This notice advises the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a record of decision based on the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program final environmental impact statement and is making it available to the public. This record of decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS” NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests, including fruit flies, that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

At the request of the Government of the Republic of Chile, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is considering amending the regulations to allow the importation of clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile into the United States. To evaluate the risks associated with the importation of clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile, a draft pesk risk assessment entitled, “Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Clementine ( Citrus reticulata Blanco var. “Clementine”), Mandarin ( Citrus reticulata Blanco), and Tangerine ( Citrus reticulata Blanco) from Chile into the United States: A Pathway Initiated Plant Pest Risk Assessment” (Revised July 2002), has been prepared. We are making the draft pest risk assessment available to the public for review and comment.

In addition to the draft pest risk assessment, we are also making a risk management document entitled, “Measures Suggested for Quarantine Pest Risk Management in Clementines, Mandarin Oranges and Tangerines Exported from Chile to the Market of the United States of America” (March 2002), available for comment. This risk management document was prepared in Chile by the Fundacion para el Desarrollo Fruiticola. We expect that we would consider the risk management measures examined in that document during the development of any proposed rule concerning the importation of clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile.

You may view the draft pest risk assessment and the risk management document on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/, or in our reading room (information on the location and hours of the reading room is provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice). You may also request a copy of either document from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III and 9 CFR chapter I, subchapters D and G, require inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine of certain animals, poultry, animal byproducts, germ plasm, organisms, vectors, plants, plant products, or other regulated commodities or articles intended for importation into, or exportation from, the United States. With some exceptions, when these services must be provided by an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) employee on a Sunday or on a holiday, or at any other time outside the APHIS employee's regular duty hours, the Government charges an hourly overtime fee for the services in accordance with 7 CFR part 354 and 9 CFR part 97.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48519-48525, Docket No. 00-087-2), and effective August 11, 2002, we established, for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 and beyond, reimbursable overtime rates for Sunday, holiday, or other overtime work performed by APHIS employees for any person, firm, or corporation having ownership, custody, or control of animals, poultry, animal byproducts, germ plasm, organisms, vectors, plants, plant products, or other regulated commodities or articles subject to inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine. In this document we are providing notice to the public of the reimbursable overtime fees for fiscal year 2003 (October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003).

Under the regulations in 7 CFR 354.1(a) and 9 CFR 97.1(a), any person, firm, or corporation having ownership, custody, or control of plants, plant products, animals, animal byproducts, or other commodities or articles subject to inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine who requires the services of an APHIS employee on a Sunday or holiday, or at any other time outside the regular tour of duty of that employee, shall sufficiently in advance of the period of Sunday, holiday, or overtime service request the APHIS inspector in charge to furnish the service during the overtime or Sunday or holiday period, and shall, for fiscal year 2003, pay the Government at the rate listed in the following table:

As specified in 7 CFR 354.1(a)(1)(iii) and 9 CFR 97.1(a)(3), the overtime rates to be charged in fiscal year 2003 to owners or operators of aircraft at airports of entry or other places of inspection as a consequence of the operation of the aircraft, for work performed outside of the regularly established hours of service will be as follows:

A minimum charge of 2 hours shall be made for any Sunday or holiday or unscheduled overtime duty performed by an employee on a day when no work was scheduled for him or her, or which is performed by an employee on his or her regular workday beginning either at least 1 hour before his or her scheduled tour of duty or which is not in direct continuation of the employee's regular tour of duty. In addition, each such period of Sunday or holiday or unscheduled overtime work to which the 2-hour minimum charge provision applies may include a commuted traveltime period (see 7 CFR 354.1(a)(2) and 9 CFR 97.1(b)).

APHIS charges user fees for import- and export-related veterinary services. The regulations in 9 CFR part 130 list user fees for import- and export-related services provided by APHIS for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors.

These user fees are authorized by section 2509(c)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C. 136a). APHIS is authorized to establish and collect fees that will cover the cost of providing import- and export-related services for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors.

On August 28, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 51997-52010, Docket No. 97-058-2) a final rule that amended the regulations in 9 CFR part 130 by adjusting our user fees for import- and export-related services that we provide for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors and by setting user fees for these services for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 and beyond. Additionally, on August 1, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 39628-39632, Docket No. 99-060-2) another final rule that amended the regulations by updating some of the user fees in 9 CFR part 130. When we proposed to establish the user fees for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 and beyond, we stated that, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, we would publish a notice to remind the public of the user fees for that fiscal year. This document provides notice to the public of the user fees for fiscal year 2003 (October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003). The specific services and user fees are described below.

We provide standard and nonstandard housing, care, feed, and handling for individual animals and certain birds  1 quarantined in APHIS-owned or -operated animal quarantine facilities, including APHIS Animal Import Centers. As specified in § 130.2(a), the daily user fee for each animal or bird quarantined in APHIS-owned or -operated animal quarantine facilities receiving standard housing, care, feed, and handling for fiscal year 2003 will be as follows:

Certain conditions or traits, such as aggression, may necessitate special requirements for certain birds or poultry. Birds and poultry receiving nonstandard housing, care, feed, or handling to meet special requirements may receive those services while quarantined in an APHIS-owned or-operated quarantine facility at the request of an importer or as required by an APHIS representative. As specified in § 130.2(b), the daily user fee for each bird or poultry receiving nonstandard housing, care, or handling while quarantined in an APHIS-owned or-operated animal quarantine facility for fiscal year 2003 is $5.50 for birds weighing 250 grams or less, and doves, pigeons, and quail; $13 for birds weighing 251 to 1,000 grams and poultry such as chickens, ducks, grouse, guinea fowl, partridge, pea fowl, and pheasants; and $25 for birds over 1,000 grams and large poultry and large waterfowl, including, but not limited to game cocks, geese, swans, and turkeys. As specified in § 130.2(c), importers of animals or birds that require a diet other than standard feed must either provide feed or pay APHIS for feed on an actual cost basis, including the cost of delivery to the APHIS-owned or -operated animal import center or quarantine facility.

We accept requests from importers to exclusively occupy a space at an APHIS animal import center. As specified in § 130.3(a)(1), the monthly user fee for exclusive use of space at the APHIS animal import center in Newburgh, NY, for fiscal year 2003 is $57,630 to occupy a space 5,396 square feet in size, $95,085 for a space 8,903 square feet in size, and $9,666 for a space 905 square feet in size. The fees listed in § 130.3(a)(1) cover all costs of quarantine  2 except feed. The importer either provides the feed or pays for it on an actual cost basis, including the cost of delivery.

We process applications for permits to import and transport certain animals, animal products, organisms, vectors, and germ plasm. 3 As specified in § 130.4, the user fees for processing import permit applications for certain animals, animal products, organisms, vectors, and germ plasm during fiscal year 2003 will be as follows:

We inspect live animals presented for importation or entry into the United States through a land border port along the United States-Mexico border. As specified in § 130.6(a), the user fees for inspection of live animals at land border ports along the United States-Mexico border for fiscal year 2003 will be as listed in the following table:

We also inspect live animals presented for importation into or entry into the United States through a land border port along the United States-Canada border. As specified in § 130.7(a), user fees for import or entry services for live animals at land border ports along the United States-Canada border for fiscal year 2003 will be as follows:

We provide a variety of other services related to the importation into or exportation from the United States of animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors. As specified in § 130.8(a), user fees for those import-or export-related services during fiscal year 2003 are as follows:

We inspect lots of pet birds  4 of U.S. origin returning to the United States. As specified in § 130.10(a), user fees for the inspection of pet birds of U.S. origin returning to the United States, except pet birds of U.S. origin returning from Canada, during fiscal year 2003 are $105 per lot of birds which have been out of the United States for 60 days or less, and $250 per lot of pet birds which have been out of the United States for more than 60 days.

We also provide housing, care, feed, and handling for pet birds quarantined in APHIS-owned or -supervised quarantine facilities. The daily user fee to quarantine pet birds applies per isolette and varies based on the number of pet birds determined by an APHIS representative to be appropriate per isolette. All the birds quarantined in one isolette are covered by one fee, which is assessed daily for the duration of the quarantine. As specified in § 130.10(b), the daily user fee for each pet bird quarantined in an APHIS-owned or supervised quarantine facility for fiscal year 2003 is $9 for one pet bird quarantined in one isolette, $11 for two pet birds quarantined in one isolette, $13 for three pet birds quarantined in one isolette, $15 for four pet birds quarantined in one isolette, and $17 for five pet birds quarantined in one isolette.

We inspect and approve various import and export facilities and establishments. 5 As specified in § 130.11, the user fees for inspecting and approving import and export facilities and establishments during fiscal year 2003 will be as listed in the following table:

We endorse export health certificates for animals, birds, or animal products. 6 As specified in § 130.20(a), the user fees for each export health certificate endorsed for animals, birds, or animal products that do not require the verification of tests or vaccinations, regardless of the number of animals, birds, or animal products covered by the certificate, will be $31 for animal and nonanimal products, $29 for hatching eggs, $29 for poultry, including slaughter poultry, $34 for slaughter animals (except poultry) moving to Canada or Mexico, and $23 for other endorsements or certifications during fiscal year 2003.

We also endorse export health certificates for animals, birds, or animal products that require verification of tests or vaccinations. The user fees for these certificates apply to each export health certificate endorsed for animals and birds, depending on the number of animals or birds covered by the certificate and the number of tests or vaccinations required. As specified in § 130.20(b), the user fees for each export health certificate endorsed for animals and birds for fiscal year 2003 is as follows:

We provide certain import-or export-related veterinary services at hourly rates  7 that may be performed during and outside of regularly established hours of service. As specified in § 130.30(a), the user fees in fiscal year 2003 for import-or export-related hourly veterinary services performed during regularly established hours of service, except those services covered by flat rate user fees, will be $84 per hour or $21 per quarter hour for each APHIS employee; the per service minimum fee is $24. When the import-or export-related veterinary services listed in § 130.30(a)(1) through (a)(13) are performed on a Sunday, holiday, or at any time outside of an APHIS employee's normal tour of duty, a premium rate user fee is charged. As specified in § 130.30(b), the user fees in fiscal year 2003 for hourly veterinary services provided at any time outside an employee's normal tour of duty Monday through Saturday and on holidays will be $96 per hour or $24 per quarter hour for each APHIS employee, and the user fees for hourly veterinary services provided on a Sunday will be $108 per hour or $27 per quarter hour for each APHIS employee.

Users who request import- or export-related services that are covered by flat rate user fees on a Sunday, holiday, or any time outside of an APHIS employee's normal tour of duty, and who are subject to the overtime rates set forth in 7 CFR 354.1 or 9 CFR 97.1, are charged the hourly overtime rates set out in § 130.50(b)(3)(i) in addition to the flat rate user fees. For fiscal year 2003, the overtime rates charged to users who request flat rate user fee services are as follows:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2002).

On May 6, 2002, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review (67 FR 30356). On May 31, 2002, the Department received a timely request from one respondent, ALZ, for an administrative review covering the period from May 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1).

The Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on June 25, 2002. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 67 FR 42753 (June 25, 2002). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, ALZ, for the period of June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001. On September 23, 2002, ALZ withdrew its request for review, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations.

