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

On October 26, 2001, the Department initiated investigations to determine whether imports of CRS from, inter alia , Australia, China, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”). See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela , 66 FR 54198 (October 26, 2001) (“Initiation Notice”). On November 19, 2001, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) published its determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of CRS from all of these countries. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela , 66 FR 57985 (November 19, 2001). On November 29, 2001, the petitioners 1 alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of CRS from Russia. On December 7, 2001, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigations of CRS from Argentina, Australia, China, India, the Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Korea, and Taiwan. Petitioners also requested that the Department make an expedited finding with regard to critical circumstances.

In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners submitted their critical circumstances allegations 20 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations, the Department must issue the preliminary critical circumstances finding not later than the date of the preliminary determinations. Accordingly, at this time we are issuing the preliminary critical circumstances finding in the investigations of CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia. 2 A full discussion of our analyses may be found below and in the two concurrent country-specific memoranda (“Critical Circumstances Memoranda”), dated April 10, 2002. Parties can find public versions of these memoranda on file at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Central Records Unit, in room B-099.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and, (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that, “In general, unless the imports during the 'relatively short period' . . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as generally the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.

In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been satisfied, we considered: (i) the evidence presented by Petitioners in their November 9, 2001, December 7, 2001 and January 14, 2002 letters; (ii) exporter-specific shipment data requested by the Department; (iii) import data available through the Commission's DataWeb website; and (iv) the Commission's preliminary injury determinations.

To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and Moldova , 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). Imports of CRS from Korea and the Netherlands were subject to antidumping duties from 1993 through December 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products From Canada, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden , 65 FR 78467 (December 15, 2000). Accordingly, we find a history of dumping of CRS from Korea and the Netherlands. Imports of CRS from Russia are currently subject to a Canadian antidumping duty order, the final determination of which was dated July 28, 1999. See Canadian International Trade Tribunal Cold-Rolled Decision (August 27, 1999). Accordingly, we find a history of dumping of CRS from Russia. However, we are not aware of any antidumping order in any country on CRS from Australia, China or India. For this reason, we do not find a history of dumping and material injury of the subject merchandise from Australia, China or India pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.

In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known the exporter was selling CRS at LTFV, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price (“EP”) sales and 15 percent or more for constructed export price (“CEP”) sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of dumping. See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances , 67 FR 6224 (February 11, 2002). The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary determination. However, because section 733(e)(1) of the Act permits the Department to make a preliminary critical circumstances determination prior to the issuance of the preliminary dumping determination, we may rely on other information to determine whether importers had knowledge exporters were selling CRS at LTFV.

In the instant cases we find the antidumping petitions contain sufficient information to conduct our analysis of this criterion. The petition estimated dumping margins for China of 70.68 to 74.16 percent. See Initiation Notice, 66 FR 54198. The petition estimated dumping margins for India of 153.65 percent which, based on additional information provided after the petitions were filed, the Department recalculated as 128.38 percent. Because the highest estimated dumping margin calculated in the petition for each of these countries is greater than 25 percent, there is a reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with respect to imports from these countries. Therefore, we have imputed importer knowledge of dumping of the subject merchandise exported from China and India.

The petition estimated dumping margins for Australia of 24.06 percent. After initiation of the antidumping duty investigation against Australia, the mandatory respondent selected by the Department reported that 100 percent of its U.S. sales during the POI are CEP sales. Given that the respondent's reported CEP sales include the sales that constitute the average unit value (“AUV”) used by Petitioners in the estimated dumping margin, and the AUV is based on the customs import value (which contains no CEP expenses that must be deducted in order to be used in an estimated margin calculation), it is appropriate to apply the estimated dumping margin against the 15 percent threshold for CEP sales. See Critical Circumstances Memorandum for Australia, at 5-6. Accordingly, because the estimated dumping margin calculated in the petition for Australia is greater than 15 percent, there is a reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with respect to imports from Australia. Therefore, we have imputed importer knowledge of dumping of the subject merchandise exported from Australia.

In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect an importer knew or should have known there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the Commission. If the Commission finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China , 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997). In the present case the Commission has found a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury due to dumping of imports of CRS from each of the named countries. See Determinations and Views of the Commission: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela , Investigations Nos. 701-TA-422-425 and 731-TA-964-983 (Preliminary), USITC Publication No. 3471, November 2001 (“Commission Determination”). Section 771(11) of the Act provides that in the event the Commission is “evenly divided as to whether the determination should be affirmative or negative, the {Commission} shall be deemed to have made an affirmative determination.” By analogy, the Department finds that, where the Commission is evenly divided between a finding of material injury and a finding of threat of material injury, it is reasonable to treat the finding as an affirmative finding of material injury. As a result, the Department has determined there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect importers of CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia knew or should have known there was likely to be material injury by reason of these dumped imports.

In determining whether there are “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition ( i.e. , the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition ( i.e. , the “comparison period”). However, as stated in section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations, “if the Secretary finds importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, then the Secretary may consider a time period of not less than three months from that earlier time.” Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period.

For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memoranda, we find sufficient bases exist for finding importers, or exporters or producers, knew or should have known antidumping cases were pending on CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia by May 2001 at the latest. Accordingly, we determined December 2000 through May 2001 should serve as the “base period,” while June 2001 through November 2001 should serve as the “comparison period,” in determining whether or not imports have been massive over a relatively short period.

According to 19 C.F.R. 351.206(i), the comparison period normally should be at least three months; however, if we determine that importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely, then the Department may consider a longer period. In this case, we have chosen a period of six months as the period for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been massive for several reasons. First, at this time we have shipment data covering the six-month period for all exporters being examined for this purpose. We do not believe it is appropriate to use different periods for different exporters. Second, we believe that choosing a six-month period in general properly reflects the “relatively short period” commanded by the statute for determining whether imports have been massive. See Section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. Finally, we are concerned that selecting a longer period for comparison might, in some cases, hamper our ability to fulfill our obligation under the statute to determine whether a genuine surge in imports has occurred shortly after exporters knew or should have known about the likelihood of an antidumping petition. However, we welcome comments about the use of a six-month period both in this case and in general.

