This program has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A cost-benefit assessment was completed and is summarized in this notice.

The titles and numbers of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this notice applies are: Commodity Loan and Loan Deficiency Payments—10.051.

It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this notice because USDA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this notice.

It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

The program set forth in this notice is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

The provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 are not applicable to this notice because the USDA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this notice and because this notice does not impose any unfunded mandates.

Provisions of 5 U.S.C. 808 (the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA)) provide that a rule may take effect at such time as the agency may determine if the agency finds for good cause that public notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public purpose. Upon such a finding, the statute provides the agency action does not have to meet the requirements of section 801 of SBREFA, which requires a 60-day delay for Congressional review of a major regulation before the regulation can go into effect. This notice is considered to involve an action which would be considered major for the purposes of SBREFA. However, because this notice involves a cost-savings measure which would be lost with the passage of time, delay would be contrary to the public interest. Hence, this notice is made effective immediately on August 18, 2000.

Authority for CCC to conduct a Sugar PIK Diversion Program is based on section 1009(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (“1985 Act”), which provides that when a loan program is in effect, the Secretary may, at any time before harvest, accept bids from producers to convert planted acreage to diverted acreage in return for payment in kind from CCC surplus stocks of the commodity to which the acreage was planted, i.e., offer a paid land diversion program. Subsection (e) also states that no producer may receive over $20,000 worth of in-kind payments. Such action can be taken only if there has been: (1) Changes in domestic or world supply for demand conditions have occurred after the announcement of the loan program for the crop and (2) without further action, the Government and producers will be faced with a burdensome and costly surplus. Overall, the measures addressed in section 1009(e) and other subsections can be taken under the terms of the statute only if they would reduce direct and indirect costs to the Government without adversely affecting the income of participating small and medium-size producers.

The 1999-crop stocks-to-use ratio is projected to reach 18.4 percent—up 2.4 percentage points from the 1998-crop level. Refined beet sugar prices (Midwest) are in the 19 to 20-cent-per-pound range—4 cents below forfeiture levels. For raw cane sugar, the September contract has recently been trading between 17 and 18 cents per pound. The 2000-crop production forecast is 8.973 million tons—slightly below the previous production record of 9.035 million tons that was set last year.

In response to the current depressed domestic sugar market on May 11, 2000, it was announced that CCC would buy U.S. sugar to reduce the cost of expected loan forfeitures, support sugar growers, and boost market prices. The purchase authority is based on section 1009(c) of the 1985 Act. On May 26, 2000, CCC issued a purchase invitation to buy approximately 150,000 tons of sugar. On June 6, 2000, CCC announced that it had purchased 132,000 tons of refined sugar at an average price of 20.5 cents per pound. Beginning with September 2000, CCC will begin incurring storage charges of $0.10 per hundredweight per month on this purchased sugar, i.e., $264,000 per month. On August 1, 2000, 42,000 additional tons of refined beet sugar loan collateral were forfeited to CCC, with an associated storage cost of $84,000 per month.

Based on the combination of: (1) Market prices well below forfeiture levels, (2) forfeitures expected this year, (3) a greater excess supply outlook for the next crop, and (4) CCC holding sugar inventory with no other specific disposal plan, CCC is implementing a Sugar PIK Diversion Program to reduce Government costs by helping to reduce the amount of forfeitures otherwise expected, and eliminate much of CCC's sugar inventory, thereby also eliminating Government storage costs.

Under the Sugar PIK Diversion Program, producers must agree not to harvest sugar beets for commercial use in return for sugar from CCC's existing inventory. Producers submit bids indicating the dollar value of CCC sugar that they are willing to accept to divert acres, in an amount specified by the producers, from production. The Program will be limited to sugar beet producers because of the marketing complexities that would arise with such a program for the cane sector.

Sugar beet producers wanting to participate will be required to provide data on (1) the number of acres that the producer will divert, (2) the dollar equivalent of the number of pounds of sugar wanted as payment, and (3) the producer's previous 3-year simple average per acre production of sugar, which will require data from the grower's beet processor. Some of this information will be used to determine the value to CCC of the diversion.

Selection of participants will be based on the objective of getting the most sugar production diverted in return for the least amount of CCC inventory. To do this, CCC will rank the bids and not accept any bids that, in effect, request more sugar in payment for diverting acreage than would be expected to be produced from the diverted acreage. To facilitate the effort to obtain attractive bids, a bid cap will be established, in advance, based upon the submitted data and the production expectations. The bid cap will equal the dollar value of refined beet sugar historically produced by that acreage. To assure that a real reduction is obtained, the sugar removed from production must be under contract to a processor. Returns under the program will likely have to be enough to allow the producer to obtain a contract waiver from the processor who could then take an assignment of the sugar to be obtained from CCC.

As of August 1, 2000, CCC owns 174,000 tons of refined sugar in inventory (186,180 tons, raw value). This amount is equivalent to 3.94 percent of the 2000-crop refined beet sugar production forecast, 4.28 percent of the raw cane sugar production forecast, and 2.05 percent of the total sugar production forecast. Removing 186,180 tons, raw value, from next year's supply would have only a slight effect on the expected excess supply situation. The stocks-to-use ratio may still be around 18.6 percent—near the current 1999-crop level of 18.4 percent.

Using the 186,180 tons, raw value, as a basis for analysis, the actual impact of a Sugar PIK Diversion Program for this amount of CCC inventory may be slightly higher than this quantity. For example, using the 2000-crop national average yield forecast, 2.9 tons of refined sugar are produced from 1 acre of sugar beets. The beets on diverted acreage will simply be left unharvested, disked under, or, in any case, may not be harvested for commercial use. Thus, a participating producer will forgo all, or most, of the harvest costs on each of these acres—around $100 per acre. Bidders will likely concentrate on these forgone harvest costs in determining their competitive bid strategy. Using the current 19-cent estimate of Midwest refined sugar prices as a proxy value of the sugar, the $100 per acre forgone harvest cost would be the equivalent of around 526 pounds of refined sugar. If producers would try to retain only half that amount in their bids in order to gain acceptance into the program, they would give up around 260 pounds worth of normal production per acre, i.e., the equivalent of reducing their per acre yield from 2.9 tons per acre to about 2.8 tons per acre. Thus, the 174,000 tons of CCC refined sugar inventory could result in the equivalent of a 180,215-ton decrease in refined beet sugar production (192,030 tons, raw value). This is equivalent to a 62,143-acre decrease in production—4 percent of 1999-crop sugar beet plantings.

Factory throughput will be affected. Also, diverting acres from production will result in forgone revenue that would have been generated from the production of such by-products as molasses and beet pulp.

Based on the 2000-crop national average yield forecast of 2.9 tons of refined beet sugar per acre and valuing CCC's sugar inventory at the current estimate of Midwest refined sugar prices of 19 cents per pound, an individual beet producer could receive up to 52.6 tons as a payment—the equivalent of only 18.1 acres of production because of the $20,000 payment limit. The 1999-crop average acreage per farm was 129 acres. At that rate, at least 3,308 beet producers would have to participate in the program in order to utilize CCC's current sugar inventory. The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) 1999 farm acreage report indicates that there were 12,474 sugar beet farms. Even after accounting for possible decreases in sugar beet farm numbers in the Oregon and Washington areas, at least 12,000 farms likely planted sugar beets this year. Based on the apparent sugar sector interest in a Sugar PIK Program, CCC's 174,000-ton refined sugar inventory should easily be utilized in a Sugar PIK Diversion Program.

CCC savings will result from the elimination of monthly storage payments and the potential for reduced 2000-crop forfeitures of loan collateral. On August 1, 2000, 42,000 tons of refined beet sugar loan collateral were forfeited to CCC. Adding this amount to the 132,000 tons purchased on June 6, 2000, CCC's total inventory now stands at 174,000 tons of refined sugar. Total 1999-crop forfeitures are expected to reach 500,000 to 550,000 tons, in addition to the 42,000 tons already forfeited.

From 300,000 to 400,000 tons of refined sugar are expected to be paid out to participants under the Sugar PIK Program. Assuming 350,000 tons of refined sugar are paid out under the Sugar PIK Program, this would be equivalent to 7.8 percent of the current 2000-crop refined beet sugar production forecast and a 120,437-acre decrease in production—7.7 percent of plantings. At least 6,654 producers would have to participate in the program to utilize this amount of refined sugar.

This will impact CCC's monthly storage outlays and expected forfeitures. Monthly storage savings will total $700,000, and CCC could potentially avoid around $160 million worth of 2000-crop forfeitures.

This program will be administered by the Executive Vice President, CCC.

(a) Producers wishing to participate in the program must submit a bid, on a form prescribed by CCC, to CCC for a contract with CCC that provides for the conversion of acreage planted to sugar beets, under contract for delivery to a processor, to diverted acreage that will not be harvested for sugar or used for any other commercial purposes in return for payments in sugar from CCC's inventory of refined sugar or raw cane sugar.

(b) The bid must provide information that CCC deems necessary for conducting the program, including but not limited to, the number of acres that the producer will divert; the producer's previous consecutive 3-year simple average sugar beet yield (years with no production will not be considered; for first time producers, however, the previous consecutive 3-year simple average sugar beet yield for all the producers who delivered to the applicable factory will be used), the previous 3-year simple average sugar content of the producer's beets (for first time producers, the previous 3-year simple average sugar content for all beets delivered to that factory will be used), the processor's previous 3-year simple average recovery rate (for processors that have not been fully operational during the last 3 years, the simple average for those years that they were fully operational), the value of CCC sugar to be received as payment, and other information CCC deems necessary for administering the program.

(c) The following acreage is ineligible for the Sugar PIK Program:

(1) Acreage not currently under contract for delivery of sugar beets to a sugar beet processor for the production of sugar,

(2) Acreage on which a crop insurance indemnity or replant payment was received for the 2000-crop year or for which a claim has been, or will be, filed to receive a crop insurance indemnity or replant payment for the 2000-crop year,

(3) Acreage which is not harvestable, or

(4) Acreage devoted to roads or other non-producing areas.

(d) The diverted acres cannot be grazed, until after the sugar beets are destroyed by disking, plowing, or other means of mechanical destruction. In addition, the sugar beets on the diverted acres may not be used for any commercial purpose.

(e) If the total number of acres a producer bids is:

(1) Less than or equal to 15 acres, then the acreage bid must consist of one of the following:

(i) One area of contiguous land,

(ii) One or more entire permanent fields, or

(iii) One or more entire permanent fields and one area of contiguous land to complete the balance;

(2) More than 15 acres, then the acreage bid must consist of one of the following:

(i) One or more areas of land of at least 15 contiguous acres each with one remaining area of land of less than 15 contiguous acres to complete the balance,

(ii) One or more entire permanent fields, or

(iii) One or more entire permanent fields and one area of contiguous land to complete the balance.

(a) CCC will rank the bids on the basis of the bid amount as a percentage of the bid cap, as determined by CCC. Those bids with the lowest of such percentages are expected to be selected first. In the case of identical bids, selection may be based on random selection or pro rata shares, as CCC deems appropriate.

(b) CCC will reject bids for which the bid amount exceeds the bid cap.