Pursuant to our regulations, the Department will rescind an administrative review, “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since ALZ, the only respondent in this proceeding, submitted a timely withdrawal of its request for review, the Department is rescinding its antidumping administrative review on stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium for the period May 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to the Customs Service.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order/finding for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days and for the final determination to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary determination) from the date of publication of the preliminary determination.

On March 27, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools from the People's Republic of China, covering the period February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002 ( 67 FR 14696 ). The preliminary results are currently due no later than October 31, 2002.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until no later than February 28, 2003. See Decision Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated concurrently with this notice, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results notice.

This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

On December 6, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain welded large diameter line pipe from Japan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Welded Large Diamter Line Pipe from Japan, 66 FR 63368 (December 6, 2001) (“ LDLP Order ”). On April 17, 2002, BP America, Inc. (“BP America”), a U.S. importer requested that the Department revoke in part the antidumping duty order on certain welded large diameter line pipe from Japan. Specifically, the U.S. importer requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: in API grades X80 or above, having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.90 inch or more; and, in API grades X100 or above, having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.54 inch or more. BP America indicated that, based on its consultations with domestic producers, the domestic producers lack interest in producing these sizes.

American Cast Iron Pipe Co., American Steel Pipe Division; Berg Steel Pipe Corp.; and Stupp Corp., the petitioners in the underlying sales at less-than-fair-value investigation (“the petitioners”) ( See LDLP Order ), filed a letter on May 7, 2002, partially consenting to BP America's request. However, on May 21, 2002, the petitioners filed another letter rescinding their initial response and fully consenting to the exclusion of these sizes from the order, i.e. in API grades X80 or above, having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.90 inch or more; and, in API grades X100 or above, having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.54 inch or more. On June 10, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded large diameter line pipe from Japan, meeting the specifications mentioned above. See Initiation Notice.

On August 16, 2002, the Department published the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review. See Preliminary Results. In the Preliminary Results, we indicated that interested parties could submit comments for consideration in the Department's final results. We did not receive any comments.

The product covered by this antidumping order is certain welded carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular cross section and with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, but less than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or not stencilled. This product is normally produced according to American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications, including Grades A25, A, B, and X grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can also be produced to other specifications. The product currently is classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) item numbers 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30. 7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Specifically not included within the scope of this investigation is American Water Works Association (AWWA) specification water and sewage pipe and the following size/grade combinations; of line pipe:

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( i.e. , a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request, which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) based on changed circumstances, if it determines that: (i) Producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order (or part of the order to be revoked) pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or (ii) if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist.

Taking into consideration that (1) the petitioners have uniformly expressed that they do not want relief with respect to this particular sub-product, and that (2) there have been no contrary expressions from the remainder of the known LDLP producers, the Department is revoking the order on certain welded large diameter line pipe from Japan, effective on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , with respect to all future entries for consumption of welded large diameter line pipe which meet the specifications detailed above, in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d) and 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to terminate suspension of liquidation for all future entries of welded large diameter line pipe ( i.e. , certain large diameter line pipe) meeting the specifications indicated above.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, and 351.222.

The Large Pelagic Fishing Survey consists of dockside and telephone surveys of recreational anglers for large pelagic fish (tunas, sharks, and billfish) in the Atlantic Ocean. The survey provides NMFS with information to monitor catch of bluefin tuna and marlin. Catch monitoring in these fisheries and collection of catch and effort statistics for all pelagic fish is required under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The information collected is essential for the U.S. to meet its reporting obligations to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna.

Dockside and telephone interviews are used.

OMB Number : 0648-0380.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 21,500.

Estimated Time Per Response : 2 minutes to respond to a pre-survey screening phone call; 8 minutes for a telephone interview; 5 minutes for a dockside interview; 1.5 minutes to respond to a follow-up validation call for dockside interviews; 3 minutes for a response to socio-economic add-on interview questions; 5 minutes for a charter/headboat vessel captain background interview; 5 minutes for a biological sampling of catch; and 8 minutes for a headboat effort and catch survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 4,752.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Millennium Pipeline Company filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Commerce, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, asking that the Secretary of Commerce override the State of New York's objection to Millennium's proposed natural gas pipeline. The pipeline would extend from the Canadian border in Lake Erie and cross the Hudson River, affecting the natural resources or land and water uses of New York's coastal zone.

On September 9, 2002, NOAA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it would hold a public hearing concerning the appeal. See 67 FR 57220. The notice provided information about the date and location of the hearing and indicated additional details would be forthcoming. This notice provides additional scheduling information for the hearing.

The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at the Hilton Tarrytown Hotel, and continue throughout the day with afternoon and evening sessions. Intermissions are expected near noon and in the late afternoon (approximately 4:30 p.m.). In addition, a temporary recess may be scheduled for periods when all registered speakers have had an opportunity to testify. Speakers must register on the day of the hearing, on site, at the hotel. Registration of speakers will begin at 9 a.m. Each organization that registers should expect to receive a total of five minutes for its representatives to present oral comments. Individuals from the general public who register will receive approximately three minutes to speak. Speakers will be recognized in the order in which they register (a first-come-first-serve basis), alternating between individuals from the general public and those representing organizations. A specific period is also expected to be designated during the morning and afternoon sessions for remarks by elected officials.

Written comments may be submitted to NOAA at the hearing by any person in attendance. For submissions at the hearing, we request, but do not require, that you provide three copies for inclusion into the administrative record. Apart from the hearing, written comments may be submitted by e-mail to millennium.comments@noaa.gov or forwarded via mail to the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services. Comments must be received by December 2, 2002. Comments will be made available to the parties; they are also expected to be posted on the Department of Commerce website at http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.

This hearing is being held to obtain information on issues the Secretary will likely consider in deciding Millennium's appeal. A summary of relevant issues as well as additional background on the appeal appears in the September 9, 2002, Federal Register announcement referenced above, a copy of which can be found on the Internet at http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.

Questions concerning the hearing may be sent via email to gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov or made by telephone to 301 713-2967, extension 186.

The Board is established by Executive Order 13270 dated July 3, 2002 to provide advice regarding the progress made by federal agencies toward fulfilling the purposes and objective of the order. The Board shall also provide recommendations to the President and the Secretary of Education at least annually on ways Tribal Colleges can: (1) Use long-term development, endowment building, and master planning to strengthen institutional viability; (2) improve financial management and security, obtain private sector funding support, and expand and complement federal education initiatives; (3) develop institutional capacity through the use of new and emerging technologies offered by the federal and private sectors; (4) enhance physical infrastructure to facilitate more efficient operation and effective recruitment and retention of students and faculty; and (5) help implement the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and meet other high standards of educational achievement.

The general public is welcome to attend. However, space is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting ( i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format) should notify Betty Thompson at (202) 260-0223 no later than October 21, 2002. We will attempt to meet requests after this date, but cannot guarantee availability of the requested accommodation. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

A summary of the activities of the meeting and other related materials, which are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available to the public within 14 days after the meeting. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges & Universities, United States Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The information collected submitted for OMB review contains: 1. Collection of Information: FERC-600 “Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures”. 2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 3. Control No.: 1902-0180.

The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection. There is an adjustment only to the reporting burden. The information filed with the Commission is voluntary but submitted with prescribed information. Requests for confidential treatment of the information are provided for under Section 388.112 of the Commission's regulations. 4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the information is necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA.), 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; the Natural Gas Policy Act(NGPA); 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432; the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. 2601-2645; the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App. § 1 et seq. and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301-1356.9.

In Order No. 602, 64 FR 17087 (April 8, 1999), the Commission revised its regulations governing complaints filed with the Commission under the above statutes. Order No. 602 was designed to encourage and support consensual resolution of complaints, and to organize the complaint procedures so that all complaints are handled in a timely and fair manner. In order to achieve the latter, the Commission revised Rule 206 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206) to require that a complaint satisfy certain informational requirements, that answers be filed in a shorter, 20-day time frame, and that parties may employ various types of alternative dispute resolution procedures to resolve complaints.

With respect to public utilities, Section 205(e) of the FPA provides: Whenever any such new schedule is filed, the Commission shall have the authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint at once, and, if it so orders, without answer or formal pleading by the public utility, but upon reasonable notice to enter upon hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate, charge, classification, or service; and pending such hearing and the decision of the Commission * * *

For the natural gas industry, Section 14(a) of the NGA provides: The Commission may permit any person to file with it a statement in writing, under oath or otherwise, as it shall determine, as to any or all facts and circumstances concerning a matter which may be the subject of an investigation.

Concerning hydroelectric projects, Section 19 of the FPA provides: * * * it is agreed as a condition of such license that jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Commission, upon complaint of any person aggrieved or upon its own initiative, to exercise such regulation and control until such time as the State shall have provided a commission or other authority for such regulation and control * * *

For qualifying facilities, Section 210(h)(2)(B) of PURPA provides: Any electric utility, qualifying cogenerator, or qualifying small power producer may petition the Commission to enforce the requirements of subsection (f) as provided in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.

Likewise for oil pipelines, Part 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), Sections 1, 6 and 15 (recodified by P.L. 95-473 and found as an appendix to Title 49 U.S.C.) authorize the Commission to investigate the rates charged by oil pipeline companies subject to its jurisdiction. If a proposed oil rate has been filed and allowed by the Commission to go into effect without suspension and hearing, the Commission can investigate the effective rate on its own motion or by complaint filed with the Commission. Section 13 of the ICA provides that: Any person, firm, corporation, company or association, or any mercantile, agricultural, or manufacturing society or other organization, or any common carrier complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to the Commission by petition, which shall briefly state the facts; whereupon a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint, or to answer the same in writing, within a reasonable time, to be specified by the Commission * * *

The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Sections 385.206 and 385.213. 5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently comprises 8 companies (on average) subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 6. Estimated Burden: 1,064 total hours, 76 respondents(average), 1 response per respondent, 14 hours per response (average). 7. Estimated Cost Burden to respondents: 1,064 hours / 2080 hours per years x $117,041 per year = $59,870. The cost per respondent is equal to $787.00.

Statutory Authority: Sections 19 and 205(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 797(e), 799; Section 14(a) of the Natural Gas Act; Section 210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act; Part 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act (recodified by Pub. L. 95-473 and found as an appendix to Title 49 U.S.C. and 43 U.S.C. 1301-1356.9.

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

Industry (NACIS 111, 112, 311, 32532), e.g., crop production, animal production, food manufacturing, pesticide manufacturing.

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0263. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. EPA Dockets—i . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2002-0263. The system is an, “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0263. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency (7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0263.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0263. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

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

EPA has received a pesticide petition 2F06453 from Taensa, Inc., 26 Sherman Ct, P.O. Box 764, Fairfield, CT 06430, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the microbial pesticide Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Taensa, Inc. has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Taensa, Inc. EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

TAEGRO TM is currently registered with EPA for use on ornamentals in greenhouses and indoors (EPA Registration Number 72098-5). TAEGRO TM Technical (EPA Registration Number 72098-6) is also registered with EPA. Registration of TAEGRO TM is being proposed for the following sites (including those previously registered): Herbs and spices; ornamentals; shrubs, shade and forest trees; tree, vine, bush and other crops; turf; and vegetables.