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.206(h), we found imports of CRS increased by more than 15 percent for CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia in the comparison period; accordingly, we find that imports have been massive for each of the named countries. With respect to Korea, we noted that the import statistics from Korea indicated that imports from Korea increased 97.12 percent. The imports for one of the respondents, Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”), increased by well over 15 percent as well. However, imports for the other respondent, Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (“Dongbu”), increased by less than 15 percent. Accordingly, we find imports were massive for POSCO and all other producers/exporters, except for Dongbu.

In summary, we find there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports of CRS from Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia. We also find there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect importers knew or should have known exporters were selling CRS from Australia, China and India at LTFV and had knowledge of the likelihood of material injury with respect to such imports of CRS. We further find there have been massive imports of CRS over a relatively short period from Australia, China, India, Korea (with the exception of Dongbu), the Netherlands, and Russia.

Given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail in the Critical Circumstances Memoranda, we preliminarily determine critical circumstances exist for imports of CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea (with the exception of Dongbu), the Netherlands, and Russia.

In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, if the Department issues affirmative preliminary determinations of sales at LTFV in the investigations with respect to imports of CRS, the Department, at that time, will direct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of Australia, China, India, Korea (with the exception of Dongbu), the Netherlands, and Russia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary determinations in these investigations. Customs shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determinations published in the Federal Register . The suspension of liquidation to be issued after our preliminary determinations will remain in effect until further notice.

We will make final determinations concerning critical circumstances for all countries named in Petitioners' allegations when we make our final dumping determinations in these investigations, which will be 75 days (unless extended) after issuance of the preliminary dumping determinations.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the Commission of our determinations.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

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

On August 28, 1986, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC (51 FR 30686). On August 1, 2001, the Department published an opportunity to request an administrative review of the order (66 FR 39729). On August 31, 2001, the Department received a request from Dongguan Fay Candle Co., Ltd. to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. On October 1, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review covering the period of August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001 (66 FR 49924).

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

Due to the complexities involved with this particular case, including the extensive number of products, the possible inclusion in reported sales of both in-scope and out-of-scope candles, and the fact that the respondent has not been reviewed before, we find that it is not practicable to issue preliminary results of review by the current deadline of May 3, 2002. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 120 days.

This extension results in the due date for the preliminary results falling on August 31, 2002, which is a Saturday. Therefore, the preliminary results will be due on the next business day, which is September 3, 2002, since September 2, 2002 is an official holiday. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of a new shipper review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of 90 days after issuance of the preliminary determination. In the instant case, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit due to certain complex issues relating to Shanghai New Star Import/Export Co., Ltd. and Peak Candle's sales valuation, surrogate values and factors of production.

Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limits mandated by the Act (90 days after the date the preliminary determination is issued), in accordance with Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the final determination an additional 45 days, to no later than May 30, 2002.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's Regulations.

The ATP statute originated in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-418, 15 U.S.C. 278n) and was amended by the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-245). This law has been codified at 15 U.S.C. 278n. The ATP implementing regulations are published at 15 CFR part 295, as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number and program title for the ATP are 11.612, Advanced Technology Program (ATP).

The ATP is a competitive cost-sharing program designed for the Federal government to work in partnership with industry to accelerate the development and broad dissemination of challenging, high-risk technologies that offer the potential for significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the nation. This unique government-industry partnership accelerates the development of emerging or enabling technologies leading to revolutionary new products, industrial processes and services that can compete in rapidly changing world markets. The ATP challenges industry to take on higher risk projects with commensurately higher potential payoff to the nation. The ATP provides multi-year funding to single companies and to industry-led joint ventures.

The funding instrument used in ATP awards is a “cooperative agreement.” Through the use of the cooperative agreement, the ATP is designed to foster a government-industry partnership to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation. NIST plays a substantial role by providing technical assistance and monitoring the technical work, business progress, and expenditure of Federal funds.

Congressional Fiscal Year 2002 appropriations included funds not to exceed $60.7 million for new awards. Because ATP is now funding applications on a rolling basis, some portion of this may be used for new awards submitted pursuant to the procedures established for the FY 2001 competition and similarly a portion may be used for applications submitted under FY 2003 competition.

The eligibility requirements, selection criteria, and the proposal review process are discussed in detail in the ATP implementing regulations published at 15 CFR part 295, as amended, and the ATP Proposal Preparation Kit dated April 2002.

ATP will group all proposals received by each of the specified due dates and review them as a group called a “batch.” Since ATP has established three due dates for proposal submission in fiscal year 2002, there will be three batches. All hand-delivered or electronically submitted proposals must be received by 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the specified dates below:

(a) Batch 1 —Monday, June 10, 2002.

(b) Batch 2 —Wednesday, July 31, 2002.

(c) Batch 3 —Monday, September 30, 2002.

All other proposals must be postmarked by 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the specified due dates and received by 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the specified dates below:

(a) Batch 1 —postmarked by Monday, June 10, 2002, and received by Monday, June 24, 2002.

(b) Batch 2 —postmarked by Wednesday, July 31, 2002, and received by Wednesday, August 14, 2002.

(c) Batch 3 —postmarked by Monday, September 30, 2002, and received by Tuesday, October 15, 2002.

Each batch will be reviewed under a multiple stage and sequential review process to reduce the amount of information required at one time. Each stage in the process is called a “gate.” There are four gates as follows:

(a) Gate 1— The proposer submits detailed information to address the scientific and technological merit selection criterion. Additionally, the proposer submits preliminary information to address the selection criterion on the potential for broad-based economic benefits. If the information submitted is determined to have high merit, ATP notifies the proposer and requests that the required additional information be submitted for consideration in Gate 2. If a proposal passes Gate 1 , the proposer will have two weeks (14 calendar days) from written notification to submit the required information in Gate 2 .

(b) Gate 2— The proposer submits more detailed information to address the potential for broad-based economic benefits selection criterion and detailed budget data. If the information submitted is determined to have high merit, ATP notifies the proposer of its selection as a semi-finalist and the proposal proceeds to Gate 3 .

(c) Gate 3— The proposer is requested to submit required forms and additional documentation, as necessary, and may be invited to NIST for an oral review. If ATP determines, based on all the information received, that the proposal has sufficiently high merit to be funded, the proposal is considered a finalist and proceeds to Gate 4.

(d) Gate 4— Final award processing and issuance, if selected.

Additionally, the following requirements shall apply:

(a) Semi-finalist proposals will be ranked in the following three categories: “Superior,” “Fundable/Deferred,” or “Unfundable.” Fundable/Deferred proposals may be deferred for consideration in subsequent batches within the same competition.