(a) CCC will, through such methods as CCC deems appropriate, make payments in the form of refined sugar or raw cane sugar held in CCC inventory.

(b) To the maximum extent practicable, CCC will use its inventory in making an in-kind payment in the follow priority:

(1) CCC-owned refined sugar held in storage by the processor with whom the producer has a 2000-crop sugar contract which is stored in a region used by CCC in administering the CCC sugar loan program (region) in which the producer and processor are located;

(2) CCC-owned refined sugar held in storage by the processor with whom the producer has a 2000-crop contract which is stored in a region in which the producer is not located;

(3) CCC-owned refined sugar held in storage by any other processor which is in the same region as the producer;

(4) CCC-owned refined sugar held in storage by any other processor which is not in the same region as the producer; and

(5) CCC-owned raw cane sugar held in storage anywhere in the United States.

(c) The value of CCC-owned inventory is dependent upon the storage location of the sugar and the type of sugar (raw or refined). CCC will value its inventory by using the values set forth in the following tables. Accordingly, the quantity of sugar to be paid by CCC as an in-kind payment to a producer will be determined by dividing: (1) The total of the bid amount submitted by the producer and accepted by CCC, by (2) the value of CCC's inventory at the storage location where title will transfer from CCC to the producer, or the producer's assignee.

(d) Producers may assign their in-kind payments to the processor with whom the producer has a 2000-crop sugar contract.

(a) The value of in-kind payments shall be limited to $20,000 per year per producer. For these purposes, a “producer” shall be determined by using the definition of a “person” set forth in 7 CFR part 1400.

(b) This payment limitation is separate and distinct from all other CCC program payment limitations.

(a) Unless CCC announces otherwise, this Sugar PIK Program is limited to the 2000 crop.

(b) If the program is expanded to other crop years, participation will, unless CCC determined otherwise, be limited to those producers who have not increased their contract acreage from the previous crop year, or, more generally, have not increased their sugar beet plantings from the previous crop year.

(a) The contract shall provide for the payment of liquidated damages in the event that a producer fails to comply with the obligations specified in the CCC acreage diversion contract.

(b) In those instances in which, prior to the issuance of this notice, a producer has signed a power of attorney on an approved FSA-211 for a person or entity indicating that such power shall extend to all programs listed on the form, without limitation, such power will be considered to extend to this program unless by September 6, 2000 the person granting the power notifies the local FSA office for the control county that the grantee of the power is not authorized to handle transactions for this program for the grantor.

(c) CCC will transfer title of the sugar to the producer, or the producer's assignee, no earlier than October 1, 2000, and no later than December 31, 2000, as determined by CCC, by notifying the producer or assignee that the sugar is available to them. CCC will stop storage payments on this sugar on the date of transfer.

(d) The following provisions of Chapter 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning general program administration will be applied in the administration of the Sugar PIK Program:

(1) Part 707—Payments due persons who have died, disappeared, or have been declared incompetent.

(2) Part 718—Provisions applicable to multiple programs.

(3) Part 780—Appeal regulations.

(4) Part 1403—Debt settlement policies and procedures.

Codex was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled.

The Codex ad hoc Intergovernmental Codex Task Force on Fruit and Vegetable Juices was established by the Twenty-third Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to revise and consolidate the existing Codex Standards and guidelines for fruit and vegetable juices and related products; and revise and up-date the methods of analysis and sampling for these products. The ad hoc Task Force is chaired by Brazil.

Provisional agenda items to be discussed during the public meeting:

Consideration of Proposed Draft Codex Standards at Step 4:

(a) Proposed Draft Codex General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars;

(b) Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Vegetable Juices; and

(c) Proposed Draft Codex Guidelines for the Labelling of Mixed Fruit Juices and Nectars.

The agenda items will be described and discussed at the public meeting and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Comments may be sent to the FSIS Docket Room (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the First ad hoc Task Force for Fruit and Vegetable Juices.

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.

On June 12, 2000, we published a Federal Register Notice that announced the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service to extend and revise a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Surveys Program. There was an error in the fourth paragraph of the Abstract. Text has been changed from “addition of questions regarding damage to crops by wildlife” to “addition of questions regarding losses of cattle caused by wildlife” and “identify and monitor crop losses caused by wildlife” to “identify and monitor cattle losses caused by wildlife.” The comment period will be extended to 30 days from the date of this notice.

Title: Agricultural Surveys Program.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0213.

Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2000.

Type of Request: Intent to extend and revise a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The National Agricultural Statistics Service is responsible for collecting and issuing state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, grain stocks, farm numbers, land values, on-farm pesticide usage, and pest crop management practices. The Agricultural Surveys Program contains a series of surveys that obtains basic agricultural data from farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation for preparing agricultural estimates and forecasts of crop acreage, yield, and production; stocks of grains and soybeans; hog and pig numbers; sheep inventory and lamb crop; cattle inventory; and cattle on feed. Grazing fees, land values, pesticide usage, and pest management practices data are also collected.

Uses of the statistical information are extensive and varied. Producers, farm organizations, agribusinesses, state and national farm policy makers, and government agencies are important users of these statistics. Agricultural statistics are used to plan and administer other related Federal and state programs in such areas as consumer protection, conservation, foreign trade, education, and recreation.

One important modification to the program is the addition of a Monthly Hog Survey. NASS was directed to publish on a monthly basis the Hogs and Pigs Inventory Report with the passage by Congress and signature of the President of H.R. 1906, the FY 2000 Department of Agriculture budget. The Monthly Hog Survey will supplement the Hog Survey Program currently conducted as part of the Quarterly Agricultural Surveys. The monthly surveys will use a shorter version of the quarterly questionnaire and will be conducted eight times a year, during the months between the quarterly surveys. The sampling frame for the monthly program will be hog owners who reported breeding females on the December Quarterly Hog Survey.

A second revision to the program is the addition of questions regarding losses of cattle caused by wildlife, methods being used to reduce these losses, and the cost of preventative measures. These additional questions will be asked only in January 2001. Aggregated totals will be provided to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service action agency, Wildlife Services, to help identify and monitor cattle losses caused by wildlife.

The third revision is the discontinuance of the Fall Area Survey. A reduced sample of the 1999 Fall Area Surveys respondents will be selected for an Integrated Pest Management Survey (IPM). This survey will be conducted only in January 2001 to collect information on IPM practices formerly collected as part of the Fall Area Survey. This is the fourth year of the USDA plan to measure the general adoption of IPM practices for the Nation's agricultural production.

The Agricultural Surveys Program has approval from OMB for a 3-year period. NASS intends to request that the program be approved for another 3 years.

These data are collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

Respondents: Farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 547,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 139,000 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, the Agency OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Ginny McBride, Agency OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4162, South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250-2000. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Janet L. Oertly, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The project concerns a plan for water quality improvement. The planned works of improvement involve ten treatment sites that are the source of ground and surface water pollution. Treatment of these sites will involve the installation of waterways, diversions, and passive treatment systems.

The “Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. The environmental assessment and basic data may be reviewed by contacting Janet L. Oertly.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until thirty (30) days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

On June 2, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d) and 351.213(b), the Department initiated the fourth new shipper review and third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), respectively. ( See 65 FR 35322 and 65 FR 35320, respectively.) On June 29, 2000, Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (“Hongfa”) and Luoyang Haoxiang Brake Disc Factory (“Luoyang”) agreed to waive the time limits in order that the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), may conduct the fourth new shipper review concurrent with the third annual administrative review of this order for the period April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000. Because the date which is 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month falls on a weekend, we intend to issue the preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3) and 351.213(h)(1), on the following business day, January 2, 2001. We also intend to publish the final results 120 days after the date on which notice of the preliminary results is published in the Federal Register .

This notice is in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species are covered in this notice:

Endangered Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), Endangered Hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), Endangered Kemp's ridley turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Endangered Leatherback turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Threatened Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ).

Endangered Shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ).

Notice was published on July 12, 2000 (65 FR 42992) that Mr. J. David Whitaker, of South Carolina Department of Natural Resources applied for a modification to permit 1245. Modification #1 increases the authorized take of loggerhead turtles from 200 to 250 animals annually, green turtles from 1 to ten annually, Kemp's ridley turtles from 23 to 50 annually and adds the take of five hawksbill turtles annually. The applicant possesses a three year permit to establish a scientifically-valid indices of abundance for the northern sub-population of the threatened loggerhead turtle and the endangered Kemp's ridley, green and leatherback sea turtles which occur in the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern United States. This study is intended to capture juveniles and adults, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of total population abundance and an assessment of the health of individual animals. Modification #1 to Permit 1245 was issued on August 11, 2000, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1245 expires October 31, 2002.

Notice was published on 03/02/2000 (65 FR 11288) that Dr. Boyd Kynard, of U.S. Geological Survey applied for a scientific research permit (1239). The proposed research continues over 20 years of research on life history of shortnose sturgeon in the Connecticut river, will collect new information on spawning, migration, habitat and fish passage of the species. The applicant has requested a 5-year permit to lethally take up to 200 spawned eggs, embryos and larvae annually; capture, PIT tag and release up to 350 juvenile and adult sturgeon annually; and authorization to lethally take up to 1000 pre-spawned eggs; radio tag and release 3 pre-spawned females and 7 pre-spawned males for 3 years of the permit. Permit 1239 was issued on August 17, 2000, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1239 expires June 30, 2005.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for carryover, carryforward, special carryforward, swing, special swing and the 5% adjustment for 100% cotton apparel items of handloomed fabric.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 70220, published on December 16, 1999.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted, variously, for swing, carryforward, special shift and carryforward used.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 68334, published on December 7, 1999.

Sincerely,

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing, carryforward and the recredting of unused carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 68336, published on December 7, 1999.

Respondents are college students who apply for an Air Force ROTC college scholarship. This form collects identification and academic performance data, academic aptitude scores, and the Professor of Aerospace Studies (PAS) evaluation of the applicant's performance and potential. This application will require approximately 30 minutes to complete. Submitted data will be evaluated by Air Force ROTC In-College Scholarship selection boards to determine eligibility and to select individuals for the award of a college scholarship involving the expenditure of federal funds.

Respondents will be high school seniors and recent graduates who apply for an Air Force ROTC college scholarship. A twelve-page scannable application will be provided to applicants by Air Force recruiting personnel or can be mailed directly to the applicant. This application will require approximately 30 minutes to complete. Respondents will have the option of completing the application on the Air Force ROTC internet homepage instead of returning the hardcopy survey form. Submitted data will be evaluated by Air Force ROTC College Scholarship Program selection boards to determine eligibility and to select individuals for the award of a college scholarship.

The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System consists of a series of 18 locks and dams (17 existing and 1 currently under construction) and provides navigation from the Mississippi River to the Port of Catoosa near Tulsa, Oklahoma. River flow in the Arkansas River is modified primarily by 11 reservoirs in Oklahoma. The reservoirs are: Keystone, Oologah, Pensacola, Hudson, Fort Gibson, Tenkiller Ferry, Eufaula, Kaw, Hulah, Copan, and Wister. These lakes provide flood control, water supply, hydropower, fish & wildlife, water quality, recreation, and other benefits.

The Arkansas River Navigation Study is being undertaken by USACE Little Rock and Tulsa Districts under the direction of the U.S. Congress. The study includes major hydraulics investigations, economics analyses, alternatives development and related analyses in addition to the EIS. Throughout May and June of 2000 the USACE conducted public information meetings at locations throughout Arkansas and Oklahoma to inform the public of the Arkansas River Navigation Study and solicit information regarding the study.

Interested parties are requested to express their views concerning the proposed activity. The public is encouraged to provide written comments in addition to or in lieu of, oral comments at the scoping meeting. To be most helpful, scoping comments should clearly describe specific environmental topics or issues, which the commentator believes the document should address. Oral and written comments receive equal consideration.

Scoping meetings will be held with government agencies and with the public. Public Scoping Meetings will be held in the fall of 2000 in Pine Bluff Arkansas, Fort Smith Arkansas, and Tulsa Oklahoma. The location, time, and date will be published at least 14 days prior to each scoping meeting. Comments received as a result of this notice and the news releases will be used to assist the Districts in identifying potential impacts to the quality of the human or natural environment. Affected local, state, or Federal agencies, affected Indian Tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties may participate in the Scoping process by forwarding written comments to the above noted address. Interested parties may also request to be included on the mailing list for public distribution of meeting announcements and documents.

The EIS will evaluate the effects of structural and non-structural alternatives of the authorized project and other identified concerns. Specific project alternatives will incorporate the elements previously identified in this notice. Anticipated significant issues identified to date and to be addressed in the EIS include: (1) Impacts on navigation, (2) impacts on flood control, (3) impacts on hydropower, (4) impacts on recreation and recreation facilities, (5) impacts on river hydraulics, (6) impacts on fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and (7) other impacts identified by the Public, agencies or USACE studies.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is anticipated to be available for public review in the spring of 2002 subject to the receipt of federal funding.

The River and Harbor Act of 1946 authorized the development of the Arkansas River and its tributaries for the purposes of navigation, flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Public Law 91-649 stated that the project would be known as the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Arkansas River Navigation Study began as a Fiscal Year (FY99) Congressional Add to investigate flooding problems along the Arkansas River in Crawford and Sebastian Counties in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Greers Ferry Lake, has been operating under the current Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) since 1994. Shoreline Management Plans are reviewed periodically, but no less often than every five years, to determine need for updates, and ensure protection of a quality resource for the public, while balancing permitted private uses. The SMP is a comprehensive document addressing multiple reservoir activities and is developed in conjunction with the Operational Management Plan. Public meetings were conducted from January 1999-January 2000 to solicit comments about the current plan and review process. During this period, the public involvement was used to develop alternatives for the revision of the SMP. Due to the level of public interest it was concluded that the SMP warranted revision.

The Greers Ferry Lake draft SMP addresses the following changes: (1) permitting of additional boat docks, resulting in an expansion of the current shoreline development; (2) modification in the distance of current vegetation modification (mowing) permits from the current 50′ from a habitable structure, with the addition of minimum shoreline buffer; and; (3) implementation of wildlife enhancement permits, allowing limited modification of the shoreline. Elements that arise during the scoping meetings will also be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement.

The Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate impacts due to revisions proposed in the draft SMP, as modified from the 1994 Shoreline Management Plan. Significant issues to be addressed in the EIS include: (1) Impacts on physical resources; (2) impacts on pollution and water quality; (3) impacts on cultural resources; (4) impacts on wetlands; (5) impacts on aquatic resources; (6) impacts on terrestrial resources; (7) impacts on threatened and endangered species; (8) impacts on recreation and facilities; (9) impacts on aesthetics; (10) socio-economic impacts; and (11) other impacts identified by the public, agencies, or Corps studies.

Scoping meetings for the project are planned to be conducted in the fall of 2000. News releases informing the public and local, state, and Federal agencies of the proposed action will be published in state and local newspapers. Comments received as a result of this notice and the news releases will be used to assist the Little Rock District in identifying potential impacts to the quality of the human or natural environment.

Affected local, state, or Federal agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties may participate in the scoping process by forwarding written comments to the above noted address or attending scoping meetings.

The draft EIS (DEIS) is expected to be available for public review and comment by October 1, 2001 subject to receipt of Federal funding. Any comments and suggestions should be forwarded to the above noted address no later than September 1, 2001, to be considered in the DEIS.

The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board is authorized by section 921 of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The Board works collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) to forge a national consensus with respect to a long-term agenda for educational research, development, and dissemination, and to provide advice and assistance to the Assistant Secretary in administering the duties of the Office.

The Board will conduct outstanding business in open session and hear reports from the Assistant Secretary for OERI; on a proposed study by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council on the structure and content of the educational research agenda; and on a commissioned study on the Phase II standards designating promising and exemplary programs. The meeting will be closed to the public from approximately 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. under the authority of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. Appendix I) and under exemptions (2) and (6) of section 552b (c) of the title 5 U.S.C. The Board will discuss personnel issues at this time.

A final agenda will be available from the Board office on September 15, and will be posted on the Board's web sit, http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/NERPPB/. A summary of activities at the closed session and related matters which are informative to the public consistent with the policy of title 5 U.S.C. 552b will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, Suite 100, 80 F St., NW., Washington, D.C. 20208-7564.

Under this Announcement, DOE is announcing its intention to sponsor the 2001 American Solar Challenge (ASC). The ASC is a biennial, competition to design, build and race solar-powered cars. The ten-day, cross-country event will be held from July 15, 2001 through July 25, 2001 and follow the historic Route 66, beginning in Chicago, Illinois and ending near Los Angeles, CA. Historically, solar car racing in the U.S. has featured exclusively North American post secondary (college and university) teams. However, the ASC has opened entry to schools, companies, universities, clubs and individuals worldwide. The American Solar Challenge will pit cars powered only by the sun's energy against each other in a competition that only the brightest, most creative and best organized team can be expected to win. At almost 2300 miles, it will be the longest solar car race in the world. Since it follows the old Route 66 and coincides with the 75th anniversary of that famous road, it will be a highly visible event and provide a dramatic, high technology, futuristic contrast to the nostalgic events surrounding the anniversary. In the past, sponsors of solar car races, both domestic and international, have received significant amounts of very positive publicity that has enhanced the sponsors' public image. This race has the potential to be the most visible solar car race ever. The mission of the American Solar Challenge is to promote and celebrate educational excellence and engineering creativity and champion the creative integration of technical and scientific expertise across a range of exciting disciplines. The mission includes the promotion of: (1) Renewable energies, specifically photovoltaics; (2) educational and engineering excellence; (3) environmental consciousness; and (4) public education and awareness of the potential of emerging technologies.

Through sponsorship, DOE intends to support and encourage bright minds to succeed in the fields of engineering, sciences, mathematics, and multi-disciplined learning and to support public awareness and enthusiasm, both for educational excellence and for the technologies that emerge. DOE's funding support is expected to be $400,000 for the planning, management, and conduct of the race. DOE will also conduct public outreach and community relations before and during the race. In addition to DOE's support, New Resources Group is seeking co-sponsorship and support for the solar-powered car race. Parties interested in co-sponsoring or supporting the American Solar Challenge, either financially or through donations, should contact Dan Eberle, President of New Resources Group and race organizer, at Formula Sun, P.O. Box 30, Freeman, MO 64746, 1-800-840-5511 or deberle@formulasun.org. Parties interested in providing support to participating teams should contact the teams directly. A list of participating teams can be obtained from www.formulasun.org or contacting Dan Eberle at deberle@formulasun.org or by calling 1-877-840-5511 or 1-800-606-8881. Race regulations and route information for the American Solar Challenge can be obtained through http:/www.formulasun.org/ascindex.html. For information on previous solar car races, access http:/www.sunrayce.com/sunrayce/.

This effort is part of the DOE Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative (ANMI) that was inaugurated Fiscal Year 2000. The purpose of the ANMI is to support broad-based research on new uses of isotopes including alpha emitters for the diagnosis and therapy of life threatening diseases or other innovative medical applications, and to support nuclear medicine educational programs.

Effective October 1, 1999, the IIPS system became the primary way for the Office of Headquarters Procurement Services to conduct competitive acquisitions and financial assistance transactions. IIPS provides the medium for disseminating solicitations, receiving financial assistance applications and proposals, evaluating, and awarding various instruments in a paperless environment. All documents included in your applications should be submitted in the Microsoft Word format. To get more information about IIPS and to register your organization, go to https://doe-iips.pr.doe.gov. Follow the link on the IIPS home page to the Secure Services Page. Registration is a prerequisite to the submission of an application, and applicants are encouraged to register as soon as possible. When registering, all applicants should use the same North American Industry Classifications System number: 325412. A help document, which describes how IIPS works, can be found at the bottom of the Secure Services Page.

The Department of Energy, Ohio Field Office, has conducted remedial action at the Kimble Property in Hamilton, Ohio. The remedial action, commenced in 1994, was conducted pursuant to standards established in DOE Order 5400.5 for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public against radiation in conducting the Department's programs.

In 1973, DOE-Fernald declared various materials from the Fernald Plant to be surplus and subject to public sale. Mr. Kimble, a plant employee at that time, purchased a plant maintenance bus, redwood from a plant cooling tower, and items of construction hardware. These materials were released to Mr. Kimble for unrestricted use according to then-applicable standards (0.3 rad/hr) and were transported to the Kimble property.

In 1994, at the request of the property owner, DOE-Fernald performed a radiological survey of the Kimble property and identified contamination in excess of the current DOE surface contamination guidelines for beta-gamma emitters. The survey revealed that the radiactive contamination was primarily associated with the redwood and, to a lesser extent, with soil, pipes, and assorted hardware. In addition to investigating radioactive contamination, DOE-Fernald noted the need to investigate the potential migration from ash or weathered redwood of arsenic and chromium contaminants originating from preservatives used to treat the redwood. Remediation activities were initiated in August, 1995 and were concluded in June, 1996.

Post-remedial action surveys have demonstrated and DOE has certified that the subject property is in compliance with the Department's radiological decontamination criteria and standards. The standards are established to protect members of the general public and occupants of the properties and to ensure that future use of the properties will result in no radiological exposure above applicable health-based guidelines.

The certification docket will be available for review between 9:00 a. m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) in the Department's Public Reading Room, located in Room 1E-190 of the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. Copies of the certification docket will also be available in the DOE Public Environmental Information Center, U.S. Department of Energy, 10995 Hamilton-Cleves Highway, Harrison, Ohio 45030.

DOE, through the Ohio Field Office, has issued the following statement:

Statement of Certification: Kimble Property, Hamiltion, Ohio DOE, Ohio Field Office, has reviewed and analyzed the radiological data obtained following remedial action at the Kimble Property (4090 Stillwell Road, Hamilton, Ohio; Parcel Numbers 25, 26, and 46 filed in Plat Book Hanover, Page 18 in the records of Butler County, Ohio). Based on analysis of all data collected, including post-remedial action surveys, DOE certifies that any residual contamination which remains onsite falls within current guidelines for use without radiological restrictions. This certification of compliance provides assurance that reasonably foreseeable future use of the property will result in no radiological exposure above current guidelines established to protect members of the general public as well as occupants of the site.

Property owned by Daniel and Maxine Kimble: 4090 Stillwell Road, Hamilton, Ohio 45013.

The office of Power Technologies of the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) intends to issue a solicitation in early Fiscal Year 2001 for SPI. DOE, as part of its Superconductivity Program for Electric Power Systems, is currently pursuing the development of electric power equipment incorporating High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) through its SPI. The purpose of the SPI is to accelerate the time for the initial commercialization of energy-saving HTS electric power equipment. DOE intends to share the costs of the projects to be awarded under this new solicitation with industry partners' contributions being at least half of a project's costs (statutory requirement). DOE intends that its industry partners will be vertically integrated teams composed of equipment manufacturers, HTS wire and coil suppliers, component suppliers, and end users (primarily utilities). Each partnership may, at its option, utilize via a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with any of the DOE's national laboratories. The laboratory could contribute specialized capabilities, facilities, or equipment to the project that would complement the partnership's needs. These teams carry out the multi-year technology developmental efforts, consisting of design, construction, installation and testing phases. The DOE currently has seven SPI projects for the following equipment: flywheel energy storage system, magnetic separator unit, motors, transformers, and underground AC cables. DOE is eager to increase the diversity of its portfolio of HTS power system applications.

DOE is contemplating issuing a solicitation early in FY2001 in response to the continuing interest in the SPI by its industrial stakeholders and due to the impressive technical progress by the participating industry teams involved in current SPI activities with DOE. DOE anticipates that awards will be made to teams for projects ranging in size from hundreds of thousands of dollars to several million dollars per year and for project periods of up to four years. Subject to the availability of funds, it is anticipated that the DOE funding for the contemplated solicitation will be no more than $7 million in the first year, and no more than $9 million for each of the following 3 years. The SPI awards will be cost-shared cooperative agreements between DOE and the prime of the industry-led team. The anticipated solicitation intends to combine the requirement of earlier SPI solicitations for the development of full-scale, pre-commercial power applications, utilizing essentially available HTS conductors, e.g., BSCCO multi-filamentary tapes and forms. The solicitation also intends to assess the potential impacts of replacing available HTS conductors with promising coated HTS conductors, currently under development, into the proposed power application. DOE also expects the solicitation will require that the application include an energy and economic benefits analysis, technical performance expectations, product or system design studies, and a business plan for product introduction.

Respondents to this notice should notify DOE of their interest in submitting a proposal to the anticipated solicitation. In addition, information or comments to assist in drafting the solicitation will be appreciated.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, by Order issued November 17, 1995, in Docket No. EF95-3031-000, confirmed and approved Wholesale Power Rate Schedules JW-1-E and JW-2-B. Rate schedules JW-1-F and JW-2-C replace these schedules.

Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective May 30, 1986, 51 FR 19744 (May 30, 1986), the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator the authority to develop power and transmission rates, and delegated to the Under Secretary the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. On November 24,1999, the Secretary of Energy issued Delegation Order No. 0204-172, granting the Deputy Secretary authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect Southeastern's rates on an interim basis. This rate order is issued by the Deputy Secretary pursuant to said notice.

Power from the Jim Woodruff Project is presently sold under Wholesale Power Rate Schedules JW-1—E and JW-2-B. These rate schedules were approved by the FERC on November 17, 1995, for a period ending September 19, 2000 (73 FERC 62116).

Southeastern prepared a Power Repayment Study, dated February of 2000, that showed that revenues at current rates were not adequate to meet repayment criteria. A revised study with a revenue increase of $237,000 produced rates that are adequate to meet repayment criteria. On March 17, 2000, by Federal Register Notice 65 F. R. 14557, Southeastern proposed a rate adjustment of about 4.3 percent to recover this revenue. The notice also announced a Public Information and Comment Forum to be held May 3, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida, with a deadline for written comments of June 15, 2000. Southeastern received five comments from one party. The following is a summary of the comments:

No comments were received at the Public Information and Comment Forum held in Tallahassee, Florida, on May 3, 2000. Written comments were received from one source by facsimile during the comment period, which are included as part of the Administrator's record of decision as an attachment to Exhibit A-5, filed with the FERC. These comments were received pursuant to Federal Register Notice 65 Fed. Reg. 14557 dated March 17, 2000.

The comments, received from Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc. (SeFPC or SFPC), are regarding the Department of Energy (DOE) policy to recover Civil Service Retirement System costs and health benefits costs (CSRS) that are unfunded by DOE (unfunded) and funded by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Congress has addressed the problem of shortfalls in the sufficiency of funding for retiree benefits by authorizing a permanent indefinite appropriation for transfer of general funds from Treasury to the Retirement Fund administered by the OPM to finance such unfunded liabilities. It is DOE's position that the Power Marketing Administrations have sufficient statutory authority to include unfunded costs in their rates to offset such appropriations from the general fund of the Treasury made by Congress to the Retirement Fund administered by OPM from which post-retirement costs are paid retirees. See July 1, 1998 Memorandum, Department of Energy's General Counsel, Mary Anne Sullivan, “PMA Authority To Collect In Rates, And Reimburse To Treasury, Government's Full Costs of Post-Retirement Benefits,” at page 2. The Memorandum is cited hereafter as Memorandum Opinion. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is included as part of the Administrator's record of decision as Exhibit A-5 filed with the FERC pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 300.10 et seq. in support of this rate action.

The preference customers have contended in two prior Southeastern rate filings that Southeastern does not have the legal authority to include such unfunded costs in their rates without specific Congressional authorization. They also contend these costs are beyond the boundaries of cost-based ratemaking authority established by the Flood Control Act of 1944; and that the term “cost” in the Flood Control Act should not be read to include such retirement and pension benefit costs.

The Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates were filed with FERC on September 22, 1998, and approved by FERC on February 26, 1999. See Southeastern Power Administration, 86 FERC ¶ 61,195 (1999). The customers have requested a rehearing and the request is currently pending before FERC. Many of these issues were responded to in that prior rate filing.

The preference customers also objected to the inclusion of such unfunded costs in the Cumberland System of Projects rates that were filed with FERC on July 1, 1999, and approved by FERC on March 17, 2000. See Southeastern Power Administration, 90 FERC ¶ 61,266 (2000). The customers requested a rehearing, which was denied by FERC on June 15, 2000. See 91 FERC ¶ 61,272 (2000). Many of these issues were responded to in that rate filing.

In its March 17, 2000, decision regarding Southeastern's Cumberland System Rates, FERC concluded that such contentions were without merit. It noted that it had so ruled in its first such challenge to Southeastern's rates, i.e. Southeastern's Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates (SEPA-37). See Southeastern Power Administration, 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999). In the case of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates (SEPA-37), FERC had ruled that the Flood Control Act of 1944 “. . . does not contain any language prohibiting the recovery of these costs”and that the costs are “. . . reasonably incurred by Southeastern and recoverable from Southeastern's customers. . . . ” See 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999).

In its March 17, 2000, Cumberland decision, FERC ruled that “. . . SFPC had failed to demonstrate that the inclusion of these costs is arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.” See 90 FERC ¶ 61,266, p. 61,894 (2000).

On June 15, 2000, in its denial of a rehearing of its March 17, 2000, Cumberland Rate case, FERC noted that the preference customers had reiterated the recovery of such costs in Southeastern's rates was arbitrary and capricious. FERC rejected this, saying that in its March 17, 2000, Cumberland Order, it had already rejected the argument that such costs are arbitrary and capricious. Since the preference customers had “. . . not proffered any new arguments that demonstrate that the inclusion of these costs (in Southeastern rates) is arbitrary and capricious . . .,” it denied their requests for a rehearing. See 91 FERC ¶ 61,272 (2000). See also 90 FERC ¶ 61,266 (2000).

The most detailed consideration of inclusion in Southeastern's rates of unfunded costs was set forth in FERC's February 26, 1999, Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rate Order. See 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999). In concluding that Southeastern's annual costs of CSRS and post-retirement health benefits were within Southeastern's cost-based ratemaking authority, FERC relied heavily upon the July 1, 1998, Memorandum Opinion of the Department of Energy's General Counsel. FERC essentially agreed with the Memorandum Opinion. The General Counsel's Memorandum Opinion noted, and FERC agreed, that Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 “. . . leaves considerable discretion to Southeastern's Administrator regarding what expenses may be considered costs recoverable under the Flood Control Act.” See 86 FERC ¶ 61, 195, p. 61,681 (1999).

FERC agreed with the DOE General Counsel's legal analysis which concluded that there also would seem to be “. . . little room to dispute that the full amount of the retiree benefits is a ‘cost’ of hiring the employees to operate and maintain the PMA power systems. . . .” See 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999), citing the Memorandum Opinion at page 5, and ruled that CSRS costs and the costs of post retirement health benefits “. . . are costs reasonably incurred by Southeastern and recoverable from Southeastern's customers. . . .” See 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999). FERC concluded that SFPC, “. . . along with the other intervenors, have failed to demonstrate that the inclusion of these costs is arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. Accordingly, we will deny the intervenors' request to eliminate these costs from Southeastern's rates.” Id. p. 61,681.

FERC's approval of the Memorandum Opinion is not limited to Southeastern's rates. It has also been cited with approval in the case of Western Area Power Administration's (Western or WAPA) Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Rates (Western's Rate No. 76). See 87 FERC ¶ 61,346 (1999). In that case, the certain Western's customers protested “ . . . the inclusion of the unfunded portion of the Civil Service Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health and Life Insurance Benefits (retirement benefits) in Rate Order WAPA-76.” Western Area Power Administration (Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project), Docket No. EF99-5191-000, 87 FERC ¶ 61,346 (1999). Certain customers of Western argued that Western “. . . does not have the legal authority to recover these costs without specific Congressional authorization. . . .” See 87 FERC ¶ 61,346, p. 63,337 (1999).

In its approval of Western's Rate 76, FERC expressly followed its earlier Southeastern decision in the case of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates, upholding the inclusion of such costs in Southeastern rates. See Southeastern Power Administration, citing 86 FERC ¶ 61,195 (1999). FERC stated that the same principle applied to Western's rates.

It stated, at 87 FERC ¶ 61,346, p. 62,338, “FERC has previously held that the power marketing administrations (PMAs), such as WAPA, can include these costs in their rates.” FERC placed heavy reliance upon the Memorandum Opinion, where the General Counsel stated that there would seem to be “. . . little room to dispute that the full amount of the retiree benefits is a ‘cost’ of hiring the employees to operate and maintain the PMA power systems.” See Memorandum Opinion, p. 5. FERC concluded that such unfunded costs “. . . are reasonably incurred by WAPA and are recoverable from WAPA's customers. Because APA and Arizona TDU have failed to demonstrate that the inclusion of these costs is arbitrary, capricious or unlawful, we will deny the intervenors' request to eliminate these costs from WAPA's rates.” See 87 FERC ¶ 61,346, p. 62,338 (1999).

We will respond to each comment individually.

Comment 1: FERC must follow specific factors to ensure that the approved rate is “the lowest possible rate to consumers consistent with sound business principles.”

Response 1: On July 1, 1998, DOE General Counsel Mary Anne Sullivan responded to the issue of Southeastern's discretion to collect the full CSRS costs in rates by a memorandum opinion of same date entitled, “PMA Authority To Collect In Rates, and Reimburse To Treasury, Government's Full Costs of Post-Retirement Benefits”

(Memorandum Opinion). The Memorandum Opinion concludes at page 4:

The Memorandum Opinion also concludes at page 7:

In both the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina and Cumberland Rate filings, FERC explained the Flood Control Act of 1944 does not (1) contain any language prohibiting the recovery of unfunded costs, that (2) these are costs reasonably incurred by Southeastern and recoverable from Southeastern's customers. It emphasized that those customers that had protested inclusion of unfunded CSRS costs in Southeastern's rates “. . . have failed to demonstrate that the inclusion of these costs is arbitrary, capricious or unlawful. . . .” See United States Department of Energy-Southeastern Power Administration, 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999), and 90 FERC ¶ 61,266, p. 61,894 (2000).

Comment 2: SEPA's inclusion of CSRS costs contradicts Congressional directives that a portion of the costs should be recovered by appropriations.

Response 2: Southeastern rejects the premise of the Comment. Congress is well aware that appropriations to Southeastern to pay the Federal Government's share of civil service retirement benefits, even in combination with the matching employees' contributions, fails to recover their full cost. The Memorandum Opinion took this fully into account. It is stated at page 2:

The Memorandum Opinion addresses the question of the Congressional intent of full cost recovery at page 5:

The Commission has also stated in the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina rate case, 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999) (footnotes omitted), that:

FERC noted that the SFPC had asserted, in the case of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates, that “. . . Southeastern does not have the legal authority to include such costs, without specific Congressional authorization. They argue that, under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, these costs are beyond the boundaries of cost-based ratemaking authority established for power marketing administrations and assert that the term ‘cost’ in the Flood Control Act should not be read to include such retirement and pension benefit costs.” See 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999).

Comment 3: SEPA's CSRS policy is arbitrary and capricious and beyond the scope of its authority.

Response 3: The preference customers advanced precisely the same arguments before FERC as part of FERC's review of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates. [86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999)] and Southeastern's Cumberland Rates [90 FERC ¶ 61,266, p. 61,894 (2000)]. FERC rejected their contentions.

In the case of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates, FERC stated:

In its February 26, 1999, Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rate decision, 86 FERC ¶ 61,195 (1999), FERC also rejected such assertion, stating that:

In its March 17, 2000, Cumberland Rate decision, 90 FERC ¶ 61,266, p. 61,894 (2000), the customers's contentions that inclusion of these costs was arbitrary and capricious were again rejected. It also stated, in its February 29, 1999, decision respecting Southeastern's Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Rates, [United States Department of Energy-Southeastern Power Administration, 86 FERC ¶ 61,195, p. 61,681 (1999), reh'g pending], that “. . . the Flood Control Act does not contain any language prohibiting the recovery of these costs.”

Also, in its June 15, 2000, denial of a rehearing of its March 17, 2000, Cumberland Rate Order, FERC, for the fourth time, rejected the contention that the inclusion of unfunded CSRS costs in Power Marketing Administration Rates was arbitrary and capricious. FERC, in denying rehearing, noted that it had already addressed these arguments in its March 17, 2000, Order. Denial of rehearing was appropriate because SeFPC ha(d) not proffered any new arguments that demonstrate that the inclusion of these costs is arbitrary and capricious. See 91 FERC ¶ 61,272 (2000). FERC, in its review of said Southeastern rates, as well as in its review of Western's Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project Rates (WAPA-76), [(87 FERC ¶ 61,346 (1999)], again made it abundantly clear that it agreed with the Memorandum Opinion (cited in our responses to Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5).

Accordingly, we reject the assertion that inclusion of such unfunded CSRS costs in rates is arbitrary and capricious beyond the scope of Southeastern's authority.

Comment 4: The DOE directives must be read in pari materia with OPM's statutory mandate to fund employee benefits.

Response 4: SeFPC's argument is that Southeastern should not rely entirely on the Flood Control Act of 1944 to determine which costs should be included in rates. Instead Southeastern should also rely on the OPM's statutory authority which provides for the funding of a portion of the costs through OPM's appropriation. The OPM's statutory authority is concerning how the CSRS costs will be funded. The statutory authority does not deal with whether the costs should or should not be recovered in rates. The comments by SeFPC on page 4 quote the OPM law, 5 U.S.C.A. 8334(a)(1) (1999) (footnote omitted):

SeFPC on page 6 states that, “SeFPC does not take issue with Southeastern over the recovery of these amounts.”

These costs are funded through Southeastern and the Corps of Engineers appropriations, and the DOE has determined that they are a legitimate cost of a PMA. Similarly, the OPM costs that are funded by OPM appropriations have been determined by DOE and FERC, in its review of the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina and Cumberland Rates, to be legitimate costs and therefore should be recovered in the rate.

The customers protesting the rate appear to argue that two statutes must be read in pari materia . These are 5 U.S.C.A. 8334 and 5 U.S.C.A. 8348(f). The first one, 5 U.S.C.A. 8334, requires the employing agency to deduct a percentage of an employee's basic pay and to combine it with the specified amount contributed by the appropriate government agency. Such combined payment is paid to the OPM retirement fund. The second statute, 5 U.S.C.A. 8348(f), is the 1969 Act of Congress authorizing a permanent appropriation from the General Treasury to OPM to meet shortfalls in the sufficiency of funding for retiree benefits.

This argument that these two statutes be read in pari materia has some logic. Under the doctrine, statutes are to be read together “. . . when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, or have the same purpose or object.” See 2B Sutherland Statutory Const § 51.03 (5th Ed. 1992)(footnotes omitted). See also In the Matter of Robison, 665 F. 2d 166, 171 (7th Cir. 1981). Under the in pari materia canon of statutory interpretation, statutes which pertain to the same thing are to be “harmonized.” 2B Sutherland, supra , § 51.05. It is clear that the permanent appropriation statute to OPM to meet the costs of unfunded liabilities, 5 U.S.C.A. 8348(f), and the statute, 5 U.S.C.A. 8334, requiring employer and employee to make payments to the retirement fund, have a common purpose.

Also, the doctrine of in pari materia requires consideration of all relevant statutes and regulations. See Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. v. U.S. , 249 F. Supp. 450, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), Bzozowski v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines , 259 A. 2d 231, 233 (Superior Court of N.J. 1969). The other relevant statute which Southeastern believes must also be read in pari materia with 5 U.S.C.A. 8348(f) and 5 U.S.C.A. 8334 is section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s) requiring Southeastern to return its costs to the Treasury. The proper application of the doctrine of in pari materia, in Southeastern's opinion, requires that these statutes be read in light of DOE Order RA 6120.2 and the applicable Standards of the FASB.

DOE Order RA 6120.2 guides Southeastern in the establishment of its rates and is one of the criteria FERC uses in confirming these rates. See Southeastern Power Administration, 91 FERC ¶ 61,272 (2000). Also, DOE Order RA 6120.2 requires the PMAs to use accounting practices consistent with the principles by the FASB. As the result of new accounting rules issued by the FASB, “{a} post-retirement benefit is part of the compensation paid to an employee for services rendered.” Under such rules, unfunded pensions promised to current and retired employees are actual liabilities of Southeastern under the Flood Control Act of 1944, as construed by both DOE and FERC.

Under all relevant statutes and regulations, the inclusion in Southeastern rates for a given period of all employer costs, including the unfunded component accruing in the period is, in both the view of DOE and FERC, a reasonable interpretation of Southeastern's statutory obligation to recover costs.

Accordingly, Southeastern must reject the in pari materia argument advanced by the customers as too restrictive an interpretation of the statutes that have to be harmonized.

Comment 5: SEPA has deviated from past practice without sufficient justification.

Response 5: The Memorandum Opinion addressed this argument and stated:

There is no merit to the assertion that Southeastern has deviated from past practice without sufficient justification.

In the case of the Jim Woodruff rates, Southeastern is adhering to four FERC decisions, upholding the DOE General Counsel's Memorandum Opinion. As indicated above, the thrust of the Memorandum Opinion was the simple fact that the cost of CSRS retirement benefits is approximately 25 percent of the annual salary, while the combined agency and employee contributions are only 14 percent. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 2. The Memorandum Opinion took cognizance that in 1969, Congress addressed the problem of potential shortfalls in the sufficiency of funding for retiree benefits by authorizing a permanent indefinite appropriation for transfer of general funds from the Treasury “to the” Retirement Fund to finance the unfunded liability. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 2, citing 5 U.S.C.A, 8348(f).

The General Counsel indicated that as the result of new accounting rules issued by the FASB, “[a] post-retirement benefit is part of the compensation paid to an employee for services rendered.” See Memorandum Opinion, p. 5, f.n. 5. Under such rules, unfunded pensions promised to current and retired employees are actual liabilities. Id. The General Counsel also recognized that DOE Order No. RA 6120.2, ¶ 12 (September 20, 1979), requires the PMAs to use accounting practices consistent with the principles prescribed by the FASB. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 5. Thus, as a function of meeting the operating expenses of the PMAs, it was within the discretion of the PMA Administrators to include in rates the allocated undercollections for post-retirement benefits.

This result follows, in the Opinion of the General Counsel, because DOE policy, FASB principles, and FERC ratemaking policy indicate the inclusion in rates applicable for a given period of all employer costs accruing in the period is a reasonable interpretation of the statutory obligation to recover costs. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 7.

FERC, as indicated above in our response to the customers' objections, agrees with the General Counsel's July 1, 1998, Memorandum Opinion and Southeastern is applying both DOE's and FERC's well articulated principles to the Jim Woodruff rates. In no way are the Jim Woodruff rates an unexplained departure from past practice.

An examination of Southeastern's revised system power repayment study, prepared in May 2000, for the Jim Woodruff Project, shows that with the proposed rates, all system power costs are paid within the 50-year repayment period required by existing law and DOE Procedure RA 6120.2. The Administrator of Southeastern has certified that the rates are consistent with applicable law and that they are the lowest possible rates to customers consistent with sound business principles.

Southeastern has reviewed the possible environmental impacts of the rate adjustment under consideration and has concluded that, because the adjusted rates would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the proposed action is not a major Federal action for which preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

Information regarding these rates, including studies, and other supporting materials is available for public review in the offices of Southeastern Power Administration, Samuel Elbert Building, Elberton, Georgia 30635.

The rates hereinafter confirmed and approved on an interim basis, together with supporting documents, will be submitted promptly to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for confirmation and approval on a final basis for a period beginning September 20, 2000, and ending no later than September 19, 2005.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective September 20, 1995, attached Wholesale Power Rate Schedules JW-1-F and JW-2-C. The rate schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 19, 2005, unless such period is extended or until the FERC confirms and approves them or substitute rate schedules on a final basis.

Availability : This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives served by the Florida Power Corporation and having points of delivery within 150 miles of the Jim Woodruff Project (hereinafter called the Project).

Applicability : This rate schedule shall be applicable to firm power and accompanying energy made available by the Government from the Project and sold in wholesale quantities.

Character of Service : The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be three-phase alternating current at a nominal frequency of 60 cycles per second delivered at the delivery points of the customer.

Monthly Rate : The monthly rate for capacity and energy made available or delivered under this rate schedule shall be:

Demand Charge : $5.51 per kilowatt of monthly billing demand

Energy Charge : 15.46 mills per kilowatt hour

Billing Demand : The monthly billing demand for any billing month shall be the lower of (a) the Customer's contract demand or (b) the sum of the maximum 30-minute integrated demands for the month at each of the Customer's points of delivery, provided, that, if an allocation of contract demand to delivery points has become effective, the 30-minute maximum integrated demand for any point of delivery shall not be considered to be greater than the portion of the Customer's contract demand allocated to that point of delivery.

Capacity Made Available : The capacity which the Government will supply to meet the demand of the Customer in any billing month will be the maximum amount of capacity required for that purpose up to the contract demand. Such maximum amount of capacity required will be determined by adding the maximum 30-minute integrated measured demands at all points of delivery of the Customer located within 150 miles of the Project power station. At such time as the demand of the Customer approximates the contract demand, the Government will allocate the contract demand among the Customer's then existing delivery points on the basis of the demands recorded as of that time at each such point of delivery adjusted to round each point's allocation to the nearest 10 kilowatts. The allocation of contract demand to delivery points shall become effective the billing month that the Customer's total demand at said delivery points exceeds its contract demand.

Energy Made Available : During any billing month in which the Government supplies all the Customer's capacity requirements, the Government will make available such when both the Government and the Florida Power Corporation are supplying capacity to a delivery point, each kilowatt of capacity supplied to such point during such month will be considered to be accompanied by an equal quantity of energy.

Billing Month : The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the 20th day of each calendar month.

Conditions of Service : The customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Florida Power Corporation on its side of the delivery point.

Service Interruption : When energy delivered to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted for 1 hour or longer, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system or has not been planned and agreed to in advance, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced.

Availability : This rate schedule shall be available to the Florida Power Corporation (hereinafter called the Company).

Applicability : This rate schedule shall be applicable to electric energy generated at the Jim Woodruff Project (hereinafter called the Project) and sold to the Company in wholesale quantities.

Points of Delivery : Power sold to the Company by the Government will be delivered at the connection of the Company's transmission system with the Project bus.

Character of Service : Electric power delivered to the Company will be three-phase alternating current at a nominal frequency of 60 cycles per second.

Monthly Rate : The monthly rate for energy sold under this schedule shall be equal to 60 percent of the calculated saving in the cost of fuel per KWH to the Company determined as follows:

Method of Application: The energy rate applied during the current billing month will be based on costs and equated sales for the second month preceding the billing month.

Determination of Energy Sold : Energy will be furnished by the Company to supply any excess of Project use over Project generation. Energy so supplied by the Company will be deducted from the actual deliveries to the Company's system to determine the net deliveries for energy accounting and billing purposes. Energy for Project use shall consist of energy used for station service, lock operation, Project yard, village lighting, and similar uses.

The on-peak hours shall be the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, inclusive. Off-peak hours shall be all other hours.

All energy made available to the Company, exclusive of transfers to the Georgia Power Company for the account of the Government, shall to the extent required be classified as energy transmitted to the Government's preference customers served from the Company's system. All energy made available to the Company from the Project shall be separated on the basis of the metered deliveries to it at the Project during on-peak and off-peak hours, respectively. Such on-peak energy as is made available to the Company at the points of interconnection with Georgia Power Company shall be determined from schedules of deliveries. Deliveries to preference customers of the Government shall be divided on the basis (with allowance for losses) of 77 percent being considered as on-peak energy and 23 percent being off-peak energy. Such percentages may by mutual consent be changed from time to time as further studies show to be appropriate. Deliveries made to the Georgia Power Company shall be on the basis (with allowances for losses) of schedules of deliveries. In the event that in classifying energy there is more than enough on-peak energy available to supply on-peak requirements of the Government's preference customers but less than enough off-peak energy available to supply such customers off-peak requirements, such excess on-peak energy may be applied to the extent necessary to meet off-peak requirements of such customers in lieu of purchasing deficiency energy to meet such off-peak requirements.

Any on-peak and off-peak Project energy made available in any billing month over and above that required for transfers to the Georgia Power Company for the account of the Government and to meet the above requirements of preference customers shall be classified as energy sold under this rate schedule.

The energy requirements of the Government's preference customers shall be the total energy requirements of such customers so long as the Government is supplying the total capacity required. In any month when both the Government and the Company are supplying capacity to a preference customer, each kilowatt of capacity shall be considered to be accompanied by an equal quantity of energy. The energy supplied by the Government shall come from its own resources or from purchases from the Company and shall be accounted for as transmitted for the account of the Government. Energy delivered to preference customers by the Company shall be increased by 7 percent to provide for losses in transmission.

Billing Month : The billing month under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the 20th day of each calendar month.

Power Factor : The purchaser and seller under this rate schedule agree that they will both so operate their respective systems that neither party will impose an undue reactive burden on the other.

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

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

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

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-963. 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-963 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-963. 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 Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by 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 (PP 0E6085) from the Interregional Research Project Number 4, 681 US Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390 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 halosulfuron-methyl in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) cucumber/squash subgroup at 0.5 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This notice includes a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63167.

1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of halosulfuron-methyl as well as the nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for purposes of this tolerance.

2. Analytical method. A practical analytical method, gas chromatography with a nitrogen specific detector which detects and measures residues of halosulfuron-methyl is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. This enforcement method has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM II).

3. Magnitude of residues. In cucumber and squash residue studies, there were no quantifiable residues found in the raw agricultural commodities using an analytical method with limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.1 ppm and 0.5 ppm, respectively.

1. Acute toxicity . Acute toxicological studies placed the technical-grade halosulfuron-methyl in Toxicity Category III. A 90-day feeding study in rats resulted in a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 497 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) in males and 640 mg/kg/day in females, and a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 116 mg/kg/day in males and 147 mg/kg/day in females.

2. Genotoxicity . Bacterial/mammalian microsomal mutagenicity assays were performed and found not to be mutagenic. Two mutagenicity studies were performed to test gene mutation and found to produce no chromosomal aberrations or gene mutations in cultured Chinese hamster ovary cells. An in vivo mouse micronucleus assay did not cause a significant increase in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow cells. A mutagenicity study was performed on rats and found not to induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in primary rat hepatocytes.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A developmental toxicity study in rats resulted in a developmental LOAEL of 750 mg/kg/day, based on decreases in mean litter size and fetal body weight, and increases in resorptions, resorptions/dam, post-implantation loss and in fetal and litter incidences of soft tissue and skeletal variations, and a developmental NOAEL of 250 mg/kg/day. Maternal LOAEL was 750 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical observations, reduced body weight gains, and reduced food consumption and food efficiency. The maternal NOAEL was 250 mg/kg/day.

A developmental toxicity study in rabbits resulted in a developmental LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day, based on decreased mean litter size and increases in resorptions, resorptions/dam and post-implantation loss, and a developmental NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day. The maternal LOAEL was 150 mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gain and reduced food consumption and food efficiency. The maternal NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day.

A dietary 2-generation reproduction study in rats resulted in parental toxicity at 223.2 mg/kg/day in males and 261.4 mg/kg/day in females in the form of decreased body weights, decreased body weight gains, and reduced food consumption during the premating period. Very slight effects were noted in body weight of the offspring at this dose. This effect was considered to be developmental toxicity (developmental delay) rather than a reproductive effect. No effects were noted on reproductive or other developmental toxicity parameters. The systemic/developmental toxicity LOAEL was 223.2 mg/kg/day in males and 261.4 mg/kg/day in females; the systemic/developmental toxicity NOAEL was 50.4 mg/kg/day in males and 58.7 mg/kg/day in females. The reproductive LOAEL was greater than 223.2 mg/kg/day in males and 261.4 mg/kg/day in females; the reproductive NOAEL was equal to or greater than 223.2 mg/kg/day in males and 261.4 mg/kg/day in females.

4. Subchronic toxicity . A 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats resulted in a NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day in males and greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day in females. The only treatment-related effect was a decrease in body weight gain of the 1,000 mg/kg/day group in males.

5. Chronic toxicity . A 1-year chronic oral study in dogs resulted in a LOAEL of 40 mg/kg/day based on decreased weight gain and a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day for systemic toxicity. A 78-week carcinogenicity study was performed on mice. Males in the 971.6 mg/kg/day group had decreased body weight gains and an increased incidence of microconcretion/mineralization in the testis and epididymis. No treatment-related effects were noted in females. Based on these results, a LOAEL of 971.9 mg/kg/day was established in males and NOAELs of 410 mg/kg/day in males and 1,214.6 mg/kg/day in females were established. The study showed no evidence of carcinogenicity. A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats resulted in a LOAEL of 225.2 mg/kg/day in males and 138.6 mg/kg/day in females based on decreased body weight gains, and a NOAEL of 108.3 mg/kg/day in males and 56.3 mg/kg/day in females. The study showed no evidence of carcinogenicity.

6. Animal metabolism . EPA stated that the nature of the residue in ruminants was determined to be adequately understood. In the tissues and milk of goats, the major extractable residue was the unmetabolized parent compound. Based on the low residues of the parent compound in corn grain and the low transfer of residues in the metabolism study, tolerances on poultry products were not required. In the rat metabolism study, parent compound was absorbed rapidly but incompletely. Excretion was relatively rapid at all doses tested with majority of radioactivity eliminated in the urine and feces by 72 hours. Fecal elimination of parent was apparently the result of unabsorbed parent.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The toxicology studies listed below were conducted with the 3-CSA metabolite. Based on the toxicological data of the 3-CSA metabolite, EPA concluded that it has lower toxicity compared to the parent compound and that it should not be included in the tolerance expression. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

i. A 90-day rat feeding study resulted in a LOAEL in males of >20,000 ppm and a NOAEL of 20,000 ppm (1,400 mg/kg/day). In females, the LOAEL is 10,000 ppm (772.8 mg/kg/day) based on decreased body weight gains and a NOAEL of 1,000 ppm (75.8 mg/kg/day).

ii. A developmental toxicity resulted in a LOAEL for maternal toxicity of >1,000 mg/kg/day based on the absence of systemic toxicity, a NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The developmental LOAEL is >1,000 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL is 1,000 mg/kg/day.

iii. The microbial reverse gene mutation did not produce any mutagenic effect while the mammalian cell gene mutation/Chinese hamster ovary cells did not show a clear evidence of mutagenic effect in the Chinese hamster ovary cells.

iv. The mouse micronucleus assay did not show any clastogenic or aneugenic effect.

8. Endocrine disruption . No specific tests have been conducted with halosulfuron-methyl to determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. However, there were no significant findings in other relevant toxicity tests, i.e., teratology and multi-generation reproduction studies, which would suggest that halosulfuron-methyl produces effects characteristic of the disruption of the estrogenic hormone.

1. Dietary exposure . Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.479) for residues of halosulfuron-methyl in or on a variety of plant and animal RACs including field corn at 0.05 ppm, grain sorghum (milo) at 0.05 ppm, sweet corn (kernel + cobs with husks removed) at 0.05 ppm, pop corn grain at 0.05 ppm, sugarcane cane at 0.05 ppm, tree nuts nutmeat at 0.05 ppm, pistachio nuts nutmeat at 0.05 ppm, cotton undelinted seed at 0.05 ppm, and rice grain at 0.05 ppm; and secondary tolerances in meat and meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep). Tolerances for the fruiting vegetable crop group 8 have been proposed by Gowan Company at 0.05 ppm. An additional tolerance is herein being requested for the crop group 9B, squash/cucumber subgroup of the cucurbit vegetable group, at 0.5 ppm.

i. Food —a. Acute exposure . For purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure from food under existing and proposed tolerances, aggregate exposure is based on the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) which is an estimate of the level of residues consumed daily if each food item contained pesticide residues equal to the tolerance. The calculated TMRC value using 95th percentile consumption data was 0.0036 mg/kg body weight/day or 0.72% acute reference dose (RfD) for the general US population; 0.0081 mg/kg/day or 1.61% acute RfD for non-nursing infants less than 1 year old; and 0.0022 mg/kg/day or 0.45% acute RfD for females 13+ years not pregnant or nursing. TMRC is obtained by multiplying the tolerance levels for each commodity by the daily consumption of the food forms of that commodity eaten by the U.S. population and various population subgroups. In conducting this exposure assessment, conservative assumptions were made, e.g., 100% of all commodities will contain halosulfuron-methyl residues and those residues would be at the level of their respective tolerances. This results in a large overestimate of human exposure. Given the conservative approach, dietary exposures to halosulfuron-methyl are less 2% acute RfD for all sub-populations. Food consumption data from DEEM software (Novigen Sciences, Inc., version 6.73) were used in the calculation. Corn and sorghum forage and fodder are fed to animals; thus, exposure of humans to residues from these commodities might result if such residues are transferred to meat, milk, poultry or eggs. However, based on the results of animal metabolism and feeding studies and the amount of halosulfuron-methyl expected in animal feeds, it can be concluded that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of halosulfuron-methyl will exceed existing tolerances in meat.

b. Chronic exposure . The chronic RfD is 0.1 mg/kg/day. The calculated TMRC value for the U.S. population is 0.0011 mg/kg/day or 1.1% RfD; 0.0017 mg/kg/day or 1.7% cRfD for infants less than 1-year old; 0.0035 mg/kg/day or 3.5% cRfD for children 1-6 years old; and 0.0009 mg/kg/day for 0.9% cRfD for females 13+ years not pregnant or nursing.

c. Short- and intermediate-term exposure . The short-term NOAEL for females 13+ years and infants and children is 50 mg/kg/day. Comparing the NOAEL with the chronic food exposure from DEEM analysis of 0.0009 mg/kg/day for females 13+ and 0.0035 mg/kg/day for children 1-6 years old results in food MOEs of 55,560 and 14,280, respectively. The intermediate-term NOAEL is 10 mg/kg/day, comparing the NOAEL with the chronic food exposure from DEEM analysis of 0.0035 mg/kg/day for children (1-6 years old) results in a food MOE of 2,860.

d. Chronic risk-carcinogenic . Halosulfuron-methyl has been classified as a Group E chemical based upon the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, and has been classified as a not likely human carcinogen.

ii. Drinking water . There is no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established for residues of halosulfuron-methyl. It is not listed for MCL development or drinking water monitoring under the Safe Drinking Water Act nor is it a target of EPA's National Survey of Wells for Pesticides. Monsanto is not aware of any halosulfuron-methyl detections in any wells, ponds, or lakes resulting from its use in the United States. The drinking water estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in ground water (acute and chronic) is 0.008 mg/L. The EECs (acute and chronic) for surface water are 4.3 mg/L and 1.1 mg/L, respectively. These estimates are based on a maximum application rate of 0.063 lbs. active ingredient per acre which may be applied twice per season.

a. Acute exposure and risk . Acute drinking water levels of concern (DWLOCs) have been calculated for exposure to halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water for the relevant population subgroups of females 13+ years and infants and children. The acute DWLOC is 15,000 mg/L for females 13+ years and 5,000 mg/L for infants and children. The calculated DWLOCs are significantly higher than the drinking water EECs for ground water (0.008 mg/L) and surface water (4.3 mg/L).

b. Chronic exposure and risk . Chronic DWLOCs have been calculated for exposure to halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water for the U.S. population (48 contiguous states) and the relevant subgroups of females 13+ years and infants and children. The chronic DWLOC is 3,500 mg/L for the U.S. population, 3,000 mg/L for females 13+ years, and 1,000 mg/L for infants and children. The calculated DWLOCs are significantly higher than the drinking water EECs for ground water (0.008 mg/L) and surface water (1.1 mg/L).

c. Short- and intermediate-term exposure and risk . Short-term and intermediate-term DWLOCs have been calculated for exposure to halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water for the relevant population subgroups. The short-term DWLOC is 10,000 mg/L for females 13+ years and 3,700 mg/L for infants and children. The intermediate-term DWLOC is 590 mg/L for adult males, 57 mg/L for females 13+ years, and 160 mg/L for infants and children. The calculated intermediate-term DWLOCs are significantly higher than the chronic drinking water EECs for surface water (1.1 mg/L). The calculated short-term DWLOCs are significantly higher than the acute drinking water EECs for ground water (0.008 mg/L) and surface water (4.3 mg/L).

d. Conclusion . Monsanto has concluded that potential levels of halosulfuron-methyl in soil and water do not appear to have significant toxicological effects on humans or animals and presents a negligible risk. Based on the very low level of mammalian toxicity, lack of other toxicological concerns and low use rates, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to halosulfuron-methyl via drinking water sources.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Halosulfuron-methyl is labeled for use on commercial and residential turf and other non-crop sites. For residential applicators, short- and intermediate-term exposure may occur. Chronic exposure (>6 months of continuous exposure) are not expected.

i. Acute exposure and risk . There is potential for exposure to halosulfuron-methyl by homeowner. However, since endpoints for acute dermal or inhalation were not identified, the use of halosulfuron-methyl on residential non-food sites is not expected to pose an unacceptable acute risk.

ii. Chronic exposure and risk . Chronic exposures for residential use of halosulfuron-methyl are not expected and a chronic non-dietary endpoint was not identified, therefore the use on residential non-food sites is not expected to pose an unacceptable chronic risk.

iii. Short- and intermediate-term exposure and risk . There is potential for short- or intermediate-term dermal exposure to residential handlers; therefore, residential exposure assessments were conducted to assess the following post-application exposure scenarios: Dermal exposure to residues on turf; children's incidental non-dietary ingestion of residues on residential lawn from hand-to-mouth transfer; and children's ingestion of pesticide-treated turfgrass.

The short-term dermal MOE for residential handlers is 4,200 which is significantly greater than the minimum acceptable MOE of 100.

The short-term dermal MOE for exposure from treated lawns for adult males, adult females, and children are 390, 330, and 420, respectively, which are significantly greater than the minimum acceptable MOE of 100. The intermediate-term dermal MOE for exposure from treated lawns for adult males, adult females, and children are 120, 100, and 130, respectively, which are equal to or greater than the minimum acceptable MOE of 100. Therefore the use of halosulfuron-methyl on residential non-food sites is not expected to pose an unacceptable short- or intermediate-term risk.

The short- and intermediate-term oral MOE for hand-to-mouth transfer for children are 4,900 and 1,500, respectively, which are significantly greater than the minimum acceptable MOE of 100. Therefore the use of halosulfuron-methyl on residential non-food sites is not expected to pose an unacceptable short- or intermediate-term risk.

The short- and intermediate-term oral MOE for incidental ingestion by children are 210,000 and 66,000, respectively, which are significantly greater than the minimum acceptable MOE of 100. Therefore the use on residential non-food sites is not expected to pose an unacceptable short- or intermediate-term risk.

Halosulfuron-methyl belongs to the sulfonyl urea class of chemistry. The mode of action of halosulfuron-methyl is the inhibition of the plant enzyme aceto lactase synthetase (ALS), which is essential for the production of required amino acid in plants. Although other registered sulfonyl ureas may have similar herbicidal mode of action, there is no information available to suggest that these compounds exhibit a similar toxicity profile in the mammalian system that would be cumulative with halosulfuron-methyl. Thus, consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time. Monsanto is considering only the potential risks of halosulfuron-methyl in its aggregate exposure assessment.

1. U.S. population —i. Acute risk . Aggregate exposure risk includes exposure from food and water. The risk from acute “food only” exposure is less than 2% of the RfD for all population groups which is less than the EPA's level of concern. The lowest DWLOC calculated was 5,000 mg/L for infants and children. The calculated DWLOC for females (13+ years) was 15,000 mg/L. For both subgroups, the DWLOC is significantly higher than the drinking water EECs for acute ground water (0.008 mg/L) and surface water (4.3 mg/L). Therefore, the risk from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues from all anticipated dietary exposure routes does not pose appreciable risks to human health.

ii. Chronic risk . Aggregate chronic exposure to halosulfuron-methyl from “food only” exposure utilizes 3.5% of the RfD for the most sensitive subgroup, children (1-6 years). The lowest DWLOC calculated was 1,000 mg/L for infants and children which is significantly higher than the drinking water EECs for chronic ground water (0.008 mg/L) and surface water (1.1 mg/L). Therefore, the aggregate risk from chronic exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues from all anticipated dietary exposures does not pose appreciable risks to human health.

iii. Short- and intermediate-term risk —a. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water plus short-term residential exposure. For halosulfuron-methyl, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate exposure via oral exposure route (food and water) with those via oral and dermal exposure routes from residential uses. The MOEs for “food only” and residential exposure routes are 22,400 and 330 for females 13+ years. Short-term DWLOC for females 13+ is 10,000 mg/L which is substantially higher than the drinking water EECs for acute surface water (4.3 mg/L). The food only and residential (oral and dermal) MOEs are well above the acceptable short-term aggregate MOE of 100. Therefore, exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues resulting from current and proposed uses does not pose a short-term aggregate risk.

b. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water plus intermediate-term residential exposure. The MOEs for “food only” and residential exposure routes are 13,700 and 120 for adult males, and 11,500 and 100 for females 13+ years. The intermediate-term DWLOCs are 590 mg/L and 57 mg/L, respectively, for adult males and females 13+. Intermediate-term DWLOCs are substantially higher than the drinking water EECs for chronic surface water (1.1 mg/L). The food only and residential (dermal) MOEs are above the acceptable short-term aggregate MOE of 100. Therefore, exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues resulting from current and proposed uses does not pose a intermediate-term aggregate risk.

iv. Aggregate cancer risk . Halosulfuron-methyl has been classified as a Group E chemical based upon the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, and has been classified as a not likely human carcinogen.

v. Conclusion . Based upon these risk assessments, Monsanto concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues resulting from current and proposed uses.

2. Infants and children —i. Safety factor . FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional safety factor (up to 10) in the case of threshold effects for infants and children to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base. Except for the pending request for a developmental neurotoxicity study, the toxicity data base is complete for halosulfuron-methyl. Based upon reliable toxicity data, the use of an additional 10x safety factor is not warranted. Dietary assessments do not indicate a level of concern for potential risks to infants and children based upon the low use rates of halosulfuron-methyl and that the results of field and animal RAC studies conclude that detectable residues are not expected in human foods.

ii. Acute risk . The acute RfD was determined to be 0.5 mg/kg/day based upon the developmental rabbit study. The percent of the acute RfD occupied is 0.72% for the U.S. population, 0.45% for females 13+ years not pregnant or nursing, and 1.61% for non-nursing infants (<1 year old). The subgroup with the highest exposure were non-nursing infants and children. The DWLOC for acute exposure for infants and children is 5,000 mg/L and is significantly less than the maximum concentration of halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water (0.008 mg/L in ground water and 4.3 mg/L in surface water).

iii. Chronic risk . The cRfD was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg/day based upon the chronic dog study. The percent of RfD occupied is 3.5% for the most sensitive subgroup, children (1-6 years old). The DWLOC for chronic exposure for infants and children is 1,000 mg/L and is significantly less than the maximum concentration of halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water (0.008 mg/L in ground water and 1.1 mg/L in surface water).

iv. Short- and intermediate-term risk . An aggregate exposure estimate and risk assessment was calculated for post-application exposure to halosulfuron-methyl from treated lawns. Short-term MOEs for food, residential oral, and residential dermal are 6,200, 4,900, and 420, respectively, for infants and children. Intermediate-term MOEs for food, residential oral, and residential dermal are 2,900, 1,500, and 130, respectively, for children and infants. The short- and intermediate-term DWLOCs for infants and children were 3,700 and 160 mg/L, respectively, which are substantially higher than the drinking water EECs for acute surface water (4.3 mg/L) and chronic surface water (1.1 mg/L).

v. Conclusion . Therefore, based on complete and reliable toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessment, Monsanto concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues with respect to the proposed new uses on squash/cucumber subgroup of the cucurbit vegetable group.

Maximum residue levels have not been established for residues of halosulfuron-methyl on any food or feed crop by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and § 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement to a proposed consent order from FirstPlus Financial Group, Inc. (“FirstPlus”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

Through direct mail, television, and online advertisement, FirstPlus has disseminated information promoting high loan-to-value (“HLTV”) loans, home equity loans, and other types of consumer credit transactions. The complaint alleges that many of these advertisements are deceptive and misleading, and violate various provisions of the .Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC. Act”), the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), and Regulation Z. Specifically, the complaint alleges that FirstPlus: (1) Falsely represented in its advertising that consumers would save money when consolidating existing debts in a FirstPlus loan and that the examples shown in FirstPlus's advertising accurately illustrate potential monthly savings; (2) falsely represented that each consumer receiving a solicitation from the company would actually receive a loan; (3) misrepresented that consumers would receive loans for the full amount states in the company's advertisement; (4) failed to adequately disclose credit terms for its loan products; and (5) failed to disclose clearly and conspicuously key information about the terms of its credit offers as required by the TILA and Regulation Z.

The proposed consent order (1) prohibits FirstPlus from misrepresenting the comparative or absolute savings or benefits of consolidating debt, including misrepresenting the circumstances under which consumers can save money when consolidating, and misrepresenting the monthly savings consumers will realize over the extended life of the FirstPlus loan; (2) prohibits FirstPlus from misrepresenting an individual's eligibility to receive a loan; (3) prohibits FirstPlus from misrepresenting the amount of loan proceeds to be disbursed to consumers, or misrepresenting the amount of proceeds to be disbursed on consumers' behalf to third parties; (4) prohibits FirstPlus from stating the savings or benefits of a FirstPlus loan, as compared to other consumer credit transactions, without disclosing accurately, clearly, and conspicuously all material information needed by consumers to evaluate the comparison; (5) prohibits FirstPlus from using an example of the cost savings or benefits of a FirstPlus loan, as compared to other consumer credit transactions, without basing the example on reasonable assumptions regarding average annual percentage rates and repayment terms for comparable credit transactions; and (6) requires FirstPlus to comply with the disclosure requirements of the TILA and Regulation Z when stating the amount or percentage of any down payment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, or the amount of any finance charge.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.

This matter is the Commission's first action brought against a consumer finance company for misrepresenting the savings that consumers would gain by consolidating their debts into a high loan-to-value (HLTV) loan. Accordingly, this case sends an important law enforcement message to companies engaged in this multi-billion dollar financial market that the Commission will look closely at HLTV transactions and take appropriate action when consumers are victimized by those who omit or misrepresent material facts relating to such loans.

Because this principle is so important, we also note that this case does not necessarily establish the full scope of relief that the Commission may seek in future cases. While the Commission's order—by providing for strong injunctive relief—supplies the full dose of all relief feasible in light of this particular respondent's weak financial situation, we believe that the Commission may consider pursuing additional relief in future cases involving deceptive HLTV loan advertising. Specifically, we expect that the Commission, in appropriate circumstances, would seek consumer redress or other monetary relief.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 16, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from SmartScience Laboratories, Inc. and its president, Gene Weitz, (together, “SSL”) settling charges that they engaged in a large-scale deceptive advertising campaign for JointFlex, a skin cream.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter involves alleged misleading representations for JointFlex. Respondents sold this cream through advertisements in national newspapers and magazines (including USA Today, the Washington Post, and Newsweek), more than 200 other major and minor local newspapers, and two websites that are not currently operative. According to the FTC complaint, SSL advertisements represented that JointFlex eliminates significant pain due to disabling joint conditions, crushed vertebrae, arthritis, herniated disk, and other conditions; that JointFlex provides more pain relief than other over-the-counter pain creams; and that testimonials from consumers appearing in the advertisements for JointFlex represent the typical or ordinary experiences of members of the public who use the product. According to the complaint, SSL lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate these claims. The complaint also alleges that respondents ads represented that the glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate in JointFlex contribute to pain relief when applied topically, but that respondents do not possess competent and reliable evidence that the glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate in JointFlex, a topically applied cream, penetrates the skin sufficiently to induce a pharmacological effect.

The complaint further alleges that SSL made several false advertising claims. It alleges that the ads represented that a competent and reliable survey of JointFlex users shows that ninety-five percent experienced reduction or elimination of pain due to use of JointFlex. This claim is alleged to be false because the survey respondents relied on was not competent and reliable, because there is no assurance that any pain reduction the responding consumers reported was due to use of the product, and because the ninety-five percent figure reflects responses to the question, “do you feel that the product helped your symptoms.” not a question about pain relief, and the surveys also inquired into relief from stiffness, swelling, redness, and protuberances. The complaint alleges that SSL falsely characterized the results of certain testimonials, by overstating the nature of their injuries at the time they used the JointFlex product.

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the order would require, with regard to JointFlex or any drug or supplement, competent and reliable scientific substantiation for future claims about the absolute or comparative efficacy of the product in reducing, relieving, or eliminating pain from any source; the health benefits, performance, safety or efficacy of any such product; or the ability of glucosamine sulfate, chrondroitin sulfate, or any other ingredient to relieve pain or provide any other health benefit when applied topically.

Part II prohibits respondents, in connection with any product, from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, survey, or research.

Part III provides that, in connection with any product, respondents shall not misrepresent the experience of any testimonialist or endorser. If further provides that respondents shall not represent that the experience represented by any user testimonial or endorsement of the product represents the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product, unless the typicality claim is substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence; or respondents disclose, clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to the endorsement or testimonial, either what the generally expected results would be for users of the product, or the limited applicability of the endorser's experience to what consumers may generally expect to achieve, that is, that consumers should not expect to experience similar results.

Part IV of the order is a safe harbor, providing that the order does not prohibit respondents from making any representation for any drug that is permitted in labeling for such drug under any tentative final or final standard promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration, or under any new drug application approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Part V is a safe harbor, providing that the order does not prohibit respondents from making any representation for any product that is specifically permitted in labeling for such product by regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.

Parts VI-XI are standard record keeping, order distribution, reporting, compliance, and sunsetting provisions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.

In the Federal Register of June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40100), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0046. The approval expires on August 31, 2003. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

The President's Council on Food Safety issued a directive entitled “Egg Safety from Production to Consumption: An Action Plan to Eliminate Salmonella Enteritidis Illness Due to Eggs” (Egg Safety Action Plan) to address this public health issue. A primary objective of the Egg Safety Action Plan is to promote research that will help eliminate SE illnesses associated with consumption of eggs by the year 2010. The purpose of this public meeting is to assess the current status of scientific research as specified in Objective 7 of the Egg Safety Action Plan. All discussion and presentations will focus on one or more of the items outlined in this objective. Objective 7 from the Egg Safety Action Plan states:

Ensure adequate, current information is available to make decisions about SE preventive controls, surveillance, and education based on sound science.

7.1. Conduct research to develop and evaluate on-farm intervention strategies or technologies, including:

7.1.1. Forced molting and other stress factors

7.1.2. Vaccines and immunomodulators

7.1.3. Competitive exclusion

7.1.4. Ion air scrubbers in hatcheries

7.2. Conduct research to provide additional information about commercial processing technologies and practices

7.2.1. In-shell pasteurization of eggs

7.2.2. Rapid cooling before and after processing

7.2.3. Continuous rewashing

7.2.4. Repackaging

7.2.5. Pasteurization of egg products with additives

7.3. Conduct research to improve testing methodologies for SE on the farm and in eggs, including the identification of virulence factors and development of rapid tests, screening tests, sampling protocols, and molecular for subtyping SE isolates.

7.4. Conduct research to understand the ecology and epidemiology of SE in the hen and farm environment, including:

7.4.1. Sources of SE in the environment

7.4.2. Mechanism of colonizing the layer house

7.4.3. Factors affecting infection of the hen and contamination of the egg

7.4.4. Characteristics of SE that promote infection in hens and humans

7.4.5. Biochemical characteristics of SE strains causing variations in virulence

7.4.6. Immunological and other factors in humans that affect infectivity

7.4.7. Risk factors associated with the on-farm presence of SE isolates

The agency has established public dockets to which comments may be submitted. All comments must include the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Submit written comments in duplicate to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

A summary of the public meeting may be requested in writing from the Dockets Management Branch (address above) approximately 30 business days after the meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page. The summary of the public meeting will be available for public examination at the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

A transcript of the public meeting will be prepared. Copies of the transcript may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page. The transcript of the public meeting and submitted comments will be available for public examination at the Dockets Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Background. —The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department of Commerce that imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany, Italy, and the Philippines are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). These investigations were requested in a petition filed on December 29, 1999 by Alloy Piping Products, Inc., Shreveport, LA; Flowline Div. of Markovitz Enterprises, Inc., New Castle, PA; Gerlin, Inc., Carol Stream, IL; and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., North Branch, NJ.

Participation in the investigations 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 the final phase of these investigations 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, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

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 the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations 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 final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 4, 2000, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 17, 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 October 6, 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 October 12, 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), and 207.24 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 who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is October 11, 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 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 24, 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 investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations on or before October 24, 2000. On November 13, 2000 (for Germany) and January 11, 2001 (for all other investigations), 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 November 15, 2000 (for Germany) and January 16, 2001 (for all other investigations), but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 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 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.