Methods of application of TAEGRO TM will include seed treatment, incorporation into growth substrate as a dry powder or as an aqueous suspension, drenching, spraying, dipping (roots or cuttings), spraying, chemigation, and hydroponic use. As a plant strengthening agent, TAEGRO TM increases yield of many crops, improves flowering and plant quality, stimulates resistance of plants to disease, plant disease suppressant and can be used with fungicides. Directions for use of TAEGRO TM are as follows:

Apply TAEGRO TM as early as possible in the life cycle of the plant to enhance growth and disease resistance. TAEGRO TM should be applied to plants every few weeks for up to three to four applications as needed. For best results, apply TAEGRO TM to seedlings or to newly rooted cuttings.

1. Transplants, including plugs. TAEGRO TM may be applied to transplants by dipping or by drenching, making sure the root system is thoroughly soaked. For dipping, follow the instructions for “Cutting and Root Dips” before planting transplants into soil medium. For drenching, first plant the transplants into soil medium and then follow instructions for “Drenching.”

2. Drenching. Apply TAEGRO TM to seedlings or to newly rooted cuttings. Drench plants with the TAEGRO TM suspension making sure the root system is thoroughly soaked. Allowing TAEGRO TM to work into the root zone.

Apply TAEGRO TM as follows:

•   Per 100 gallons of water - by weight use 75 grams or 2.6 ounces; by volume use 3.5 fluid ounces of TAEGRO TM .

•   Per 1 gallon of water 5 grams - by weight use 0.75 gram; by volume use 0.2 teaspoon of TAEGRO TM .

3. Cutting and root dips. Stir suspension for several minutes to ensure complete mixture and to eliminate clumps. Place rootstock in the suspension for 5 to 10 minutes allowing time for TAEGRO TM to penetrate the root zone. Ornamentals should receive at least one follow-up drench treatment 2 to 3 weeks following initial treatment.

Apply TAEGRO TM as follows:

•   Per 10 gallons of water - by weight, use 40 grams; by volume, 1.8 fluid ounces of TAEGRO TM .

•   Per 1 gallon of water - by weight, use 4 grams; by volume, use 1 teaspoon of TAEGRO TM .

•   Per 1 Liter of water - by weight, use 1 gram of TAEGRO TM .

4. Turf. As an overhead spray, mix 75 grams of TAEGRO TM in 100 gallons of water. Before applying, stir product for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Apply solution with a conventional sprayer using at least 50 gallons of water per acre. Water-in TAEGRO TM immediately after application with a minimum of 1/10 inch of water. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

5. Row crops. Mix 75 grams of TAEGRO TM in 100 gallons of water. Before applying, stir product for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. At time of (or just following) planting, apply as a spray over furrow. Water-in TAEGRO TM immediately after application with a minimum of 1/10 inch of water. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

6. Hydroponics. Prepare a stock solution by adding 1 gram of TAEGRO TM , for every 50 feet of irrigation tubing, in 1 gallon of water. Stir product for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Add solution to circulating water system and allow to go through three to five watering cycles before clearing the system. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

7. Seed treatments. Prior to planting, mix 4 grams of TAEGRO TM in 1 liter of water (or 3 teaspoons per gallon of water). Stir solution for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Pour seeds into solution and allow to soak for 10 to 30 minutes. For very small seeds, soaking seedlings in plug trays after germination might be easier.

8. Tubers, bulbs and corms. Mix 4 grams of TAEGRO TM in 1 liter of water (or 3 teaspoons per gallon of water). Stir solution for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Dip tubers (or bulbs, etc.) for 10 to 30 minutes before planting. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

9. Soil incorporation. Mix TAEGRO TM into soil or soilless growing media at a rate of 250 grams per cubic yard. Thoroughly mix media, using mechanical mixing equipment, to ensure a uniform distribution of product. Incorporated into soil, TAEGRO TM can be raked into growing beds prior to planting.

10. Mushrooms. Mix TAEGRO TM into spawn medium at a rate of 10 grams per cubic foot. Thoroughly mix, using mechanical mixing equipment, to ensure a uniform distribution of product.

11. Interiorscapes. Before application, thoroughly moisten root zone with water. Mix 1 gram of TAEGRO TM per 1 liter of water (or 3/4 teaspoon per gallon of water). Stir solution for several minutes to ensure complete suspension. Drench solution onto root zone to ensure coverage to all roots. TAEGRO TM performs best when applied to seedlings or young plants. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

12. Orchids and ferns. For potted orchids and ferns, follow directions for drenching. For orchids and ferns with exposed roots, prepare 4 grams of TAEGRO TM in 1 liter of water (or 3 teaspoons per gallon of water). Pour solution into spray container (or squirt bottle) and spray roots to point of drip. TAEGRO TM performs best when applied to seedlings or young plants. For best results, make two or three applications spaced 1 week apart.

1. Identity of pesticide and corresponding residues . The active ingredient in TAEGRO TM is Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. The mechanism by which Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 acts as a plant strengthening agent, increases yield of many crops, improves flowering and plant quality, stimulates resistance of plants to disease, plant disease suppressant appears to be primarily via secondary exudates. Suppression of plant disease by Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 may also be competitive. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is not known to produce toxins or antibiotics. Further, Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment and occurs in most arable soils of the world.

2. Magnitude of residue anticipated at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. No residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 are anticipated in treated crops at harvest. Subdivision M - Series 153A-3(a) indicates that “if Tier I toxicology tests indicate no toxic or other harmful properties, then no residue data would be indicated.” Studies with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 demonstrated low mammalian toxicity. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. Further, Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment.

3. Statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. Subdivision M - Series 153A-3(a) indicates that “ if Tier I toxicology tests indicate no toxic or other harmful properties, then no residue data would be indicated and thus a recommendation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance can be made.” Studies with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 demonstrated low mammalian toxicity. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. Further, Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment.

Taensa, Inc. conducted the required toxicology studies to support its petition for an exemption from the requirement of tolerance and associated registrations of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. The studies conducted indicate a low mammalian toxicity for Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. With the exception of an inhalation study for the end-use product (TAEGRO TM ), which is being submitted in support of this application, all toxicology data generated by Taensa have been reviewed by EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD).

Toxicology data in support of the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 included studies with spores (technical) and with the formulated product (water dispersible powder) as follows:

1. Acute toxicity and/or pathogenicity—a. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 Spores (Technical):

•  Acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity in rats - “does not appear to be toxic and/or pathogenic when dosed at 1.3 x 10 8 cfu.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•  Acute dermal toxicity/pathogenicity in rabbits - “The severity of irritation persisted 72 h, and slight irritation persisted for 10 d, and all resolved by day 11. No deaths observed. The acute lethal dose (LD 50 ) is greater than 2,000 mg/kg. . .Dermal irritation = Toxicity II; Dermal Toxicity = Toxicity III.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•  Acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity in rats - “does not appear to be toxic and/or pathogenic in rats, when dosed at 1.3 x 10 8 cfu/animal. No total clearance is seen form the lungs of treated test animals showed a distinct pattern of clearance from kidney, liver, and spleen.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•  Acute intravenous toxicity/pathogenicity in rats - “does not appear to be toxic and/or pathogenic in rats, when dosed at 1.7 x 10 8 cfu/animal.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•  Primary eye irritation - “showed no signs of persistent irritation into day 21, when dosed at 4.7 x 10 10 cfu/right eye/animal.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999 - The initial review indicated Toxicity Category I, but was amended to Toxicity Category II (BPPD Review March 7, 2000).

•  Hypersensitivity testing - “Based on the submitted data does not appear to be a sensitizer when dosed at 3.6 x 10 10 cfu.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•  Hypersensitivity incident reporting - “No recorded or reported hypersensitivity reaction based on handling MCPA in lab control setting, equating to 55 person years.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•  Potential health effects - “Based on information given, there are no apparent negative effects - cited literature on B. Subtilis indicate and/or support the development as a biological control.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•   Growth parameters - “is shown to grow at all tested temperatures (e.g., 30, 34, 37, and 50 o C). The enumeration shows a low 4.2 x 10 11 cfu/g at 37 o C to a high 6.0 x 10 11 cfu/g at 34 o C.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

b. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 WDG (formulation):

•   Acute oral LD 50 toxicity in rats - “Toxic/limit dose greater than 2.8 g/kg body weight (6.7 x 10 10 cfu/kg) Toxicity Category III.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•   Acute dermal LD 50 toxicity in rats - “The severity of irritation persisted > 72 h, but resolved by day 11. No deaths observed. The acute dose (LD 50 ) is greater than 2,000 mg/kg Dermal irritation = Toxicity Category II; Dermal Toxicity = Toxicity Category III.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

•   Acute inhalation LC 50 toxicity in rats (formulation) - “an acute inhalation medium lethal concentration (LC 50 ) in male and female rats is greater than 0.93 mg/L Toxicity Category II.” IIT Research Institute (Document 2 of this submission)

•   Primary eye irritation “no corneal opacity, and no signs of irritation by day 7, when dosed at 3.6 x 10 10 cfu/right eye/animal Toxicity Category III.” BPPD Review December 20, 1999.

c. The inert ingredients contained in the Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 formulation, TAEGRO TM are all minimal risk (List 4).

2. Genotoxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of genotoxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of reproductive and developmental toxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of subchronic toxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24.

5. Chronic toxicity. Subdivision M Guidelines do not require the conduct of chronic toxicity studies to support the registration of a microbial pest control agent, such as Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24.

According to Taensa, Inc., sufficient data exist to assess the hazards of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(c)(2), for the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. The exposures, including dietary exposure, and risks associated with establishing the requested exemption from the requirement of a tolerance follows.

Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is naturally occurring and widespread in the environment. The low toxicity and non-pathogenicity/infectivity of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is demonstrated by the data summarized herein. The product will be applied as a seed treatment and via incorporation, drenching, spraying, dipping, chemigation and hydroponics.

1. Dietary exposure—a. Food. It is not anticipated that residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 will occur in treated raw agricultural commodities.

b. Drinking water. It is not anticipated that residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 will occur in drinking water.

2. Non-dietary exposure. The potential for non-occupational, non-dietary exposure to the general population is not expected to be significant.

There is no anticipated potential for cumulative effects of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 and other substances that have a common mode of action.

1. U.S. population. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens is widespread in the environment. The low toxicity of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 is demonstrated by the data summarized above. Based on this information, the aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 over a lifetime should not pose appreciable risks to human health. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 residues. Exempting Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 from the requirement of a tolerance should be considered safe and pose insignificant risk.

2. Infants and children. The toxicity and exposure data are sufficiently complete to adequately address the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 residues.

No specific tests have been conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 to determine whether it may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. However, it is not likely that Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 would have estrogen or endocrine effects because:

• It is a naturally occurring microorganism. Bacillus subtilis is widespread in the environment

•  It has demonstrated low mammalian toxicity. No pathogenicity or infectivity was observed in any of the tests conducted with Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24

The mechanism by which Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 controls diseases appears to be via exudates Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 does not produce toxins or antibiotics.

No tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of tolerance have been established or applied for domestically or internationally other that subject petition.

No maximum residue levels have been established for Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB24 by codex Alimentarius Commission.

General NPDES permits AK-G70-0000 and AK-G70-1000 regulate the discharge of woody debris (e.,g., bark and branches) at log transfer facilities (LTFs), which include log storage areas (LSAs), along the Southeast Alaskan coast. Woody debris is generated in the transfer of the de-limbed trunks of felled trees from upland storage lots to floating holding areas. The agency developed numerous technical documents in support of the control of pollution associated with the transfer and storage of logs ( e.g. , USEPA 1973, The Influence of Log Handling on Water Quality; USEPA 1976, Effects of Log Handling and Storage on Water Quality; USEPA 1996, Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation of the NPDES General Permit for Log Transfer Facilities). The EPA has relied further upon supporting research from other sources ( e.g. , Pease 1974, Effects of Log Dumping and Rafting on the Marine Environmental of Southeast Alaska; NMFS 1976, Some Effects of Log Dumping on Estuaries; Conlan and Ellis 1979, Effects of Wood Waste on Sand-bed Benthos; Freese and O'Clair 1984, Response of the Littleneck Clam and the Edible Mussel Exposed to Decomposing Wood Waste from a Log Transfer Facility; USFS 1986, Relationship between Bark Loss and Log Transfer Method; Jackson 1986, Effects of Bark Accumulation on Benthic Infauna at a Log Transfer Facility in Southeast Alaska).

The EPA, together with the State of Alaska, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Alaskan timber industry and representatives of the public, participated in the Governor of Alaska's Alaska Timber Task Force (ATTF) to develop guidelines to control detrimental impacts of LTFs to water quality, aquatic life, and habitat. The ATTF issued the “Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operations and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines' (1985 hereafter, “Guidelines”). The ATTF recognized that LTFs impose a much greater physical stress upon the environment than chemical stress and accordingly emphasized protective siting and operational practices, supported by monitoring, to control pollution and impacts to the environment.

The EPA has tentatively determined that a project area zone of deposit for trace, discontinuous, and continuous coverage of bark and woody debris on the seafloor is appropriate because the Alaska Water Quality Standard (AWQS) for residues is zero. The inclusion of areas of trace and discontinuous bark accumulations in the zone of deposit authorized under the AWQS is consistent with prior zones of deposit issued for LTFs and to the factual reality of how bark is distributed when discharged from LTFs. Depositional patterns of bark from LTFs, coupled with existing information that indicates that environmental harm results from complete coverage, but not trace and discontinuous coverage, supports the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's Certificates of Reasonable Assurance on the general permits which authorized a project area zone of deposit to limit all potential accumulations of bark and woody debris.

Previous individual LTF permits contained zones of deposit limited to 100% coverage exceeding both one acre in size and a thickness greater than 10 centimeters at any point as a fixed limit. However, trace and discontinuous coverage, although known to occur, was not specifically limited. According to the ADEC, those previous LTF zones of deposit did not recognize and address the reality that the deposits of bark and other woody debris include a continuum from trace amounts to piles. See July 29, 1999 ADEC letter, page 2. The ADEC further explained that under the AWQS no accumulation is allowed, thus, “to authorize an acre of continuous coverage while ignoring the thinner deposits that surround it simply does not acknowledge what really occurs.” Page 2, ADEC July 29, 1999 letter. Based on existing information, a zone of deposit for trace, discontinuous, and continuous bark and woody debris covering the area of the LTF project is protective of the environment as long as continuous coverage is separately addressed. The ADEC has determined, in the present permit as in past permits, to address the accumulation of continuous bark of 10 cm thickness to one acre, though it has determined that this area is a threshold for remediation in lieu of a limit on the extent of the zone of deposit.

In accordance with the Ninth Circuit's Order, the EPA is seeking comment on this issue.

Major modifications are proposed for the general NPDES permits. Table 1 below summarizes the major modifications. The basis for the proposed major modifications are contained in this Notice. Two draft permits containing the proposed modifications are available for public review.

The EPA proposes to make substantive changes in both permits to: (1) Revise the authorization process; (2) set a limit on the area of continuous bark deposit; (3) revise the threshold for revising the Pollution Prevention Plan for controlling bark deposition; and (4) revise the monitoring requirements pertaining to the deposition of bark.

The proposed major modifications to the general NPDES permits for Alaskan LTFs addresses new information received in implementing the general NPDES permits, and contained in the Memorandum, Final Order and Final Decision issued on May 10, 2002, by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation in an administrative appeal of the State's Section 401 Certificates of Reasonable Assurance for the general NPDES permits. The Memorandum, Final Order and Final Decision of the ADEC upheld the State Certificates, except as to its application to discharges in impaired waterbodies.

Since the general NPDES permits were issued in 2000, the EPA has compiled the information obtained from LTFs applying for coverage under the general NPDES permits to obtain a better understanding of the industry. The EPA has learned that 56% of the facilities seeking coverage under the general permits have less than 0.25 acre of continuous bark coverage ( i.e., 100% bark coverage greater than 10 cm at any point), 33% have 0.25 to 1.0 acre of continuous coverage, and 11% have more than one acre of continuous coverage. Thus, nine out of ten LTFs applying for coverage under the two general NPDES permits have less than 1.0 acre of continuous bark accumulation. In addition, 71% of the applicant LTFs have less than one acre of discontinuous bark coverage ( i.e., 10% to 99% bark coverage), 16% have 1.0 to 2.0 acres of discontinuous coverage, and 12% have more than two acres of discontinuous bark coverage of the seafloor. Again, then roughly nine out of ten LTFs applying for coverage have less than 2.0 acres of discontinuous coverage. The EPA also has obtained information on the patterns, variations, and causes of bark deposition in time and space. Based on analysis of this information, indications are that eight LTFs have continuous coverage of more than one acre, thus, likely will require individual permits with site-specific assessments in order to receive an NPDES authorization to discharge.

The first proposed change in the general NPDES permits relates to the State's Final Decision. The ADEC has established a process for analyzing applicability of the antidegradation and zone of deposit provisions for LTFs that seek authorization under the general permits. That process was upheld in the Final Decision. EPA is proposing to modify the general permits to delete the provision that the Director of the EPA may cover an LTF even if the discharger has not submitted an NOI or Notification. These deletions occur at permit sections I.A (p. 1) and IV.E (p. 8) of AK-G70-0000 and sections I.B (p. 1), III.E (p. 5) and V.A (p. 9) of AK-G70-1000, as indicated in Table 1 (above).

The second proposed change is also necessary to implement the ruling in the State Final Decision. The Final Decision held that a general permit cannot be used to authorize discharges in a waterbody listed as impaired under CWA section 303(d), 33 U.S.C. 1313(d). Under AK-G70-1000, “new” dischargers could not be authorized to discharge into waterbodies listed as impaired under either section 303(d) or section 305(b)., Under today's proposal, no dischargers, whether new or existing, could be authorized to discharge into waterbodies listed as impaired for residues under either section 303(d) or section 305(b). The deletion of the term “new” occurs at permit section III.C.1 (p. 4) of AK-G70-1000, as indicated in Table 1 (above). General permit AK-G70-0000 does not include any restriction concerning discharges into impaired waterbodies, but would be modified to specify that no discharge of pollutants from the facility is authorized under the permit until the ADEC completes its analysis and authorizes the project area zone of deposit. That modification to general permit AK-G70-0000 will occur in section I.A (p. 1).

The third proposed change is based on dive surveys of bark deposition at applicant LTFs. According to these surveys, eight facilities have continuous bark deposits that exceed one acre and four of these LTFs have continuous bark deposits that exceed 2.0 acres. The recent dive surveys indicate that the area of discontinuous bark coverage at these eight LTFs ranges from 0.4 to 10.4 acres and that bark deposits at some LTFs have increased by more than two acres in one year. Under section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, NPDES permits must include any limitations, standards, or other permit conditions necessary to comply with or implement water quality standards. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 122.44(d). The EPA has tentatively determined that a limit on continuous coverage of bark and woody debris on the seafloor within the project area of a LTF is needed to meet water quality standards and prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. The modified general permits, as proposed, include an explicit limit on continuous coverage of the seafloor at section III.A.3 (p. 3) of AK-G70-0000 and section IV.A.3 (p. 6) of AK-G70-1000, as indicated in Table 1: “a permittee shall not exceed 1.0 acre of continuous coverage of the seafloor by 100% bark and woody debris with a thickness of 10 cm or greater at any point.” A permit limit in the general NPDES permits for continuous coverage will ensure that levels of bark and woody debris accumulating on the seafloor which present the most potential for environmental harm will not occur during the term of the permit. The Guidelines provide that at one acre of continuous coverage regulatory discretion to require cleanup is appropriate. The general NPDES permits include siting criteria and operational practices for log transfer facilities that reduce the discharge of bark and wood debris from LTFs. The EPA's information indicates that, for a majority of the operating LTFs, these conditions and practices successfully limit accumulations of bark and woody debris to under one acre of continuous coverage and less than 10 centimeters in depth. Moreover, previous individual LTF permits limited continuous coverage to one acre and 10 centimeters in depth, thus, it may be backsliding to eliminate that limit as to those facilities.

Under the current permits, the permittee is required to develop and implement additional practices through revisions to its Pollution Prevention Plan if its continuous coverage reaches one acre in size. The fourth change the EPA is proposing would lower the threshold for the need of a permittee to revise its Pollution Prevention Plan from one acre to .075 of an acre, thus, before a permittee reaches the permit limit of one acre of continuous coverage. This proposed modification has the same basis as the third proposed modification discussed above. The reduction of the threshold from 1.0 acre to 0.75 acre occurs at permit sections III.B.13 (p. 4), VI.F (p. 18) and VI.I (p. 18) of AK-G70-0000 and sections IV.B.1.h (p. 7), VII.F.6 (p. 23) and VII.I (p. 23) of AK-G70-1000, as indicated in Table 1 (above).

The fifth change in the permits would modify the monitoring requirements based on the bark surveys indicating that continuous bark deposition has been observed at depths of −60 ft MLLW at a number of facilities and undoubtedly extends into deeper water. The EPA has tentatively determined that a more accurate assessment of bark deposition at LTFs, specifically the continuous coverage, requires that the monitoring of bark deposits extend out to −100 feet in depth. The 100 foot depth is the limit for commercial scuba diving without an on-site compressor that has been set by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The AWQS criteria of “no residues on the bottom” applies to any depth of water in the State of Alaska. Given the standard and given the proposed limit of one acre of continuous coverage, the EPA is proposing to require that the maximum depth for bark monitoring for continuous coverage of bark be −100 feet, rather than −60 feet. The permit modifications occur at sections III.E (p. 5), V.C.1 (p. 11), V.C.3 (p. 11) and V.C.5 (p. 12) of AK-G70-0000 and sections IV.E (p. 9), V.D.7 (p. 13), VI.C.1 (p. 16), VI.C.3 (p. 16) and VI.C.5 (p. 17) of AK-G70-1000, as indicated in Table 1 (above).

In accordance with 40 CFR 122.62, EPA is seeking comment on the proposed modifications discussed above. Only the conditions to be modified are being reopened by the draft permits, and public comment is only being sought on the proposed modifications. See 40 CFR 124.5.

The following minor modifications will be made to the general permits. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.63(a), no comment is being requested on these modifications.

Administrative Record: The two draft general NPDES permit nos. AK-G70-0000 and AK-G70-1000, and this Federal Register Notice are available for inspection and copying at six locations: (a) EPA-Juneau, 709 West 9th Street, Room 223A; (b) ADEC-Juneau, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 200; (c) EPA-Anchorage, 222 West 7th Avenue, Room 19; (d) ADEC-Anchorage, 555 Cordova Street; (e) ADEC-Ketchikan, 540 Water Street; and (f) EPA-Seattle, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 10th floor library. These documents are also available on EPA Region 10's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/. The administrative record for the proposed modifications reflected in the draft general NPDES permits AK-G70-0000 and AK-G70-1000 and the project area zone of deposit can be reviewed in EPA's Seattle Office, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 13th Floor.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy publishes these final guidelines in accordance with the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (“Government-wide Guidelines”) published in interim final form by OMB in the Federal Register in Volume 66, No. 189 at 49718 on Friday, September 28, 2001, and in final form in Volume 2, No. 67 at 8452 on February 22, 2002. These published guidelines were issued pursuant to section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; HR 5658).

ONDCP published a notice of availability for proposed information quality guidelines in the Federal Register on June 6, 2002 (67 FR 38959). ONDCP amended its proposed guidelines to reflect guidance provided to all the agencies in a Memorandum from John D. Graham for the President's Management Council, “Agency Draft Information Quality Guidelines” (June 10, 2002) (“June 10 Memorandum”) and a Memorandum from John D. Graham to the President's Management Council, “Agency Final Information Quality Guidelines” (September 5, 2002) (“September 5 Memorandum”). These memoranda are available on OMB's Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html . ONDCP also received public comments from two non-governmental organizations, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness which were helpful in clarifying ONDCP's guidelines. A summary of significant amendments to the proposed guidelines follow, in order of the text, followed by ONDCP's discussion of specific comments received and ONDCP's final Information Quality Guidelines.

In the introductory paragraph to these guidelines, ONDCP establishes these guidelines as its performance standard, as called for at page 7 of the June 10 Memorandum.

In a new paragraph I.A.6, ONDCP adds more specific language involving the dissemination of influential scientific, financial, or statistical information. ( See June 10 Memorandum, page 9; Government-wide Guidelines, paragraph V.b.ii.B).

ONDCP clarified its predissemination review procedures in renumbered paragraph I.A.7.

In a new paragraph I.A.9, ONDCP links its clearance of proposed collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act with ongoing implementation of these information quality guidelines ( See June 10 Memorandum, p. 10).

In paragraph II.1, ONDCP stresses that the person seeking correction of information has the burden of proof with respect to the necessity for correction as well as with respect to the type of correction requested. ( See June 10 Memorandum, page 11). In addition, ONDCP adds a description of the kinds of information that a person seeking correction of information needs to provide to help meet that burden of proof.

In paragraph II.9, ONDCP points out that if it needs to extend the time it will take to notify the person seeking correction, it will provide a reasoned basis for the extension and an estimated decision date. ( See September 5 Memorandum, Appendix, topic (3)).

In a new paragraph II.10, ONDCP adds a provision stating that requests for correction of information will be considered, in cases where ONDCP disseminates information for public comment, prior to disseminating the final ONDCP product if (1) an earlier response would not unduly delay dissemination of the ONDCP product; and (2) the requestor had shown a reasonable likelihood of suffering actual harm from the dissemination if the correction were not made until dissemination of the final ONDCP product. ( See September 5 Memorandum, Appendix, topic (2)).

In paragraph III.3, ONDCP points out that if it needs to extend the time it will take to notify the person seeking reconsideration of an ONDCP response to a request for correction, it will provide a reasoned basis for the extension and an estimated decision date. ( See September 5 Memorandum, Appendix, topic (3)).

In paragraph IV.2, ONDCP modifies the exemption for a press release to provide that the information in the press release has been previously disseminated by ONDCP or another Federal agency in compliance with the Government-wide Guidelines or the these ONDCP guidelines. ( See June 10 Memorandum, page 4).

In paragraph IV.4, ONDCP deletes from the exclusion from the definition of “information” the provision referring to statements that may reasonably be expected to become the subject of litigation. ( See June 10 Memorandum, page 5).

Otherwise, the ONDCP amendments were technical and conforming textual edits, designed to clarify the ONDCP guidelines and conform them to the Government-wide Guidelines.

ONDCP received lengthy comments from two organizations: Citizens for Sensible Safeguards (CSS) and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE). The comments are summarized below followed by ONDCP's discussion of each comment.

CSS commented that ONDCP's Information Quality Guidelines should not inhibit public access to government information nor interfere with existing rulemaking processes. ONDCP Agrees.

CSS commented that the Data Quality Act does not alter the substantive mandates and primary missions of ONDCP. ONDCP Agrees.

Regarding interpretation and implementation of the Data Quality Act, both CSS and CRE submitted comment. CSS commented that OMB's guidance goes beyond what is statutorily required and that ONDCP should look beyond OMB guidelines to the Data Quality Act itself in determining the scope and components of its guidelines. CRE advocated that OMB does not have discretion to exempt categories of information from implementation of the Data Quality Act. ONDCP's response to both comments is the same: Legislative interpretation is within the discretion of the agency Congress has charged with implementation, in this case, OMB. ONDCP defers to OMB's interpretation and implementation of the Data Quality Act.

CSS commented that ONDCP should consider the benefits of timely dissemination in carrying out its core mission. While this comment exceeds the scope of ONDCP's proposed Information Quality Guidelines, ONDCP does value timely dissemination of information in carrying out its core mission.

CSS commented that ONDCP should retain maximum flexibility in implementing guidelines and err on side of the public's right to know. ONDCP agrees and feels that its final guidelines strike the proper balance between the public's right to know and flexibility in implementation that ONDCP has retained.

CRE commented that ONDCP should adopt data quality as a Performance Goal in its Performance Plan under the Government Performance and Results Act. ONDCP has adopted data quality as a Performance Goal as reflected in the introduction to its final Information Quality Guidelines.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines must comply with OMB's interagency Data Quality guidelines. ONDCP has adopted OMB's guidelines.

Both CSS and CRE commented that ONDCP should be required to correct information disseminations covered by its guidelines. ONDCP agrees as provided in section II paragraphs 6 though 10 of its final guidelines.

CSS commented that ONDCP should include a statement to the effect that its guidelines are not judicially reviewable and do not provide any new adjudicatory authority. ONDCP has included a statement in section IV paragraph 2 of its final guidelines, which states: These guidelines do not impose any additional requirements on agencies during adjudicative proceedings and do not provide parties to such adjudicative proceedings any additional rights of challenge or appeal.

CSS commented that ONDCP should further build mechanisms into the data collection process that flag errors before data is submitted to ONDCP. ONDCP's final guidelines do include processes to verify data it receives from other sources in section I part A. Paragraph A.1. states “ONDCP is committed to disseminating reliable and useful information. Before disseminating information, ONDCP staff and officials should subject such draft information to an extensive review process. It is the primary responsibility of the particular ONDCP Office (hereafter collectively referred to as “Lead Component”) drafting information intended for dissemination to pursue the most knowledgeable and reliable sources reasonably available to confirm the objectivity and utility of such information.” Paragraph A.2. continues “Much of the information ONDCP disseminates consists of or is based on information submitted to ONDCP by other Federal Government Agencies. ONDCP expects that agencies will subject information submitted to ONDCP for purposes of public dissemination to adequate quality control measures. In drafting the material to be disseminated, the Lead Component should review and verify the data submitted by the agencies, as necessary and appropriate. ONDCP also originates information based on research, assessments, and other efforts supporting drug policy development. The Lead Component should review and verify the data, as necessary and appropriate. * * * Each Component that disseminates information should maintain verification files of materials that it originates.” Section I.A. concludes, stating: “ONDCP will maximize the quality of information it disseminates, in terms of objectivity and utility, first by looking for input from a range of sources and perspectives, to the extent practicable under the circumstances, and second by subjecting draft materials to a review process involving as many Components and offices as may be in a position to offer constructive input, as well as other offices within the Executive Office of the President and other government agencies.”

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should exclude bias from risk assessment. ONDCP does not perform risk assessment. ONDCP has therefore adopted OMB's guidelines defining “objectivity” to mean that information be “unbiased” without reference to elimination of bias in risk assessment.

Both CSS and CRE submitted comments regarding adoption of the science quality and risk assessment standards contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act. CRE advocated that ONDCP's guidelines should adopt the science quality and risk assessment standards contained in the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, while CSS expressed three cautions regarding the use of peer review in relation to risk assessment consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. ONDCP's final guidelines do not address the Safe Drinking Water Act or risk assessment because ONDCP does not perform risk assessment.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should adopt the requirement contained in OMB's guidelines of robustness checks for data, models, or other information that ONDCP cannot disclose, but which are material to information ONDCP does disclose. ONDCP has adopted OMB's guidelines as reflected in section I, paragraph A. 6 of its final guidelines.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should generally prohibit the use of third-party proprietary models, unless no other option is available and OMB concurs. When no other option is available, CRE advocates that ONDCP's guidelines should explain in detail what “especially rigorous robustness checks” will be applied to third-party proprietary models and explain how the public will be notified of, and permitted to comment upon, these “robustness checks”. Section I paragraph 5 of ONDCP's final guidelines adopt OMB's requirement that influential scientific information be reproducible. Section I paragraph 5 also provides that “In situations where public access to the data will not occur, the Lead Component should apply especially rigorous robustness checks and document what checks were undertaken”.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines must apply to information being disseminated on or after October 1, regardless of when the information was first disseminated as explicitly enumerated in OMB's guidelines. ONDCP has adopted OMB's guideline.

CSS commented that ONDCP should detail and expand on the types of information and methods of dissemination that are not covered by its guidelines. ONDCP agrees as reflected in its final guidelines in section IV paragraph 2 defining “Dissemination” and paragraph 4 defining “Information”.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should not exclude rulemaking records. ONDCP's guidelines do not exclude rulemaking records.

Both CSS and CRE commented regarding third party information submitted to ONDCP. CSS commented that ONDCP should clearly state that its guidelines apply only to information disseminated by ONDCP and not when ONDCP is merely acting as a conduit of information. CRE advocated that when ONDCP uses, relies on, or endorses third party information, the agency itself should have the burden of ensuring that the information meets the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity standards required by its data quality guidelines. ONDCP agrees as reflected in section IV paragraph 2 of its final guidelines: “Dissemination does not include the pass-through of public filings or other information received from third-parties by ONDCP and made available for public review through website posting or other means, without ONDCP's official endorsement of its content. However, these guidelines may apply to third-party information adopted or endorsed by ONDCP, or used to formulate guidance or other ONDCP decision or position”.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should use OMB's definition of “affected persons”. ONDCP has adopted OMB's definition in section IV.

Both CSS and CRE commented regarding the definition of “influential”. CSS advocated that ONDCP narrowly define “influential information”, employing a high threshold for coverage.

CRE advocated that ONDCP should adopt the definition of “influential” contained in OMB's guidelines. ONDCP's final guidelines adopt OMB's definition of “influential” in section IV paragraph 3.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should set an appropriate, specific timeframe for agency decisions on information correction petitions. ONDCP's final guidelines provide a 60 day timeframe in section II paragraphs 5, 8, and 9.

CRE commented that ONDCP's guidelines should specify a party responsible for acting on information correction petitions. ONDCP's agrees and specifies the Chief of Staff or their designee in section II of its final guidelines.

CSS commented that ONDCP should clearly state that the burden of proof lies squarely with the requester. ONDCP agrees and has explicitly stated that in section II paragraph 1 of its final guidelines.

CRE commented that ONDCP should adopt OMB's guidelines providing that the presumption of objectivity is rebuttable “based on a persuasive showing by a petitioner in a particular instance.” ONDCP agrees and has adopted OMB's guidelines as reflected in section II paragraph 1 of its final guidelines providing that the petitioner bears the burden of proof and 1(d) providing that the requester submit all supporting evidence which the petitioner believes provides a persuasive case.

CSS commented that ONDCP should explicitly state that the administrative mechanism will not consider interpretations of data and information, or requests for de-publishing. ONDCP agrees that its guidelines should not allow requests for correction that challenge the interpretation of data and information, or seek de-publishing. However such requests are not within the definitions contained in ONDCP's final guidelines and therefore do not require an explicit statement excluding them. See section IV paragraph 4 of the final guidelines excluding from the definition of “information”: opinions or policy; statements of Administration policy; and testimony or comments of ONDCP officials.

CSS commented that ONDCP should limit complaints under its administrative mechanisms to information that is not already subject to existing data quality programs and measures. ONDCP agrees and has reflected that in section IV paragraph 2.e. of its final guidelines.

CSS commented that ONDCP should state that frivolous or duplicative requests may be rejected. ONDCP agrees and has reflected that in section III paragraph 1 of its final guidelines.

CSS commented that ONDCP should establish a timeliness requirement for requests after which it has the option to reject a request. ONDCP's final guidelines retain ONDCP's discretion to consider the timeliness of requests as part of its review of (a.) the significance of the information involved and (b.) the nature and extent of the request and public benefit of making the requested correction as set out in section II paragraph 7.

CSS commented that ONDCP should limit complaints for any data quality standard that presents a potential moving target ( i.e. “best available evidence”) to information available at the time of dissemination. ONDCP has adopted OMB's guidelines.

CSS commented that ONDCP's guidelines should specifically state that responses to correction requests will be proportional to the significance and importance of the information in question. ONDCP agrees as reflected in section II. Paragraph 7 states “When considering covered requests to determine whether a corrective action is appropriate, the reviewing Component may consider the following factors: (a.) The significance of the information involved, and (b.) the nature and extent of the request and the public benefit of making the requested correction. Paragraph 9 states “Subject to applicable law, rules and regulations, corrective measures may be taken through a number of forms, including (but not limited to) personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases or postings on the ONDCP website * * * to correct a widely disseminated error or address a frequently raised request. Corrective measures, where appropriate, should be designed to provide reasonable notice to affected persons of such correction.”

CSS commented that ONDCP should specify that it will establish a running docket of requests and changes. Consistent with OMB's guidance ONDCP has created a place on its website, www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov where significant corrections made as a result of ONDCP's correction process will be described.

CRE commented that consistent with OMB's intent, ONDCP's guidelines should include a meaningful appeals process. ONDCP agrees and has adopted OMB's guidelines in section III.

CSS commented that ONDCP's reconsideration process should be fairly informal and limited in scope. ONDCP agrees as reflected in section III of its final guidelines.

CSS commented that ONDCP's reconsideration should be limited to showing due diligence in the initial consideration of a request. ONDCP disagrees. Consistent with OMB's guidance, section III paragraph 3 of ONDCP's final guidelines provide that “ONDCP's Chief of Staff * * * will consider the request for reconsideration, applying the standards and procedures set out in section II above * * *.”

CSS commented that ONDCP should establish a 30-day time limit for requests for reconsideration. ONDCP agrees as reflected in section III paragraph 2 of its final guidelines.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy publishes these guidelines in accordance with the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (“Government-wide Guidelines”) published in interim final form by OMB in the Federal Register in Volume 66, No. 189 at 49718 on Friday, September 28, 2001, and in final form in Volume 2, No. 67 at 8452 on February 22, 2002. These published guidelines were issued pursuant to section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; HR 5658). In response to the legislation and the published guidelines, ONDCP identifies the following policies and procedures for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by ONDCP; and it hereby establishes additional procedures for affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by ONDCP that does not comply with standards set out in the Government-wide Guidelines. These ONDCP guidelines are intended to ensure and maximize the quality of information disseminated by ONDCP. Through these ONDCP guidelines, ONDCP establishes as its performance standard a goal of disseminating reliable and useful information consistent with the Government-wide Guidelines and these ONDCP guidelines.

In Government-wide Guidelines, “quality” is defined as an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity.

1. As defined in section IV, below, “objectivity” is a measure of whether disseminated information is “accurate, reliable, and unbiased and that information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner;” “utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended audience for the intended audience's anticipated purposes. ONDCP is committed to disseminating reliable and useful information. Before disseminating information, ONDCP staff and officials should subject such draft information to an extensive review process. It is the primary responsibility of the particular ONDCP Office (hereafter collectively referred to as “Lead Component”) drafting information intended for dissemination to pursue the most knowledgeable and reliable sources reasonably available to confirm the objectivity and utility of such information.

2. Much of the information ONDCP disseminates consists of or is based on information submitted to ONDCP by other Federal Government Agencies. ONDCP expects that agencies will subject information submitted to ONDCP for purposes of public dissemination to adequate quality control measures. In drafting the material to be disseminated, the Lead Component should review and verify the data submitted by the agencies, as necessary and appropriate. ONDCP also originates information based on research, assessments, and other efforts supporting drug policy development. The Lead Component should review and verify the data, as necessary and appropriate. Underlying information upon which the disseminated material is based may be subject to these guidelines only if that information is published by ONDCP. Being subject to these guidelines does not necessarily mean that the material published by ONDCP is a policy statement of the U.S. government. ONDCP contracts with organizations to conduct research in support of drug policy, but their results are not influenced by ONDCP policy. Each Component that disseminates information should maintain verification files of materials that it originates.

3. In seeking to assure the “objectivity” and “utility” of the information it disseminates, ONDCP should generally follow a basic clearance process coordinated by the Lead Component drafting information intended for dissemination. The quality control process places responsibility for action upon the Lead Component. The Lead Component is encouraged to consult with all Components throughout ONDCP having substantial interest or expertise in the material proposed to be disseminated. Where appropriate, substantive input also should be sought from other offices within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), other government agencies, non-government organizations, and the public.

4. The Lead Component should consider the uses of the information from both the perspective of ONDCP and the public. When it is determined that the transparency of information is relevant for assessing the information's usefulness from the public's perspective, the Lead Component should ensure that transparency is appropriately addressed.

5. When the Lead Component determines that the information it will disseminate is influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, extra care should be taken to include a high degree of transparency about data and methods to meet the Government-wide Guidelines' requirement for the reproducibility of such information. In this context, a high degree of transparency for published information means that the methodology used to derive the results is readily understandable to persons experienced in the appropriate field of study. In determining the appropriate level of transparency, the Lead Component should consider the types of data that can practicably be subjected to a reproducibility requirement given ethical, feasibility, and confidentiality constraints. In making this determination, the Lead Component should hold analytical results to an even higher standard than original data.

6. When the Lead Component determines that the information it will disseminate is influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, it should assure reproducibility according to commonly accepted scientific, financial, or statistical standards. In situations where public access to the data will not occur, the Lead Component should apply especially rigorous robustness checks to analytic results and document what checks were undertaken. Also, in such cases, the Lead Component should disclose the specific data sources that have been used and the specific quantitative methods and assumptions that have been employed.

7. The Component responsible for the dissemination of information should generally take the following basic steps to assure the “objectivity” and “utility” of the information to be disseminated:

a. Preparing a draft of the document after consulting the necessary parties, including government and non-government sources, as appropriate;

b. Determining/assuring accuracy and completeness of source data;

c. Determining the expected uses by the government and public;

d. Determining necessary clearance points;

e. Determining where the final decision shall be made;

f. Determining whether peer review would be appropriate and, if necessary, coordinating such review;

g. Obtaining clearances; and

h. Overcoming delays and, if necessary, presenting the matter to higher authority.

8. Hard-copy public dissemination of information and all information published on ONDCP's website www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov shall occur only after clearances are obtained from all appropriate Components and, as appropriate, the Office of the Chief-of-Staff.

9. The quality control procedures followed by ONDCP should be determined by the nature of the information and the manner of its distribution. Any information collected by ONDCP and subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act should be collected, maintained, and used in a manner consistent with ONDCP information quality standards. The ONDCP clearance package will demonstrate that the proposed collection of information will result in information that will be collected, maintained, and used in a way consistent with the Government-wide Guidelines and ONDCP guidelines.

10. These guidelines focus on procedures for the “dissemination” of “information,” as those terms are defined herein. Accordingly, procedures specifically applicable to forms of communication outside the scope of these guidelines, such as those for correspondence or press releases, among others, are not included.

Conclusion: ONDCP will maximize the quality of the information it disseminates, in terms of objectivity and utility, first by looking for input from a range of sources and perspectives, to the extent practicable under the circumstances, and second by subjecting draft materials to a review process involving as many Components and offices as may be in a position to offer constructive input, as well as other offices within the Executive Office of the President and other government agencies.

1. “Integrity” refers to the security of information—protection of the information from unauthorized, unanticipated, or unintentional modification—to prevent information from being compromised through corruption or falsification.

2. Within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the Office of Administration has substantial responsibility for ensuring the “integrity” of information as defined in these guidelines. ONDCP also has a Management and Administration Office that coordinates and works with the EOP Office of Administration to ensure the integrity of information. These offices implement and maintain new computer software and hardware systems and provide operational support for systems and system users.

3. Computer security is the responsibility of the EOP Office of Administration's Chief Information Officer, Information Assurance Directorate. This Office oversees all matters relating to information integrity, including the design and implementation of the security architecture for the EOP, periodic audits of security architecture components, and review and approval of changes to the technical baseline. Per law and ONDCP policy, EOP's IT security policy, procedures, and controls are risk-based, cost-effective, and incorporated into the lifecycle planning of every IT investment. Additionally, the Office: Assesses risks to its systems and implements appropriate security controls; reviews annually the security of its systems; and develops plans to remediate all security weaknesses found in independent evaluations and other security audits and reviews.

4. As an agency under the EOP, ONDCP is an integral part of the overall EOP network, and is an active participant in all aspects of information integrity at EOP. ONDCP adheres to both law and ONDCP IT security policies, along with EOP security policies and operational processes for the protection of ONDCP's data and information. This includes ensuring that controls to protect the security of information (and the integrity of information) are risk-based, cost-effective, and incorporated into the life-cycle planning of every IT investment. ONDCP's systems are reviewed annually in accordance with existing law and policy and corrective action plans are developed to address all security weaknesses, such as integrity issues.

ONDCP works continuously to be responsive to users of its information and to ensure quality. In furtherance of these objectives, when ONDCP receives any information from the public that raises questions about the quality of the information it has disseminated, ONDCP duly considers corrective action.

1. Persons seeking to correct information affecting them that was publicly disseminated by ONDCP may submit such requests to the ONDCP Chief of Staff, addressed to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20503. A member of the public who seeks correction of information under these ONDCP guidelines as the burden of proof with respect to the necessity for correction as well as with respect to the type of correction requested. Requests for correction must include:

a. A statement that the communication is a Petition for Correction under the ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines;

b. Identification of the ONDCP information or ONDCP information dissemination product, and the specific aspect(s) thereof, that is the subject of the petition;

c. A description of how the information does not comply with the ONDCP guidelines or the Government-wide Guidelines and how they are affected by the information;

d. All supporting evidence upon which the petitioner believes provides a persuasive case and all supporting documentation necessary to resolve the complaint; and the specific corrective action sought, including (if applicable) temporary corrective action pending full resolution of the complaint.

2. If the information disseminated by ONDCP and contested by an affected person was previously disseminated by another Federal agency in virtually identical form, then the complaint should be directed to the originating agency.

3. Requests will be received by the ONDCP Chief of Staff. Typically, requests raising substantive issues will be forwarded to the Component within ONDCP responsible for the subject area.

4. These guidelines apply only to requests submitted as outlined above. These guidelines will not be applied to any other form of request and also may not be applied to a request submitted consistent with the procedures outlined above, if ONDCP determines it is not submitted by an affected person for the correction of publicly disseminated information of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

5. If ONDCP determines that a request is not covered by these guidelines, it will so advise the requester within 60 days, unless there is a reasoned basis for an extension. If a request is deemed frivolous, no response will be made.

6. For covered requests, the Component reviewing the request will give the request due consideration, including a review of the disseminated information at issue and other materials, as appropriate. Where the reviewing Component or office determines that the information publicly disseminated by ONDCP warrants correction, it should consider appropriate corrective measures recognizing the potential implications for ONDCP and the United States.

7. When considering covered requests to determine whether a corrective action is appropriate, the reviewing Component may consider the following factors:

a. The significance of the information involved, and

b. The nature and extent of the request and the public benefit of making the requested correction.

8. If ONDCP determines that a request is covered by these guidelines, but that corrective action is unnecessary or is otherwise inappropriate, ONDCP will notify the requestor of its determination within 60 days, unless there is a reasoned basis for an extension.

9. If ONDCP determines that a request is covered by these guidelines and that corrective action is appropriate, it will notify the requestor of its determination and what action has been or will be taken within 60 days, unless there is a reasoned basis for an extension. In which case, ONDCP will inform the requestor of the extension, providing its reasons for the extension and an estimated decision date. Subject to applicable law, rules and regulations, corrective measures may be taken through a number of forms, including (but not limited to): Personal contacts via letter or telephone, form letters, press releases or postings on the ONDCP website, www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov, to correct a widely disseminated error or address a frequently raised request. Corrective measures, where appropriate, should be designed to provide reasonable notice to affected persons of such correction.

10. In cases where ONDCP disseminates information for public comment prior to disseminating the final product, requests for correction of information will be considered prior to disseminating the final product in those cases where ONDCP has determined that an earlier response would not unduly delay dissemination of the product and the requestor has shown a reasonable likelihood of suffering actual harm without the earlier response.

1. The following procedures are available to an affected person who has filed a covered request for correction of public information in accordance with section II, above; who received notice from the ONDCP Chief of Staff of ONDCP's determination; and who believes that the ONDCP did not take appropriate corrective action. Requests determined by ONDCP to be not covered by the guidelines and requests determined to be frivolous will not be reconsidered under these provisions. These procedures apply to information disseminated by ONDCP on or after October 1, 2002, regardless of when the information was first disseminated.

2. To request reconsideration, persons should clearly indicate that the communication is a “Request for Reconsideration;” should reference the ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines; and should include a copy of the request for correction previously submitted to ONDCP and ONDCP's response. Resubmission should be made to the ONDCP Chief-of-Staff by mail using the contact information in section II, paragraph 1, above. Requests for Reconsideration must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date of ONDCP's notification to the requester of the disposition of the underlying request for correction.

3. ONDCP's Chief of Staff or a delegee thereof will consider the request for reconsideration, applying the standards and procedures set out in section II, above and will make a determination regarding the request. In most cases, the requestor will be notified of the determination and, if appropriate, the corrective action to be taken, within 60 days. If the request for reconsideration requires more than 60 days, ONDCP will inform the requestor of the extension, providing its reasons for the extension and an estimated decision date. ONDCP will give reasonable notice to affected persons of any corrections made.

1. “Affected” persons are those who may benefit or be harmed by the disseminated information. This includes both: a. Persons seeking to address information about themselves or about other persons to whom they are related or associated; and b. persons who use the information.

2. “Dissemination” means agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public (see 5 CFR 1320.3(d) “Conduct or Sponsor”). Dissemination does not include the pass-through of public filings or other information received from third-parties by ONDCP and made available for public review through website posting or other means, without ONDCP's official endorsement of its content. However, these guidelines may apply to third-party information adopted or endorsed by ONDCP, or used to formulate guidance or other ONDCP decision or position.

In addition, dissemination does not include distributions of information or other materials that are:

a. Intended for government employees or agency contractors or grantees;

b. Intended for U.S. Government agencies;

c. Produced in responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or similar law;

d. Correspondence or other communication limited to individuals or to other persons, within the meaning of paragraph 7, below; or

e. Communications such as press releases, interviews, speeches, and similar statements containing information that ONDCP or another Federal agency has previously disseminated in compliance with the Government-wide Guidelines or the ONDCP guidelines; or

f. Documents ( e.g. , guidance, bulletins, policy directives) intended only for inter-agency And intra-agency communications.

Also excluded from the definition are archival records; public filings; responses to subpoenae or compulsory document productions; or documents prepared and released in the context of adjudicative processes. These guidelines do not impose any additional requirements on agencies during adjudicative proceedings and do not provide parties to such adjudicative proceedings any additional rights of challenge or appeal.

3. “Influential,” when used in the phrase “influential scientific, financial, or statistical information,” refers to disseminated information that ONDCP determines will have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions.

4. “Information,” for purposes of these guidelines, including the administrative mechanism described in sections II and III, above, means any communication or representation of facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms. This definition does not include:

a. Opinions or policy, where the presentation makes clear that the statements are subjective opinions, rather than facts. Underlying information upon which the opinion or policy is based may be subject to these guidelines only if that information is published by ONDCP;

b. Information originated by, and attributed to, non-ONDCP sources, provided ONDCP does not expressly rely upon it. Examples include: non-U.S. Government information reported and duly attributed in materials prepared and disseminated by ONDCP; hyperlinks on ONDCP's website to information that others disseminate; and reports of advisory committees published on ONDCP's website;

c. Statements related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of ONDCP and other materials produced for ONDCP employees, contractors, or agents;

d. Descriptions of the agency, its responsibilities and its organizational components;

e. Statements, the modification of which might cause harm to the national security, including harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States;

f. Statements of Administration policy; however, any underlying information published by ONDCP upon which a statement is based may be subject to these guidelines;

g. Testimony or comments of ONDCP officials before courts, administrative bodies, Congress, or the media;

h. Investigatory material compiled pursuant to U.S. law or for law enforcement purposes in the United States.

5. “Integrity” refers to the security of information—protection of the information from unauthorized access or revision, to prevent the information from being compromised through corruption or falsification.

6. “Objectivity” is a measure of whether disseminated information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased and whether disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner.

7. “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or legal representative, an organized group of individuals, a regional, national, State, territorial, tribal, or local government or branch thereof, or a political subdivision of a State, territory, tribal, or local government or a branch of a political subdivision, or an international organization;

8. “Quality” is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity. Therefore, the guidelines sometimes refer these four statutory terms, collectively, as “quality”

9. “Utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the public.

By Public Notice dated and released October 15, 2002, the Federal Communications Commission announced the next meeting of its Consumer/Disability Telecommunications Advisory Committee. The establishment of the Committee had been announced by Public Notice dated November 30, 2000, 15 FCC Rcd 23798, as published in the Federal Register (65 FR 76265, December 6, 2000). At the November 8, 2002 meeting, The Committee will consider the Commission's proposed rules concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; will receive an update regarding its recommendations concerning the Commission's consumer complaint process and outreach activities, and will receive and consider a report of an ad hoc working group on Sec. 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Committee will also receive a report from its chairperson regarding activities since the June meeting and an update on the Committee rechartering process. The Committee will also be updated on the Commission's Biennial Regulatory Review Process. Other working group reports will be received and considered if available. The Committee will make recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission as appropriate, and may also consider other matters within the mandate of its Charter.

A copy of the October 15, 2002 Public Notice is available in alternate formats (Braille, cassette tape, large print or diskette) upon request. It is also posted on the Commission's website at www.fcc.gov/cgb/cdtac. The Committee meeting will be broadcast on the Internet in Real Audio/Real Video format with captioning at www.fcc.gov/cgb/cdtac. The meeting will be sign language interpreted, and realtime transcription and assistive listening devices will also be available. The meeting site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. Copies of meeting agendas and handout materials will also be provided in accessible formats. Meeting minutes will be available for public inspection at the FCC headquarters building and will be posted on the Commission's Web site at www.fcc.gov/cgb/cdtac.

The Committee meeting will be open to the public and interested persons may attend the meeting and communicate their views. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Committee on issues of interest to them and the Committee. Written comments for the Committee may also be sent to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, Scott Marshall. Notices of future meetings of the Committee will be published in the Federal Register .

The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives many requests from fire service organizations and the general public for information related to fire departments, including total number of departments, number of stations per department, population protected, and number of firefighters. The USFA also has a need for this information to guide programmatic decisions, and produce mailing lists for USFA publications. Recommendations for the creation of the fire department database came out of a Blue Ribbon Panel's review of the USFA—initiated by FEMA Director James Lee Witt in the spring of 1998. The report included a review of the structure, mission and funding of the USFA, future policies, programmatic needs, course development and delivery, and the role of the USFA to reflect changes in the fire service. The panel included 13 members of the U.S. fire community. As a result of those recommendations, the USFA is working to identify all fire departments in the United States to develop and populate a national database that will include information related to demographics, capabilities and activities of fire departments Nationwide. In the first year of this effort, information was collected from 16,000 fire departments leaving an estimated 17,000 fire departments still to respond.

Collection of Information.

Title: National Fire Department Census.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Many data products and reports exist that contain fragmented or estimated information about fire department demographics, and capabilities, but there is no single reference source today that aggregates this data to provide a complete and accurate profile of fire departments in the United States. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives many requests for information related to fire departments, including total number of departments, number of stations per department, population protected, apparatus and equipment status. The USFA is working to identify all fire departments in the United States to develop and populate a national database that will include information related to demographics, capabilities and activities. The database will be used by USFA to guide programmatic decisions, provide the Fire Service and the public with information about fire departments, and produce mailing lists for USFA publications and other materials.

Affected Public: Federal, State, local or Tribal government; not-for-profit institutions; volunteer; and, industrial fire departments.

Estimated Cost: The estimated costs to the government will be contracted direct labor and associated overhead costs of $50,000. There would be no costs to the respondent other than the minimal direct labor cost of a single firefighter or emergency service worker taking a small amount of time to complete the census form and this would be applicable only to those fire departments and emergency service agencies with career employees. The majority of the respondents will be from volunteer fire departments for which no direct labor costs will be incurred. The estimate of respondent costs for those career departments is computed as follows: Estimated number of census forms multiplied by the national average hourly rate of a firefighter of $18.65 multiplied by .42 (representing the estimated 25 minutes it takes to complete the census form) and multiply that by .25 which represents the percentage of respondents who are career (paid) personnel. Using this equation, total estimated costs to respondents of $33,290 is derived (17,000 estimated census forms × $18.65 = $317,050 × .42 = $133,161 × .25 = $33,290). The average cost per census form is a minimal $1.96. The respondents are under no obligation to complete the census form and may refuse to do so or stop at any time so the average cost to the respondent of $1.96 could easily not be incurred by refusing to fill out the census form.

Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-288, as amended, and 44 CFR 206.131 are the statutory and regulatory provisions that govern the program and the purpose of the data collection. The collection of information will assist FEMA in monitoring program delivery to disaster applicants and compliance with other Federal requirements—flood insurance, environmental assessments, and floodplain management.

Title: Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program Administration Information.

Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection, which has expired.

OMB Number: 3067-0163.

Form Numbers:

FEMA Form 76-27, DARIS Entry Document, Initial Report, is initiated by the Region based on the data provided by the State. The State provides FEMA preliminary information on the IFG Program for staffing and management purposes. This report is completed once for each disaster, and establishes an account for each new IFG program.

FEMA Form 76-28, DARIS Entry Document, Status Report, is completed by the State IFG staff and provided to the FEMA Regional Director. It serves as the framework for reviewing, analyzing and monitoring the progress of the program. The report tracks the number and dollar amount of applications approved by the State, the number and dollar amount of grants disbursed and the number of grants appealed. The data carried on this report is used to make determinations on the need for additional allocation and obligation of funds for program activity.

FEMA Form 76-29, DARIS Entry Document, Final Statistical Report, captures information that constitutes a funding history by category of each IFG program. This data is critical for reports to OMB and the Congress. The information reveals the total IFG program cost. The form can also be used as a management tool to check on the States' record of accuracy in estimating IFG Program costs and in requesting advances. The State is responsible for completing the form, and the FEMA Region is responsible for entering the information into DARIS.

FEMA Form 76-32, Worksheet for Case File Reviews, is utilized by State IFG personnel in reviewing five percent of all cases. FEMA requires the State to keep the information and on occasion make requests to the States for information derived from the reviews.

FEMA Form 76-34, Checklist for IFG Program Review, is used during the interview process of the IFG Mid-Program Review of the States' administration program. The form is completed by FEMA Recovery Division staff and is designed as a guide for the reviewer. It covers all items that must be monitored by FEMA to ensure effective management of the IFG program.

FEMA Form 76-38, Floodplain Management Analysis, Executive Orders 11988, Floodplain Management Analysis, and 11990, Protection of Wetlands, place a responsibility on FEMA and the State to perform reviews before certain IFG assistance in the housing category can be approved. The review involves an eight-step decision-making process if the action, such as providing funds for purchase of a mobile home and the location (prior to the disaster) of the unit could affect a floodplain or wetland. The State is responsible for completing steps 3 and 4 of the process, while the Region retains responsibility for steps 2, 6 and 7, with the State providing the background information for these three steps. Steps 1, 5 and 8 are jointly shared by the State and Region.

Abstract: This collection of information is essential to the effective monitoring and management of the State administered IFG Program by FEMA Regional Office. FEMA Regional staff and Headquarters staff will utilize the information to effectively monitor and evaluate the States' administration of the IFG Program, thus enabling FEMA to assess compliance, consistency, and uniformity with Federal requirements. It is FEMA's responsibility of ensuring that the States perform and adhere to FEMA regulations and policy guidance.

Affected Public: Federal, State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 814 hours.

Estimated Cost: The total estimated annual cost to the respondent States is $15,229.94. The cost is determined by the average hourly rate of a GS9/5 ($18.71) times the 814 estimated annual burden hours. The total estimated annual cost to the Federal Government is $ 9,213.25. The cost is determined from calculating the amount of time (5%) that a Senior Federal employee spends reviewing the accuracy the forms and multiplying it by their annual salary of roughly $80,000 (GS14/5). Then, we add it to the amount of time (25%) that a data entry clerk spends inputting these figures into our database (25 %) and multiplying it by their annual salary of $20,853. (4,000 + 5, 213.25 = 9,213.25) This cost covers all responses submitted by all respondents.

Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. Submit comments to the OMB within 30 days of the date of this notice. To ensure that FEMA is fully aware of any comments or concerns that you share with OMB, please provide us with a copy of your comments. FEMA will continue to accept comments for 60 days from the date of this notice.

OMB Addressee: Interested persons should submit written comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FEMA Addressee: Submit written comments to Muriel B. Anderson, Chief, Records Management Branch, Information Resources Management Division, Information Technology and Services Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated October 9, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), as follows:

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Charles M. Butler of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Alabama to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster: Baldwin and Mobile Counties for Public Assistance.

All counties within the State of Alabama are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi, declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 1, 2002,is hereby amended as follows:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective October 6, 2002.

Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174, prescribes that we (FEMA) must annually announce the maximum amount for assistance provided under the Individuals and Households (IHP) Program. We give notice that the maximum amount of any IHP financial assistance provided to an individual or household under section 408 of the Act with respect to any single emergency or major disaster is $25,000 for any emergencies or major disasters declared on or after October 15, 2002.

At a public meeting held on September 16 and 17, 1999, the Neurological Devices Panel (the Panel) recommended that human dura mater be classified into class II. The Panel also commented on the information in the “Guidance for the Preparation of a Premarket Notification Application for Processed Human Dura Mater” that was issued on July 31, 1999, and was subsequently reformatted and reissued with the same title on October 14, 1999. The draft guidance entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Human Dura Mater; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA” was developed as a special controls guidance to support the classification of human dura mater into class II and to update and supersede the information in the October 14, 1999, guidance document. Following the effective date of a final rule classifying the device, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for human dura mater will need to address the issues covered in the special control guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety and effectiveness.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This draft guidance document represents the agency's current thinking on special controls for human dura mater. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft guidance document is issued as a level 1 guidance consistent with the GGP regulations.

In order to receive a copy of the “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Human Dura Mater; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA” via your fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (054) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may also do so using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information, including the text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes the human dura mater guidance document, device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturers' assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH home page may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh.

This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in sections 3 and 7 through 12 of this guidance were approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.

You may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments on “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Human Dura Mater; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA.” You must submit three copies of any comments. Individuals may submit one copy. You must identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Capital Advance Program Submission Requirements for Section 202 Housing for the Elderly and Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0470.

Form Numbers: HUD-90163-CA, 90164-CA, 90165-CA, 90166-CA, 90167-CA, 90170-CA, 90171-CA, 90176-CA, 90177-CA, 91732A-CA, & 92476-A-CA, 92004-F.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information collection facilitates processing of all Sections 202 and 811 capital advance projects that have not yet been finally closed. The requirements include the processing of the applications for firm commitments to final closing of the capital advance. It is needed for HUD to determine the Owner's eligibility and capacity to finalize the development of a housing project under the Section 202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Programs. A thorough evaluation of an Owner's capabilities is critical to protect the Government's financial interest and to mitigate any possibility of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of public funds.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 3,485

Status: Reinstatement, with change, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Grant Applications for Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Programs (Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program, Healthy Homes Demonstration Grant Program, the Operation Lead Elimination Action Program, and the Healthy Homes and Lead Technical Studies Grant Program).

OMB Approval Number: 2539-0015.

Form Numbers: HUD-424, HU-424B, HUD-424C, HUD-2990, HUD-50070, HUD-50071, SF LLL.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information collection is required in conjunction with the issuance of NOFAs announcing the availability of approximately $95,500,000 for Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Programs (Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program, Healthy Homes Demonstration Grant Program, the Operation Lead Elimination Action Program, and the Healthy Homes and Lead Technical Studies Grant Program). Grants are authorized under Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, Section 111(g) and other legislation.

Respondents: Potential applicants include a State, tribal, or unit of local governments. IN addition, potential applicants of the Healthy Homes Demonstration Grant Program, the Operation Lead Elimination Action Program, and the Healthy Homes and Lead Technical Studies Grant Program may include not-for-profit institutions and for-profit firms located in the U.S..

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 19.040.

Status: This is a revision of a currently approved collection.

On February 26, 2001 (66 FR 11893), HUD published a NOFA announcing the availability of approximately $5,500,000 for grants and cooperative agreements for the Healthy Homes Demonstration and Education Grant Program. Applications were scored and selected on the basis of selection criteria contained in that NOFA.

A total of $5,823,389 was awarded to eight grantees. However, HUD was not able to successfully conclude negotiations with the Research Foundation of the State University of New York for an award of $700,000. This amount will be awarded to the next highest scoring application. In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of this award as follows:

The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant for the United Parents Against Lead of Michigan was issued pursuant to Pub. L. 102-550, Title X, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

This notice announces the award of $240,763.00 to the United Parents Against Lead of Michigan, which will be used to provide financial support and technical assistance to support education and outreach efforts by parent groups and other community-based organizations to protect children from being lead poisoned.

In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the name, address, and amount of the award as follows:

The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant for the Tides Foundation was issued pursuant to Public Law 102-550, Title X, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

This notice announces the award of $500,000.00 to the Tides Foundation, which will be used to provide financial support and technical assistance to support education and outreach efforts by parent groups and other community-based organizations to protect children from being lead poisoned.

The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant for the City of Cincinnati was issued pursuant to Public Law 102-550, Title X, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

This notice announces the award of $399,676.00 to the City of Cincinnati, which will be used to conduct research and education to protect children from being lead poisoned.

In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the name, address, and amount of the award as follows:

The Lead Hazard Control NOFA was issued pursuant to section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992).

On February 26, 2001 (66 FR 11855), HUD published a NOFA announcing the availability of $60,000,000.00 for Lead Hazard Control Control grantees, that would be used to assist States, Indian Tribes and local governments in undertaking comprehensive programs to identify and control lead-based paint hazards in eligible privately-owned housing for rental or owner-occupants in partnership with community-based organizations.

In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the awards as follows:

The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant for the Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning was issued pursuant to Public Law 102-550, Title X, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

This notice announces the award of $2,300,000 to the Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning, which will be used to help community- and faith-based organizations ensure that families have access to housing that is decent, safe, affordable, and free from recognized health hazards that can harm young children.

In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the name, address, and amount of the award as follows:

On September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61382), HUD published its Notice of Fiscal Year 2003 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single-Room Occupancy Program. This notice makes technical corrections to the market rents in nine areas. These corrections are made because incorrect application of state minimum rents resulted in some minor decreases for certain bedroom rents in Binghamton, NY, Elmira, NY, Jamestown, NY, Utica-Rome, NY, and Altoona, PA. In addition, a calculation error resulted in lower FMRs for two metropolitan counties, Henderson County, TX and Culpeper County, VA. Finally, the San Francisco, CA and Oklahoma City, OK FMR areas have been recalculated and corrected.

Accordingly, FR Doc 02-24619, the Notice of Fiscal Year 2003 Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single-Room Occupancy Program, published on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61382) is corrected as follows:

1. On page 61388, in the table under California, Metropolitan FMR Areas, the entries for San Francisco are corrected to read as follows:

2. On page 61418, in the table under New York, Metropolitan FMR Areas, the entries for Binghamton, Elmira, Jamestown, and Utica-Rome are corrected to read as follows: