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and related diseases is inadequate. Existing treatments may have serious side effects and do not prevent the progression of schizophrenia. Development of an effective treatment requires a greater understanding of the biological mechanisms underlying the disease conditions. Through NIDA's discovery of an association between clinical abnormalities and alterations in the level of N-CAM, a greater understanding of the disease process is now possible, and this discovery suggests possible therapies.

In addition to inadequate existing treatments, there is presently no definitive diagnostic test for schizophrenia. Determination of the presence of the various criteria characteristic of schizophrenia is made by a trained clinician and is somewhat subjective. NIDA's discovery suggests that altered levels of N-CAM isoforms in the CSF may be the basis of an objective diagnostic test.

N-CAM is a cell recognition molecule with four major isoforms present in the brain. N-CAM isoforms are membrane-associated glycoproteins, either transmembrane glycoproteins or glycosylphosphatidyl inositol-anchored glycoproteins. There is also a secretory isoform. Membrane-associated N-CAM has several roles in cellular organization and development of the central nervous system. An important aspect of N-CAM activity is the regulation of adhesion of brain cells. Adhesion of neural to glial cells is mediated by N-CAM binding. N-CAM is also involved in memory processes, intracellular signal cascades, and neurite outgrowth. N-CAM is thought to be a neuronal protein and is known to be associated with synaptosomes, vesicles recovered from neuronal preparations. Thus, alterations in N-CAM influence brain structure, learning, and psychiatric systems, as shown in the recent research that NIDA is seeking to develop with a collaborator.

The proposed collaboration would include in vivo investigations of production of N-CAM isoforms and release of N-CAM isoforms into CSF. Measurements on N-CAM production and release would be correlated with the clinical status of patients. The possibility of using these correlations to develop a diagnostic method will be investigated. Potential therapeutic compounds would be tested for effects on the biochemical parameters and the clinical status of patients. The collaboration would also involve in vitro investigation of N-CAM fragment production and release from brain tissue.

The proposed duration of the CRADA is two (2) years. However, the duration could be as long as five (5) years depending on the nature of the research plan developed by the parties.

The role of NIDA under the proposed CRADA may include the following, and other relevant scientifically appropriate collaborative research projects will be considered:

(1) Provide further characterization of association between N-CAM variations with neuropsychiatric disorders.

(2) Perform in vitro determinations of N-CAM fragment production and release from brain tissue.

(3) Provide in vitro assessment of possible therapeutic compounds.

(4) Monitor the efficacy of therapeutic compounds through biochemical methodology.

(5) Jointly publish results.

(6) Provide project coordination for the overall development and testing.

The role of the Collaborator under the proposed CRADA may include the following, and other relevant and scientifically appropriate collaborative research projects will be considered:

(1) Provide significant intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise in developing appropriate methods for a diagnostic assay based on the level of N-CAM isoforms in cerebrospinal fluid.

(2) Determine whether the variation in level of N-CAM isoforms in cerebrospinal fluid can be used diagnostically.

(3) Provide compounds which may have therapeutic potential.

(4) Provide significant intellectual, scientific, and technical expertise in developing a therapeutic protocol based on regulating the level of N-CAM isoforms.

(5) Perform clinical studies including assessments of patients and collection of samples.

(6) Monitor the efficacy of therapeutic compounds using clinical determinations of efficacy.

(7) Jointly publish results.

(8) Jointly provide project coordination for the overall development and testing.

The following factors will be evaluated in selecting a CRADA collaborator:

(1) Corporate expertise in the field of development of diagnostic tools.

(2) Competency in developing and assessing efficacy of therapeutic interventions.

(3) Number and character of possible therapeutic compounds that collaborator may be able to provide.

(4) Ability to provide for staff to perform in vitro studies.

(5) Key staff expertise, qualifications and relevant experience.

(6) Ability to effectively commercialize new technologies.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Lender Qualifications for Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP).

OMB Control Number , if applicable: 2502-0541.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) is a new way for approved lenders to apply for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily mortgage insurance. MAP will replace existing “fast-track” procedures with a single national process for all multifamily offices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of respondents are 130, the frequency of responses is 1, the hours per response is 10 hours, and the total estimated annual burden hours is 1,300.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Survey of New Manufactured (Mobil) Home Placements.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0029.

Form Numbers: C-HM-9A.

Description of The Need For The Information And Its Proposed Use: This survey is used to collect data on the placement of new manufactured (mobile) homes. The data are collected from manufactured home dealers. The principal user, HUD, used the statistics to monitor trends in this type of low-cost housing, to formulate policy, draft legislation, and evaluate programs.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Frequency of Submission: Monthly.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 6,480.

Status: Revision of a currently approved collection.

HUD has the authority to address deficiencies in the performance of lenders' loans as provided in the HUD mortgagee approval regulations at 24 CFR 202.3. On May 17, 1999 (64 FR 26769), HUD published a notice on its procedures for terminating origination approval agreements with FHA lenders and placement of FHA lenders on Credit Watch status (an evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 notice, HUD advised that it would publish in the Federal Register a list of mortgagees which have had their Origination Approval Agreements terminated.

Approval of a mortgagee by HUD/FHA to participate in FHA mortgage insurance programs includes an Agreement between HUD and the mortgagee. Under the Agreement, the mortgagee is authorized to originate single family mortgage loans and submit them to FHA for insurance endorsement. The Agreement may be terminated on the basis of poor performance of FHA-insured mortgage loans originated by the mortgagee. The Termination of a mortgagee's Agreement is separate and apart from any action taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board under HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 25.

HUD's regulations permit HUD to terminate the Agreement with any mortgagee having a default and claim rate for loans endorsed within the preceding 24 months that exceeds 200 percent of the default and claim rate within the geographic area served by a HUD field office, and also exceeds the national default and claim rate. For the third review period, HUD is only terminating the Agreement of mortgagees whose default and claim rate exceeds both the national rate and 300 percent of the field office rate.

Termination of the Agreement precludes that branch(s) of the mortgagee from originating FHA-insured single family mortgages within the area of the HUD field office(s) listed in this notice. Mortgagees authorized to purchase, hold, or service FHA insured mortgages may continue to do so.

Loans that closed or were approved before the Termination became effective may be submitted for insurance endorsement. Approved loans are: (1) Those already underwritten and approved by a Direct Endorsement (DE) underwriter employed by an unconditionally approved DE lender; and (2) cases covered by a firm commitment issued by HUD. Cases at earlier stages of processing cannot be submitted for insurance by the terminated branch; however, they may be transferred for completion of processing and underwriting to another mortgagee or branch authorized to originate FHA insured mortgages in that area. Mortgagees are obligated to continue to pay existing insurance premiums and meet all other obligations associated with insured mortgages.

A terminated mortgagee may apply for a new Origination Approval Agreement if the mortgagee continues to be an approved mortgagee meeting the requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 202.7, 202.8 or 202.10 and 202.12, if there has been no Origination Approval Agreement for at least six months, and if the Secretary determines that the underlying causes for termination have been remedied.

To enable the Secretary to ascertain whether the underlying causes for termination have been remedied, a mortgagee applying for a new Origination Approval Agreement must obtain an independent review of the terminated office's operations as well as its mortgage production, specifically including the FHA-insured mortgages cited in its termination notice. This independent analysis shall identify the underlying cause for the mortgagee's high default and claim rate. The review must be conducted and issued by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to perform audits under Government Auditing Standards as set forth by the General Accounting Office.

The mortgagee must also submit a written corrective action plan to address each of the issues identified in the CPA's report, along with evidence that the plan has been implemented. The application for a new Agreement should be in the form of a letter, accompanied by the CPA's report and corrective action plan. The request should be sent to the Director, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410, or by courier to 490 L'Enfant Plaza, East, S.W., Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20024.

The following mortgagees have had their Agreements terminated by HUD:

The American peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum ) occurs throughout much of North America from the subarctic boreal forests of Alaska and Canada south to Mexico. The American peregrine falcon declined precipitously in North America following World War II, a decline attributed largely to organochlorine pesticides applied in the United States and Canada. Because of the decline, the American peregrine was listed as endangered in 1970 (35 FR 16047).

Recovery goals for American peregrine falcons in the United States were substantially exceeded in some areas, and on August 25, 1999, we removed the American peregrine falcon from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (64 FR 46542). However, monitoring of the status of the species is required, and it is still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Anticipating delisting, in June 1999 a number of state fish and wildlife agencies, through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, proposed allowing take of nestling American peregrines for falconry. In response, in an October 4, 1999, Federal Register notice (64 FR 53686), we stated that we would prepare two management plans and associated environmental assessments for take of wild peregrine falcons. We further stated that we would consider a conservative take of nestling peregrines from healthy populations of American peregrine falcons in the western United States and Alaska, where recovery was most marked and where approximately 82% of the nesting pairs in the United States were found in 1998.

The States proposed allowing take of 5% of the annual production of nestlings in States west of 100° (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). In preparing the Draft Environmental Assessment, we considered the request from the States, as well as the effects of allowing no take, and take of 10%, 15%, and 20% of annual production in those States. A sixth alternative we evaluated was lifting the current restriction on take by falconry permittees. This option would make no distinctions regarding where nestling peregrines could be taken.

Because population changes also are greatly influenced by survival of adults, we also assessed the effects of different take levels with different values for adult mortality. We concluded that 20% post-first-year mortality is a conservative and reasonable value to use. However, we also modeled population growth using 10%, 15%, and 25% annual mortality of adults.

The proposed action in the Draft Environmental Assessment is to allow take of up to 5% of the nestlings produced in western States; take of any lesser amount could be allowed by a State. The 5% level of take should still allow population growth of 3% per year if post-first-year mortality is 20% and population density does not affect reproduction or survival.

The purpose of the Advisory Board is to advise and assist the Director of the Bureau of Land Management on issues pertaining to science and the application of scientific information in the management of public lands and their resources. The Advisory Board is comprised of up to nine members from among the following categories: natural resource management, energy and minerals, conservation biology, and ecology and genetics.

An approximate 235.8 mile fiber optic cable is proposed by Level 3 Communications, L.L.C., from Las Vegas, Nevada to San Bernardino, California. A major portion of the proposed route will utilize Energy Production and Utility Corridor “D” as shown in the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980 (CDCA), as amended. The proposed right-of-way as it nears the City of Victorville, deviates from the corridor at Stoddard Wells Road following existing fiber optic lines to Black Mountain Quarry Road, returning to the corridor. The approximate 12 miles segment where the proposed route leaves Corridor D is not formally designated as a utility corridor by the CDCA Plan. The proposed plan amendment/exemption is being evaluated in the environmental documentation for the proposed fiber optic facility.

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or business, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organization or business, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

Title: 30 CFR 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations

OMB Control Number: 1010-0067.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. , requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environment; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on OCS resources; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332) requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.” This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

The MMS district supervisors analyze and evaluate the information and data collected under subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel safety and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, MMS uses the information to ensure: (a) Compliance with personnel safety training requirements; (b) crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents; (c) proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources; (d) well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and (e) sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits.

We protect proprietary information that is submitted according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and 30 CFR 250.196. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

We published a Federal Register notice with the required 60-day comment period on April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20485). We received no comments in response to that notice.

Frequency: The frequency of reporting varies according to requirement (see following burden chart).

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 5,672 hours (see following burden chart).

Estimated Annual Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information.

Comments: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by August 24, 2000.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, (202) 208-7744).

Title: 30 CFR 250, Subpart B, Exploration and Development and Production Plans

OMB Control Number: 1010-0049.

Bureau Form Numbers: MMS-137, MMS-138, MMS-139, and MMS-141.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. , gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) the responsibility to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS, consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

Sections 11 and 25 of the amended OCS Lands Act require the holders of OCS oil and gas and sulphur leases to submit exploration plans (EPs) and development and production plans (DPPs) for approval prior to commencing these activities. The implementing regulations and associated information collection requirements are contained in 30 CFR 250, subpart B, Exploration and Development and Production Plans (subpart B). In addition, MMS has issued Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that provide supplementary guidance and procedures as applicable to each Region or nationally. These NTLs address the various surveys, reports, plans (including deep water operations plans and conservation information), etc., that are necessary for MMS to approve the exploration or development and production activities.

The MMS engineers, geologists, geophysicists, and environmental scientists use the information collected under subpart B, and related NTLs, to analyze and evaluate the planned operations to ensure that they will not adversely affect the marine, coastal, or human environment and that they conserve the resources of the OCS. It would be impossible for the Regional Supervisor to make an informed decision on whether to approve the proposed plans, or whether modifications are necessary, without the analysis and evaluation of the required information. The affected States also review the information collected for consistency with approved Coastal Zone Management plans.

We are resubmitting this collection of information to OMB to obtain official approval of several aspects of the plan submissions that have developed over time. In addition to the currently approved requirements, we are seeking OMB approval of the number of copies respondents submit; a new “OCS Plan Information Form” (form MMS-137) for use in the GOM Region; and two air emissions spreadsheets (forms MMS-138 and MMS-139) currently used in the GOM Region. Except for form MMS-137, these are not new requirements. We consider the burdens for these as part of the burden currently approved for developing and submitting EPs or DPPs (development operations coordination documents (DOCDs) in the western GOM).

In addition, we are seeking OMB approval for a new form MMS-141, “ROV Survey Report.” Sections 250.203(o) and 250.204(s) of our regulations provide the authority to require monitoring surveys and submit the results. MMS has not required such monitoring surveys be conducted for some time. Because many of the current exploration areas in the GOM Region are now characterized as “relatively untested or remote,” it will be necessary to obtain the information from these surveys. We have developed a suggested form on which respondents may record the information from the survey.

We will protect information respondents submit that is considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2) and 30 CFR 250.196. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency: The frequency of reporting is on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 249,370 hours—refer to the following chart for a breakdown of this estimate.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens for this collection.

Comments: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

We published a Federal Register notice with the required 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this ICR on February 23, 2000 (65 FR 8984). We received no comments in response to that notice. If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by August 24, 2000.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, (202) 208-7744.

Title: 30 CFR 250, Subpart D, Oil and Gas Drilling Operations

OMB Control Number: 1010-0053.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. , requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS; make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environment; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources offshore; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332) requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.” This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

The MMS uses the information to determine the condition of a drilling site to prevent hazards inherent in drilling operations. Among other things, MMS specifically uses the information to ensure: (a) The drilling unit is fit for the intended purpose; (b) the lessee will not encounter geologic conditions that present a hazard to operations; (c) equipment is maintained in a state of readiness and meets safety standards; (d) each drilling crew is properly trained and able to promptly perform well-control activities at any time during well operations; (e) compliance with safety standards; and (f) the proposed field drilling rules will provide for safe and proper field or reservoir development, resource evaluation, conservation, protection of correlative rights, safety, and environmental protection. We also review well records to determine whether drilling operations have encountered hydrocarbons or H 2 S and to ensure that H 2 S detection equipment, personnel protective equipment, and training of the crew are adequate for safe operations in zones known to contain H 2 S and zones where the presence of H 2 S is unknown.

We protect proprietary information that is submitted according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2), and 30 CFR 250.196. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

We published a Federal Register notice with the required 60-day comment period on April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20484). We received no comments in response to that notice.

Frequency: The frequency of reporting varies according to requirement (see following burden chart).

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 113,827 hours (see following burden chart).

Estimated Annual Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information.

Comments: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *”

Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by August 24, 2000.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, (202) 208-7744).

On August 10, 1999, MMS published a final rule, titled “Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Indian Leases,” with an effective date of January 1, 2000 (64 FR 43506). The gas regulations apply to all gas produced from Indian (tribal or allotted) oil and gas leases (except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation).

The rule requires that MMS publish major portion prices for each designated area not associated with an index zone for each production month beginning January 2000 along with a due date for additional royalty payments. See 30 CFR 206.174(a)(4)(ii) (64 FR 43520, August 10, 1999). If additional royalties are due based on a published major portion price, the lessee must submit an amended Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance, to MMS by the due date. If additional royalties are not paid by the due date, late payment interest under 30 CFR 218.54 (1999) will accrue from the due date until payment is made and an amended Form MMS-2014 is received. The table below lists the major portion prices for all designated areas not associated with an index zone and the due date for payment of additional royalties.

For information on how to report additional royalties due to major portion prices, please refer to our Dear Payor letter dated December 1, 1999.

On November 17, 1988, Public Law 100-675 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to line the Coachella Canal or to recover seepage from the canal using construction funds from California water agencies entitled to the use of Colorado River water. A DEIS/DEIR was prepared for this project after public scoping meetings were held in 1988, 1989 and 1992 to identify issues, develop alternatives and provide information to the public on the project plan. In addition, Reclamation chaired various interagency work groups to evaluate project effects, develop alternatives and identify mitigation measures. Based upon this public/agency input, four alternatives were developed for this project: (1) Conventional lining, (2) underwater lining, (3) construction of a parallel canal, and (4) the no action alternative. The DEIS/DEIR for the project was completed and circulated to other government agencies, interested parties, and the public for review and comment from January 11 to March 15, 1994. However, following the public involvement process, the DEIS/DEIR was not revised to produce a FEIS/FEIR because funding was not available for the project.

California has now provided appropriated funds to finance the lining of the remaining unlined portions of the Coachella Branch of the All American Canal. The environmental analysis for this project will be updated to evaluate the status of resources since the original DEIS/DEIR was prepared. Since the alternatives have not changed for this project, further scoping is not required. Substantive comments received during the first public review of the document will be evaluated and incorporated into the revised DEIS/DEIR. The revised DEIS/DEIR will be distributed to the public and interested agencies/cooperators for a 60-day review and comment period. A Notice of Availability will be published when the revised DEIS/DEIR is available for public review and comment, and a public hearing has been scheduled.

The Coachella Canal delivers an average of 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water each year to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), situated on the north end of the Salton Sea. The canal begins at a turnout on the All American Canal near the international boundary with Mexico and runs through the desert, east of the Salton Sea, before it enters the irrigated area of the CVWD. The canal was excavated through desert soils in the 1940's and was placed in operation as a partially lined and unlined canal in 1948.

The first 49-mile section of the canal, which runs through the sandy soil of the East Mesa, had especially high leakage; consequently it was lined in 1980 to conserve water pursuant to Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320). The canal was “lined” by constructing a new canal parallel to the existing canal and connecting the new canal to existing concrete structures. The last 37 miles of the canal were lined when the canal was originally constructed.

The intervening section of canal was constructed in a mixture of gravel and clay soils. The rate of seepage from this section was not as high as in the first 49 miles, so lining was deferred. This section contains 33.4 miles of unlined canal (between siphons 7 and 14 and siphons 15 and 32) that are proposed for lining by this project. Between siphons 14 and 15, the canal was lined experimentally in 1991. The length of unlined canal does not include the lengths of the pipe siphons (wash crossings and rail road crossings), which are not proposed for replacement.

Anyone interested in more information concerning the Coachella Canal Lining Project should contact Mr. Young as provided above.

Background. —These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on July 17, 2000, by Cummins-Allison Corp., Mt. Prospect, IL.

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference. —The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on August 7, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Jozlyn Kalchthaler (202-205-3457) not later than August 3, 2000, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions. —As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before August 10, 2000, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Background.— On February 3, 2000, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (65 FR 7890, February 16, 2000). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's web site.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.— Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report .—The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 8, 2000, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on November 30, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before November 21, 2000. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on November 27, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is November 20, 2000. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is December 11, 2000; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before December 11, 2000. On January 3, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before January 5, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The Commission ordered the institution of this investigation on February 4, 2000, based on a complaint filed by Intel Corp. of Santa Clara, California (“Intel”). 65 FR 7059 (2000). The complaint named five respondents: VIA Technologies, Inc., of Taipei, Taiwan; VIA Technologies, Inc., of Fremont, California; First International Computer, Inc., of Taipei, Taiwan; First International Computer of America, Inc., of Fremont, California; and Everex Systems, Inc., of Fremont, California. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuit chipsets and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-3 and 15-16 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,333,276; claims 1-4, 10, 15, 22, 27-30, 36-37, 44-45, and 49 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,740,385; claims 1-12 and 28-48 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,581,782; and claims 1-31 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,548,733 (“the ‘733 patent”).

On June 5, 2000, complainant Intel moved to amend the complaint and notice of investigation by deleting claims 2-4, 7, 15-20, 22, 27-29, and 31 of the ‘733 patent. Motion Docket No. 428-14. There were no responses to the motion.

On June 27, 2000, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 14) granting Intel's motion to the extent that he permitted Intel to withdraw claims 2-4, 7, 15-20, 22, 27-29, and 31 of the ‘733 patent from the investigation. No party petitioned for review of the ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) In the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-2000.

The Commission ordered the institution of this investigation on February 4, 2000, based on a complaint filed by Intel Corp. of Santa Clara, California (“Intel”). 65 FR 7059 (2000). The complaint named five respondents: VIA Technologies, Inc., of Taipei, Taiwan; VIA Technologies, Inc., of Fremont, California (collectively, “VIA”); First International Computer, Inc., of Taipei, Taiwan; First International Computer of America, Inc., of Fremont California; and Everex Systems, Inc., of Fremont, California (collectively, “FIC”). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuit chipsets and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-3 and 15-16 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,333,276; claims 1-4, 10, 15, 22, 27-30, 36-37, 44-45, and 49 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,740,385 (“the “385 patent”); claims 1-12 and 28-48 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,581,782; and claims 1-31 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,548,733.

On June 5, 2000, complainant Intel moved to amend the complaint and notice of investigation by deleting the “385 patent. Motion Docket No. 428-12. The VIA and FIX respondents responded separately to Intel's motion. Both sets of respondents supported the motion, provided certain documents currently in the confidential record of the investigation were made public. The Commission investigative attorney supported the motion unconditionally.

On June 20, 2000, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 12) granting Intel's motion to the extent that he permitted Intel to withdraw the “385 patent from the investigation. No party petitioned for review of the ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) In the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.