(b) Proposers may not submit replacement and/or revised pages and/or documents for any portion of a proposal once that portion has been submitted unless specifically requested by NIST.

(c) Once a proposer has received notification that their proposal will not be funded, the proposer may revise that proposal for consideration one additional time and resubmit it no later than the end of this fiscal year 2002 competition date of September 30, 2002.

(a) A single company can receive up to $2 million in total for R&D activities for up to 3 years. ATP funds may only be used to pay for direct costs for single company recipients. Single company recipients are responsible for funding all of their overhead/indirect costs. Small and medium size companies applying as single company proposers are not required to provide cost-sharing of direct costs; however, they may pay a portion of the direct costs, if they wish, in addition to all indirect costs. Large companies applying as single company proposers, however, must cost-share at least 60 percent of the yearly total project costs (direct plus all of the indirect costs). A large company is defined as any business, including any parent company plus related subsidiaries, having annual revenues in excess of $3.197 billion. (Note that this number will likely be updated annually and will be noted in future annual announcements of availability of funds and ATP Proposal Preparation Kits.)

(b) Joint ventures (as defined in 15 CFR 295.2(i)) can receive funds for R&D activities for up to 5 years with no funding limitation other than the announced availability of funds. Joint ventures must cost-share (matching funds) more than 50 percent of the yearly total project costs (direct plus indirect costs). The term matching funds (cost-sharing) is defined in 15 CFR 295.2(l).

(c) Funds derived from Federal sources may not be used to meet the cost-share requirement. Additionally, subcontractors may not contribute towards the cost-share requirement.

The April 2002 version of the ATP Proposal Preparation Kit must be used to prepare and submit all proposals during fiscal year 2002. The Kit is available upon request from the ATP at the address and phone numbers noted in this notice. The Kit is also available on the Internet on the ATP Web site http://www.atp.nist.gov. Note that the ATP is mailing the Kit to all those individuals whose names are currently on the ATP mailing list. Those individuals need not contact the ATP to request a copy. The Kit contains proposal cover sheets, other required forms, and all the necessary guidelines for developing an ATP proposal. All proposals must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the Kit.

ATP is now accepting proposals submitted electronically via ATP's Electronic Submission System. To be accepted, the proposal must have a valid ACES digital signature, and the attachment (proposal narrative) must be readable in one of the formats described on the Electronic Submission System website ( webguy.nist.gov ). Details about how to submit electronically, including how to get an ACES Digital Certificate, operating system, hardware and software requirements, downloads, and instructions are available at webguy.nist.gov. Font, line spacing, margin, page limit, page numbering, and page size requirements still apply.

The due dates for submission of electronic proposals are the same as those specified under the DATES section of this notice. Please note that an electronically submitted proposal will not be considered to be received unless it has a valid ACES digital signature and the attachment (proposal narrative) is readable in one of the formats described on the Electronic Submission System Web site ( webguy.nist.gov ).

A proposer may submit a proposal that is a revised version of a proposal submitted to a previous ATP competition. NIST will examine such proposals to determine whether substantial revisions have been made. Where the revisions are determined not to be substantial, NIST reserves the right to score and rank, or where appropriate, to reject, such proposals based on reviews of the previously submitted proposal.

(a) If a proposal is selected as a semi-finalist, ATP reserves the right to seek clarification and necessary information through a list of questions to the proposer.

(b) There are certain types of projects that ATP will not fund because they are inconsistent with the ATP mission. These include:

(1) Straightforward improvements of existing products or product development;

(2) Projects that are predominately basic research;

(3) Pre-commercial scale demonstration projects where the emphasis is on demonstration that some technology works on a large scale or is economically sound rather than on R&D;

(4) Projects involving military weapons R&D or R&D that is of interest only to some mission agency rather than to the commercial marketplace;

(5) Projects that ATP believes would likely be completed with or without ATP funds in the same time frame or nearly the same time frame;

(6) Predominantly straightforward, routine data gathering ( e.g., creation of voluntary consensus standards, data gathering/handbook preparation, testing of materials, or unbounded research aimed at basic discovery science), or application of standard engineering practices;

(7) Projects that are simply a follow-on or continuation of tasks previously funded in ATP projects from essentially the same proposing team.

(c) Certain costs that may be allowed in Federal financial assistance programs are not eligible for funding under ATP awards. The ATP Proposal Preparation Kit lists these costs.

(d) For joint ventures, no costs shall be incurred under an ATP project by the joint venture members until such time as a joint venture agreement has been executed by all of the joint venture members and approved by NIST. NIST will withhold approval until it determines that a sufficient number of members have signed the joint venture agreement. Costs will only be allowed after the execution of the joint venture agreement and approval by NIST.

(e) Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue and/or cells, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon NIH and other Federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by NIH, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics, which are provided in the handbook entitled “Advanced Technology Program Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects.” This handbook may be obtained through any of the options described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

The NIST Advanced Technology Program (ATP) adheres to all Presidential policies, statutes, guidelines and regulations regarding the use of human embryonic stem cells. At this time, ATP will not consider proposals that involve the use, derivation, or characterization of human embryonic stem cells.

On December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) introduced the Federalwide Assurance of Protection for Human Subjects (FWA). The FWA covers all of an institution's Federally-supported human subjects research, and eliminates the need for other types of Assurance documents. For information about FWAs, please see the OHRP Web site at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irbasur.htm.

In accordance with the DHHS change, NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) possessing a current, valid FWA from DHHS. NIST will also continue to accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by IRBs possessing a current, valid Multiple Project Assurance (MPA) from DHHS. NIST will not accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by IRBs possessing a Single Project Assurance (SPA), nor will NIST issue an SPA for IRB review of a human subjects protocol.

(f) Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58.

In addition, all requirements as set forth in the handbook entitled “Advanced Technology Program Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects,” shall apply. This handbook may be obtained through any of the options described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

(g) The intellectual property provisions found at 15 U.S.C. 278n(d)(11) and 15 CFR 295.8 shall apply to all ATP awards.

(h) Proposers, including each joint venture participant, shall provide sufficient funds in the project multi-year budget for project audits as specified below. Except for vendors that provide goods and services, subcontractors that receive more than $300,000 each, including universities, are also subject to the audit requirement. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that audits are performed in a timely fashion. Most routine audits can be performed by the recipient's external CPA. However, the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (DoC/OIG) and General Accounting Office (GAO) reserve the right to carry out audits as deemed necessary and appropriate. ATP recipients must be willing to submit to audits ( e.g., audits of cost-accounting systems, direct-cost expenditures, indirect cost rates, or other periodic reviews) by the Inspectors General or GAO. Periodic project audits shall be performed as follows:

(1) For awards less than 24 months, an audit is required at the end of the project.

(2) For 2-, 3-, or 4-year awards, an audit is required after the first year and at the end of the project.

(3) For 5-year awards, an audit is required after the first year, third year, and at the end of the project.

Proposers should budget for audits as follows:

(1) Proposers should allocate funds in their proposal budgets under the “Other” direct cost category for the project audit. For joint ventures, this must be included in each participant's budget, as each participant is responsible for the performance of their own project audit.

(2) If an organization's indirect cost pool includes audit costs, this is acceptable. In these cases, an explanation must be provided in the budget narrative and no audit costs reflected under “Other” costs.

(3) If a cognizant Federal agency auditor is resident within the company, the cognizant Federal agency auditor may perform the audit. In this case, an explanation must be provided in the budget narrative and no audit costs reflected under “Other” costs or “Indirect Costs.”

Audits of all recipients shall be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards (GAS), issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (the Yellow Book). If an ATP recipient is required to have an audit performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-Profit Organizations, the annual Circular A-133 audit is deemed to meet the ATP audit requirement.

If an ATP recipient does not have an annual Circular A-133 audit performed, the recipient should follow the following project audit requirements:

(1) Audits for single company recipients shall be conducted using the NIST Program-Specific Audit Guidelines for Advanced Technology Program (ATP) Cooperative Agreements with Single Companies.

(2) Audits for joint venture recipients shall be conducted using the NIST Program-Specific Audit Guidelines for Advanced Technology Program (ATP) Cooperative Agreements with Joint Ventures.

(i) All ATP recipients must agree to adhere to the U.S. Export Administration laws and regulations and shall not export or re-export, directly or indirectly, any technical data created with Government funding under an award to any country for which the United States Government or any agency thereof, at the time of such export or re-export requires an export license or other Governmental approval without first obtaining such licenses or approval and the written clearance of the NIST Grants Officer. The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) shall conduct an annual review for any relevant information about a proposer and/or Recipient. NIST reserves the right to not issue any award or suspend or terminate an existing award in the event that significant adverse information about a proposer or Recipient is disclosed by BXA to the NIST Grants Officer.

(j) Intergovernmental Review. The ATP does not involve the mandatory payment of any matching funds from state or local government and does not affect directly any state or local government. Accordingly, the Department of Commerce has determined that Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” is not applicable to this program.

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice contains collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standards Forms 424B and SF-LLL has been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0040 and 0348-0046. The use of Form NIST-1262 (pp.1-4) and Form NIST-1263 (pp.1-5) has been approved by OMB under the control number 0693-0009. The use of Commerce Department Form CD-346 has been approved by OMB under the control number 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

(l) Executive Order Statement. This funding notice was determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

(m) ATP is not accepting pre-proposals during fiscal year 2002.

(n) The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), are applicable to this solicitation. However, please note that the Department of Commerce will not implement the requirements of Executive Order 13202 (66 FR 49921), pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget in light of a court opinion which found that the Executive Order was not legally authorized. See Building and Construction Trades Department v. Allbaugh, 172 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 2001). This decision is currently on appeal. When the case has been finally resolved, the Department will provide further information on implementation of Executive Order 13202.

(o) The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for recordkeeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

(p) NIST requires each recipient, whether receiving Federal funds or only providing matching funds, to have a functioning financial management system that meets the provisions of 15 CFR 14.21, to ensure proper accountability of funds. In cases where a recipient has had no prior Federal support or NIST has reason to question whether the recipient's financial management standards meet Federal requirements, the recipient will be required to submit an accounting system certification issued by an Independent Certified Public Accountant to the NIST Grants Officer within 90 days from the date of award.

(q) Classification. Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , is not required and has not been prepared for this notice.

A public meeting (Proposers' Conference) for potential proposers and other interested parties will be held:

• 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Thursday, May 2, 2002. Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877. Telephone: (301) 977-8900. Facsimile: (301) 977-3450.

The meeting will provide general information regarding the ATP, tips on preparing good proposals, and an opportunity for audience questions. Attendance at this public meeting is not required. No registration fee will be charged. To register for the public meeting or for further information, contact ATP at 1-800-ATP-FUND (1-800-287-3863), or register via the NIST Web site: www.atp.nist.gov/atp/reg_form.htm .

Section 404 of the MSFCMA requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish in the Federal Register a strategic plan for fisheries research for the 5 years immediately following the its publication. The MSFCMA requires that the plan address four major areas of research: (1) Research to support fishery conservation and management; (2) conservation engineering research; (3) research on the fisheries; and (4) information management research. The MSFCMA specifies that the plan shall contain a limited number of priority objectives for each of these research areas; indicate goals and timetables; provide a role for commercial fishermen in such research; provide for collection and dissemination of complete and accurate information concerning fishing activities; and be developed in cooperation with the Councils and affected states.

In 1997, the NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan (FSP) was published. The FSP was developed in a comprehensive manner, with significant public involvement, including 16 public meetings. The following year, NMFS released the Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research (1998). Both the original (1998) and the updated (2001) Strategic Plans for Fisheries Research are based upon and entirely consistent with the FSP. Many of the objectives found under the “Major Fishery Research Objectives and Goals” section of the subject document can be matched with those in the FSP.

The scope of the NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research (2001) is solely fisheries research to support the MSFCMA. It does not include the regulatory and enforcement components of the NMFS' mission. The NMFS currently conducts a comprehensive program of fisheries research and involves industry and others interested in fisheries in planning and implementing its objectives.

The purpose of the EIS Oversight Committee meeting is to develop the range of alternatives that will be evaluated in the PSEIS. The committee will review draft sections of the PSEIS, provide comments to the drafters, and prepare recommendations to the Council regarding the programmatic alternatives for consideration at the upcoming June Council meeting.

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

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The CPT will discuss and may make recommendations to the Council on the following agenda items:

1. Review of the 112th Council Meeting;

2. State of crustacean fisheries in region;

3. Lobster modeling workshop report;

4. Long term research planning;

5. Cooperative research program;

6. Reserve operations plan and sanctuary designation process;

7. Economic value of Crustacean Area 1 permits; and

8. Other business as required.

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

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to meeting date.

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. Scientific research and/or enhancement permits are issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) 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).

The following species:

Threatened and 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 )

Notice was published on October 26, 2001 (63 FR 49335), that Mr. Harold Foster, of NMFS-NEFSC applied for a modification to 1178. Modification #3 authorizes the import and export of sea turtle pieces and parts for the purpose of research. The applicant has a 5-year scientific research permit to take listed sea turtles incidentally taken in foreign and domestic commercial fisheries operating in state waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. The work will be conducted by scientific observers aboard commercial fishing vessels. The following species and annual take numbers have been requested: 300 loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), 85 leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), 10 Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempi ), 10 hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), and 10 green ( Chelonia mydas ) turtles. The applicant has requested authorization to measure, photograph, flipper tag, scan for PIT tags, resuscitate (if necessary) and release turtles taken incidentally in foreign and domestic commercial fisheries. Further, the applicant has requested authority to bring to shore, when feasible, dead sea turtles for necropsy. Necropsy will only be performed by personnel currently permitted to conduct such research. This research supports the National Marine Fisheries Service's mission of assessing the impacts of commercial fisheries on marine resources of interest to the United States. Modification #3 to Permit 1178 was issued on March 25, 2002, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1178 expires December 31, 2003.

Notice was published on October 26, 2001 (66 FR 54233), that Dr. Richard Merrick, of NMFS-NEFSC-PSB applied for a modification to 1295. Modification #1 authorizes the import and export of sea turtle pieces and parts for the purpose of research. The goal of the 5-year plan for sea turtles in the Northeast is to work cooperatively with other regions to support and direct research on sea turtles in order to identify and assess the status of sea turtle stocks, reduce the estimated mortality associated with fishing activities and other anthropogenic and natural sources and to recover ESA listed species. Modification #1 to Permit 1295 was issued on March 28, 2002, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1295 expires May 31, 2006.

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. Scientific research and/or enhancement permits are issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) 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 Shortnose Sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum )

The applicant proposes to place 600 caged shortnose sturgeon into the Roankoke/Albemarle river system at 10 test sites that represent variations in water quality to investigate growth, survival and bioaccumulation of contaminants by the fish. They will be in place for 28 days One hundred additional fish will be used as the baseline for the growth and bioaccumulation. The shortnose sturgeon will be juveniles from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Bears Bluff Hatchery, Charleston, SC. The fish will be double caged to prevent their escaping into the wild.

This experiment is to determine if whether water quality is a factor in the demise of the shortnose sturgeon in the Roankoke/Albemarle river system.

On December 27, 2001, notice was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 66888) that the above-named applicant had submitted a request for a permit to take one species of marine mammals by Level B harassment during the course of commercial photographic activities in San Simeon, Piedras Blancas, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, Point Reyes National Seashore, the Farallones and Channel Islands, California. The requested permit has been issued, under the authority of Section 104(c)(6) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ).

On February 15, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 7139) that a request for a scientific research permit to take Pacific harbor seals had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The civilian and military communities use the Global Positioning System, which employs a constellation of 24 satellites to provide continuously transmitted signals to enable appropriately configured GPS user equipment to produce accurate position, navigation and time information.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Academic Libraries Survey: 2002-2005.

Frequency: Biennially.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 3,400.

 Burden Hours: 5,950.

Abstract: The Academic Libraries Survey has been a component of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. In 2002 and henceforth it will be a separate survey. Changes to the survey itself are minor from prior collections of this universe survey. The data are collected on the web and consist of information about library holdings, library staff, library services and usage, library technology, library budget and expenditures.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her internet address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: SPeNSE Substudy on Paperwork Burden.

Abstract: In order to inform the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) needs information on the causes of reported paperwork burden among special education teachers. This substudy will explore factors associated with paperwork burden through telephone interviews with special education teachers.

Additional Information: During recent hearings for the reauthorization of IDEA, ED heard testimony from administrators and special educators about the tremendous paperwork burden placed on teachers; however, policymakers lack adequate data to adequately characterize this burden, the factors affecting it, and approaches to easing paperwork burden. This substudy will provide ED with the information it needs to inform the upcoming reauthorization of the IDEA and set priorities within the Department for technical assistance and further research.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 1,000.

Burden Hours: 250.

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

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

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

1. Presentation on the Y-12 Modernization Efforts provided by Ms. Cindy Hayes, BWXT-Y12, L.L.C.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments at the end of the meeting.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Resource Center at 105 Broadway, Oak Ridge, TN between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-922, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

Since we are planning on issuing all solicitations electronically using IIPS, we want you to subscribe to IIPS, free of charge, to receive notifications of financial assistance opportunities in which you are interested. To subscribe to the electronic mailing list, you will need to go to our web site at: http://e-center.doe.gov/. From this page, click on the “register” button to initiate the subscription process. You will need to provide information similar to that required on the Standard Form 129, Solicitation Mailing List Application. Follow the instructions for “subscribing” to IIPS. Best practices suggest you browse the IIPS page frequently to ensure you are receiving the appropriate notices. In order to submit proposals or bids, you must register your firm or institution. To register, click on the “register” button on the IIPS home page, so you can choose to “register” or “register and subscribe” (this is a combination registration and subscription form). Clicking on either option opens a form for you to complete. As with the subscription form, you must complete all the required fields and click on the “submit” button at the bottom of the form. Should you need assistance, please feel free to contact the IIPS help desk at 800-683-0751, or by email at: ( helpdesk@pr.doe.gov ).

Office of Science solicitations will include as an attachment, the appropriate forms in PDF fillable format to be submitted with the proposal. All information submitted through IIPS must be in PDF format. Additional information about the Office of Science financial assistance programs is available at our home page, which is located at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. Please bookmark these pages and check back often.

This Notice remains in effect until it is succeeded by another issuance by the Office of Science.

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 OPP-30525. 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 Hwy., 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 OPP-30525 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 Hwy., 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 OPP-30525. 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 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity.

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

8. 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 received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application.

File Symbol : 72919-R. Applicant : Exit Holdings L. L. C., 2620 North 37th Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85009. Product name : EH-2001. Type of product : Rodenticide. Active ingredient : Yellow mustard seed powder and sodium alpha-olefin sulfonate. Proposed classification/Use : For control of Richardson's ( Spermophilus richardsonii ) and Wyoming ground squirrels (S.elegans).

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

1. 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/.

To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-2002-0009. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, 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 Hwy., 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 OPP-2002-0009 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 6.1/8.0/9.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-2002-0009. 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. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

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

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 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.

The Agency has issued a RED for the pesticide active ingredient listed in this document. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to reevaluate existing pesticides to make sure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data base to support the reregistration of the chemical listed in this document is substantially complete, and the pesticide's risks have been mitigated so that it will not pose unreasonable risks to people or the environment when used according to its approved labeling. In addition, EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides and reassessing tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The pesticide included in this notice also has been found to meet the FQPA safety standard.

All registrants of pesticide products containing the active ingredient listed in this document have been sent the appropriate RED, and must respond to labeling requirements and product-specific data requirements (if applicable) within 8 months of receipt. Products also containing other pesticide active ingredients will not be reregistered until those other active ingredients are determined to be eligible for reregistration.

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

EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments on the practicality of the revised restricted entry intervals (REIs) contained in the RED. (The REI is the period of time following a pesticide application during which EPA restricts worker entry into a treated area to mitigate risks posed by pesticide residues. Once the REI expires, EPA believes residues have declined to a point where they pose negligible risks to workers). As noted in the RED, the Agency typically structures its REI label requirements so that a single REI will apply to all post-application activities for a given crop or crop group. In other words, even if management of a given crop requires multiple post-application activities, the Agency will establish a single REI for all those activities even if those activities involve different exposure potentials. To ensure that workers are adequately protected, that one REI will usually be based on the activity that involves the highest level of exposure. This approach is favored because users and employers are more likely to understand and comply with clear labels. Also, establishing multiple activity-based REIs for crops could cause confusion and compromise compliance with and enforcement of worker protection regulations. However, when the consideration of risks and benefits indicate that a single REI is unworkable, EPA will consider granting exceptions. For most propargite uses, a single crop-specific REI is being proposed in the RED because no critical activity was identified that warranted establishing an exception. During the 60-day comment period for this RED, however, EPA will accept further comments from growers regarding needs for additional REI exceptions for specific post-application activities, and will add such exceptions where needed if there are adequate margins of exposure (MOEs) and/or benefits associated with such activities warrant such an exception. To assist the Agency in making its risk/benefit finding on a specific exception request, the following benefits-related information is most useful.

1. Identify the crop(s) and provide a description of the specific production task(s) for which the exception is requested. Explain why the task is critical during the REI. As specifically as possible, describe how the task is performed including timing within the growing season, equipment and/or PPE used in performing the task, nature of the contact with treated surfaces, and duration for performing the task including the number of hours per days and number of days.

2. Explain why the critical tasks cannot be performed prior to application or after the REI has expired. Include detailed information on the critical pest(s), the timing of the application, and the impact of modifying the pesticide application to conform to the REI.

3. Describe the geographic area for which the exception or prohibition is requested. If the exception request is limited to a specific geographic area, describe why the circumstances of exposure or economic impact resulting from the prohibition of routine hand tasks during the REI are unique to the geographic area named in the exception.

4. Explain, for each requested crop/task combination, why alternative practices would not be technically or financially viable. Such alternative practices might include rescheduling the pesticide application or hand labor activity; using non-chemical pest control alternatives; using an alternative to hand labor tasks, such as machine cultivation; or substituting a pesticide with a shorter REI. This information should include estimates or data on per acre revenue, and cost of production for the crop area for which the exception is requested. These estimates or data should include: The current situation, the situation if the exception is not granted, the situation if the exception is granted, and specific information on the individual factors which cause differences in revenues and cost among the three situations.

5. Provide documentation or a description of the safety and feasibility of such an exception, including, but not limited to, the period of time required daily per worker to perform the hand labor activity, any suggested methods of reducing the worker's exposure, and any other mitigating factors, such as the availability of mechanical devices that would reduce the workers' contact with the treated surfaces.

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

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-1081. 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-1081 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-1081. 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 Safe Materials, Inc. and represents the views of Safe Materials, Inc. 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 (2F6362) from Safe Materials, Inc., P.O. Box 1065, Valdosta, GA 31603-1065 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, in or on the raw agricultural commodity cotton seed. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time, or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism. The Federal Register of July 7, 1995 (60 FR 35396) (FRL-4957-9), announced the reclassification of a number of inert ingredients from List 3 to List 4B (minimal risk). EPA included alpha- sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) among those substances on List 4B indicating:

• “On behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs, these substances were reviewed by the Structure Activity Team of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, with each judged to be of low concern for potential human health, and/or environmental effects.”

• “These inert ingredients were evaluated by the Office of Pesticide Program's inert review group, and determined to be of minimal risk.”

• “A list of these inert ingredients proposed for reclassification was provided to EPA's Office of Water and to the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for comment; no adverse comments were received.”

Additionally, EPA has already exempted from the requirements of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) the residues of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) for use in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

The addition of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) to the list of substances considered exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an active ingredient, would merely acknowledge the fact, that this product is safe to humans and the environment.

As alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), contains as an integral part of it's composition the atomic elements, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, it is not expected to be degraded into any metabolites of toxicological concern. This nonionic surfactant would be expected to biodegrade ultimately and completely into carbon dioxide and water.

The metabolism of 4-n-nonylphenol (4-NP), a metabolite of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), has been investigated. The metabolism was examined in cell cultures of wheat, according to a standard method. Four major radioactively labeled fractions, were detected and isolated. They were shown to be 4-(hydroxy)- and 4-(dihydroxy) nonylphenols, which were glucosylated at the phenolic OH-group and further glucosylated, glucuronidated, and acylated with acetic acid or malonic acid. These results confirm and extend the findings of a trial investigating p-tert-octyphenol in barley plants. Hexaethoxylated p-tert-octylphenol was also reduced to monohydroxylated and glycosylated metabolites. It is proposed that, alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), would also be metabolized in the same manner.

2. Analytical method. Alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), and its metabolites, can be extracted from crop matrices by blending with methylene chloride. After blending, the extract is filtered, volume reduced, excess solvent is evaporated using nitrogen. The organic residue is then analyzed by using a high performance liquid chromotography (HPLC) equipped with a ultraviolet (UV) detector.

3. Magnitude of residues. EPA has already exempted from the requirements of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) the residues of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations that may be applied to growing crops, or raw agricultural commodities after harvest. As Safe Materials, Inc. is requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the magnitude of residues in cotton seed was not quantified.

1. Acute toxicity. The acute rat oral LD 50 was 2,910 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) male and 971 mg/kg female. The acute rat dermal LD 50 was 2,730 mg/kg male and < 3,000 mg/kg for female. The 4-hour rat inhalation LC 50 was 1.06 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for both male and female. Alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), was slightly irritating to rabbit skin and caused corneal involvement. Based on these results, alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) would be classified as EPA Category III, for inhalation toxicity and dermal toxicity, EPA Category IV, for oral toxicity and dermal irritation, and EPA Category I, for eye irritation. Alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), was not a sensitizer to the skin.

2. Genotoxicty. The Ames test for mutagenicity of nonoxynol-9, a structurally similar product, was negative.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The broad range of structurally similar products, which are presently approved for use in pesticide formulations, and adjuvants have not been reported to cause reproductive or developmental toxicity. In a 3-month study with rats, dietary administration of alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) at dose levels of 62.5, 125, 250 or 500 mg/kg/day resulted in statistically significant decreases in mean body weight gain, in both males and females at doses above 125 mg/kg/day. Females exhibited significant decreases in mean food consumption. Treatment had no effect on survival, clinical signs, organ weights, and weight gain. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 62.5 mg/kg and a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 125 mg/kg was established.

In a 3-month study with rats, dietary administration at 82, 154 and 354 mg/kg/day caused no adverse effects on survival, clinical signs, organ weights, hematology, or gross and histopathology at any dose level. Based upon decrease in body weight gain, a NOAEL of 154 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 354 mg/kg/day was established.

A two-generation rat reproductive study to determine reproductive toxicity of octylphenol, a structurally similar product was conducted. Five groups of rats were administered octylphenol at dose levels of 0, 0.2, 20, 200, and 2,000 parts per million (ppm). Effects were observed only at 2,000 ppm, including decreased body weights in adults, and during the latter portion of lactation in offspring and minor body weight-related delays in acquisition of vaginal opening and preputial separation. No effects on reproductive parameters, testes, prostate, or ovary weights or morphology, on sperm counts, motility, morphology or production, or on estrous cyclicity were observed. The NOAELs for systemic and postnatal toxicity were 200 ppm and at or above 2,000 ppm for reproductive toxicity.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Para-nonylphenol is used to produce nonylphenol ethoxylates (a class of nonionic surfactants), a subgroup of alkylphenol ethoxylates to which alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) belongs. The primary biodegradation of alkylphenol ethoxylates is the hydrolytic removal of ethoxylate groups. This step is relatively rapid, and results in the intermediate nonylphenol. Thus, it is widely accepted that tests with para-nonylphenol represent the alkylphenol ethoxylates.

In a 90-day rat feeding study, para-nonylphenol was administered to four groups of rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 15, 50, and 150, mg/kg/day. There were 25 rats/sex/group in the control and high dose groups and 15 rats/sex/group in the low and mid-dose groups. Ten of the 25 rats/sex in the control and high-dose groups were designated as recovery animals and were maintained on control diets for 4 weeks after completion of the 90-day exposure period to assess the reversibility of any effects which might be observed. In-life effects, were limited to small decreases in body weight and food consumption in the 150 mg/kg dose group. Post-mortem measurements at week 14 indicated a dose-related kidney weight increase in males and a decrease in renal haline globules/droplets in males from the high dose group. The kidney weights showed complete recovery following the 4-week post-dosing recovery period. Due to the small magnitude of the changes, (i.e., all weights were within or near laboratory historical control values), and the lack of correlating clinical or histopathological changes, the kidney weight alterations were not considered toxicologically significant. The biological significance of reduced hyaline in the kidneys of male rats from the high dose group is uncertain. Renal tubular hyaline is associated with the rat-specific protein, alpha-2u-globulin, and therefore, this finding was not considered toxicologically relevant to humans. No other effects attributable to para-nonylphenol were observed. Based upon the minor findings for the high dose group, the NOAEL in this study is considered to be 50 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/day.

5. Chronic toxicity. No long-term chronic toxicity studies are available for alkylphenol ethoxylates to which alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) belongs, but an unpublished 2-year feeding study in rats and an 18-month dermal study in mice using primary alcohol ethoxylates are available. There were no treatment related effects.

Additionally, in its notice of July 7, 1995 (60 FR 35396) (FRL-4957-9) which moved alkyl-omega- hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) from List 3 to List 4B (minimal risk), EPA stated:

• “On behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs, these substances were reviewed by the Structure Activity Team of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics with each judged to be of low concern for potential human health and/or environmental effects.”

• “These inert ingredients were evaluated by the Office of Pesticide Program's Inert Review Group and determined to be of minimal risk.”

• “A list of these inert ingredients proposed for reclassification was provided to EPA's Office of Water and to the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for comment; no adverse comments were received.”

Safe Materials, Inc. believes, alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ), should be classified as a “Not Likely” carcinogen based upon lack of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. As alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11--15 ) has been federally approved for use in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest, this particular minute, additional use should be of little concern to the welfare of the U.S. population.

6. Animal metabolism. The absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) is well understood in mammals. Pharmacokinetic data indicate rapid metabolism and excretion of alkylphenols, which is consistent with the low toxicity of nonylphenol. Current research confirms, that single doses of nonylphenol (5 or 200 mg/kg) are rapidly excreted, and that nonylphenol does not accumulate in the tissues of rats. It has also been proven that the liver and kidney of female rats were able to clear nonoxynol labeled with 14 C in the ethylene oxide chain within 48 hours. Similarly, it has been shown that structurally related alkylphenol, octylphenol, was rapidly excreted (half-life of approximately 5 hours) by first-pass hepatic metabolism via glucuronide conjugation. Octylphenol toxicokinetics after repeated administration was investigated, in male Wistar rats receiving daily gavage administrations of 50 or 200 mg octylphenol/kg body weight for 14 consecutive days. Profiles of octylphenol blood concentration vs time determined on day 1 and day 14 were similar, indicating that repeated oral gavage administration did not lead to increased blood concentrations. Only doses which saturated the metabolic capacity of the liver, ( < 200 mg/kg/day for 14-days), resulted in measurable concentrations of octylphenol in the tissues (primarily the fat). Another group of rats received octylphenol via drinking water saturated with octylphenol (8 ppm) over a period of 28-days. Octylphenol was not detected in any blood sample from animals treated via drinking water.

7. Endocrine disruption. A two-generation rat reproductive study to determine reproductive toxicity of octylphenol, a structurally similar product, was conducted. Five groups of rats were administered octylphenol at dose levels of 0, 0.2, 20, 200, and 2,000 ppm. No effects in reproductive parameters, testes, prostate, or ovary weights or morphology, on sperm counts, motility, morphology, production, or on estrous cyclicity were observed. No estrogen-like effects were evident.

In a 90-day rat feeding study, para-nonylphenol (primary breakdown product) was administered to four groups of rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 15, 50, and 150 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). There were 25 rats/sex/group in the control and high dose groups and 15 rats/sex/group in the low and mid dose groups. Ten of the 25 rats/sex in the control and high dose groups were designated as recovery animals and were maintained on control diets for 4 weeks after completion of the 90-day exposure period to assess the reversibility of any effects which might be observed. Estrous cyclicity was monitored using vaginal cytology during week 8 of the study, and sperm count, motility and morphology were evaluated at termination. No changes were observed for estrous cycling, sperm evaluations, or effects on endocrine organs. Para-nonylphenol, therefore, did not manifest any estrogen-like activity as measured in these parameters at dietary concentrations as high as 150 mg/kg/day. Safe Materials, Inc., therefore, does not expect alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) to exhibit any estrogen-like activity.

1. Dietary exposure. Alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ), is proposed as a nematicide and fungicide for use on cotton. EPA has exempted from the requirements of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) the residues of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations, that may be applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest. 21 CFR 173.315 permits use as a surface active agent for washing sugar beets prior to the slicing operation at a level not to exceed 3 ppm. 21 CFR 178.3400, allows use as an emulsifier and/or surface active agent in the manufacture of articles or components of articles intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging or holding food. 21 CFR 181.30 permits the use in the manufacture of paper and paperboard products for use in food packaging.

The Federal Register , of July 7, 1995 (60 FR 35396), announced the reclassification of a number of inert ingredients from List 3 to List 4B (minimal risk). EPA included alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) among those substances on List 4B indicating:

•  “On behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs, these substances were reviewed by the Structure Activity Team of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, with each judged to be of low concern for potential human health and/or environmental effects.”

•  “These inert ingredients were evaluated by the Office of Pesticide Program's Inert Review Group and determined to be of minimal risk.”

•  “A list of these inert ingredients proposed for reclassification was provided to EPA's Office of Water and to the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for comment; no adverse comments were received.”

i. Food . As 61 companies currently have 135 different pesticide products approved by the EPA containing alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) at varying concentrations approved for various use sites including food crops, we believe that the approval of this petition, adding the use of cotton would pose minimal additional risk to the U.S. population.

The addition of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) to the list of substances considered exempt, from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an active ingredient would merely acknowledge the fact that this product is safe to humans and the environment.

The addition of the expanded use on cotton is not expected to significantly increase the dietary exposure to this compound.

ii. Drinking water. The product has been shown to readily biodegrade and, therefore, is not likely to be present in potable water supplies. The standard wastewater treatment systems as they exist in the United States are able to treat surfactants effectively, and there is no evidence of accumulation of nonylphenol, or other structurally similar products in the aquatic environments.

A risk assessment of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates (a degradation product of the proposed chemical, in U.S. river water and sediment was conducted. A survey of those river reaches most likely to contain nonylphenol and its ethoxylate residues was conducted based on a random sample of a subset of EPA River Reach File defined by certain selection criteria. Applying enhanced analytical techniques, little or no nonylphenol or nonylphenoethoxylate was found in river water at most locations: median 0.00008 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 95th percentile 0.00027 mg/L.

A study of nonylphenol polyethoxy carboxylate (NPEC) metabolites of nonionic surfactants in U.S. paper mill effluents, municipal sewage treatment plant effluents and river waters reported similar findings. Paper mill effluents typically contained less than 100 μg/L NPECs and NPEC concentrations in effluents from sewage treatment plants ranged from 140 to 270 micrograms/Liter (μg/L). Based upon animal metabolism studies, these low level concentrations in drinking water would be rapidly excreted by humans.

2. Non-dietary exposure. Alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) (100% C 11-15 ) and structurally, similar surfactants are widely used in various industry, institutional, and household applications. U.S. production exceeded 500 million pounds in 1990. Industrial uses (55% of total volume) included manufacture of plastics, textiles, paper and agricultural chemical products. Institutional applications (30% of total volume) include vehicle cleaning, commercial laundry products, and hard surface cleaners. Personal care products, contraceptives, cosmetics, and household laundry products account for the majority of household applications (15% of total volume).

Given the wide spread use of this group of compounds, the additional exposure resulting from granting this petition is not expected to significantly alter the risk profile.

There is a wide range of structurally similar compounds that are used in many products to which the U.S. population is exposed. Safe Materials, Inc. is unaware of any cumulative effects occurring from such uses. Further, the use of the product that is subject to the tolerance exemption petition is not likely to significantly increase daily exposure to this class of compounds. Therefore, a cumulative risk assessment was not done for this chemical.

1. U.S. population. In the Federal Register of July 7, 1995 (60 FR 35396), which moved alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) from List 3 to List 4B (minimal risk) EPA stated:

• “On behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs, these substances were reviewed by the Structure Activity Team of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, with each judged to be of low concern for potential human health and/or environmental effects.”

• “These inert ingredients were evaluated by the Office of Pesticide Program's Inert Review Group and determined to be of minimal risk.”

• “A list of these inert ingredients proposed for reclassification, was provided to EPA's Office of Water and to the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition for comment; no adverse comments were received.”

Expansion of the uses of the product to cotton as an active ingredient, is not likely to significantly increase the U.S. population's exposure to the product and related compounds. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S. population will result from the use described.

2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety, for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base, unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments, either directly through the use of margin of exposure (MOE) analysis, or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. There is no available data to indicate any additional sensitivity of infants and children to this product, or to other similar products, which have been in use for many years and for numerous uses. There are no data that suggest that there is a basis to require an additional margin of safety to be applied.

There are no Codex Alimentarius Commission maximum residue levels established for residues of alpha-sec-alkyl(C 11-15 )-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene).