Agricultural Research Service
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Food and Drug Administration
National Park Service
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyromazine in or on leek; onion, green; onion, potato; onion, tree; onion, welsh; shallot, fresh leaves; garlic, bulb; garlic, great-headed, bulb; onion, dry bulb; rakkyo, bulb; shallot, bulb; vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except broccoli; broccoli; turnip, greens; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; hanover salad, leaves; kidney of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep; and meat byproducts, except kidney, of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep. The petitioner has requested that existing tolerances for residues of cyromazine in/on dry bulb onion at 2.0 ppm, green onion at 0.1 ppm, and mustard greens and cabbage, Chinese at 3.0 ppm be deleted. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
This regulation is effective September 24, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0269, must be received on or before November 24, 2003.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the
Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-3194; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you an are agricultural producer, food manufacturer, and pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Industry (NAICS 111), e.g., Crop production.
• Industry (NAICS 112), e.g., Animal production.
• Industry (NAICS 311), e.g., Food manufacturing.
• Industry (NAICS 32532), e.g., 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
1.
2.
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
In the
The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.414 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide, cyromazine, (
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for tolerances for residues of cyromazine on leek; onion, green; onion, potato; onion, tree; onion, welsh; and shallot, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm, garlic, bulb; garlic, great-headed, bulb; onion, dry bulb; rakkyo, bulb; and shallot, bulb at 0.2 ppm, vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except broccoli at 10.0 ppm, broccoli at 1.0 ppm, turnip, greens; cabbage, abyssinian; cabbage, seakale; and hanover salad, leaves at 10.0 ppm, and kidney of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep at 0.2 ppm, and meat byproducts, except kidney, of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheepat 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerances follow.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by cyromazine are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intra species differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factors (SF) is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow groundwater. For a screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, and a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to cyromazine they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit III.E.
In soil, cyromazine is stable to hydrolysis and photolysis and is rather persistent in aerobic soil (half-life value of 150 days). The field studies confirmed this half-life value, where average half-lives varied from 75 days to more than 250 days. Soil adsorption coefficients are generally low. This would indicate that cyromazine has the potential to leach through soils, especially sand and silt loam soils.
The EECs for cyromazine reflect six applications of cyromazine at 0.125 lbs ai/A. For surface water, the annual average of 15.5 μg/L (or ppb) is based on use of the FIRST model. The groundwater EEC of 5.3 μg/L has been estimated by the SCI-GROW2 program. Both of these surface and groundwater values represent upper-bound conservative estimates for concentrations that might be found in
3.
Cyromazine is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. There are no currently existing or proposed uses for cyromazine in residential or public sites and therefore no residential risk assessment was performed.
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether cyromazine has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to cyromazine and any other substances and cyromazine does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. EPA has determined, however, that there is no known mechanism of toxicity that would support grouping cyromazine by a common mechanism with atrazine, simazine, and cyanazine. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that cyromazine has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
• There is no evidence of increased susceptibility (quantitative or qualitative) to rats or rabbits following in utero exposure or post-natal exposure to rats. In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was higher than the maternal NOAEL. In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, no evidence of developmental toxicity was noted. For developmental toxicity, the NOAEL was
• The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which will not likely be exceeded.
• The dietary food exposure assessment is based on current and proposed registrations and is completely unrefined (i.e. tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated). The dietary exposure analysis will not underestimate exposure/risk.
• No residual uncertainties were identified in the exposure database.
• There are no residential uses for cyromazine.
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water [e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + residential exposure)]. This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Methods AG-408 (HPLC,/UV) and AG-417A (GLC/NPD) are the tolerance enforcement methods for cyromazine as published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM), Vol. II. These methods combined and with minor modifications comprise Method AG-621. The residue data submitted in support of these petitions were generated using Methods AG-408 and AG-621. Method AG-621 has been adequately validated for use for the determination of residues of cyromazine in/on bulb vegetables, leafy Brassica vegetables, and turnip greens. Method AG-408 is adequate for enforcement of the proposed tolerance for residues of cyromazine.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
Codex, Canadian or Mexican Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) are not established for cyromazine in/on leafy Brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, and turnip greens. Therefore, no compatability problems exist for the tolerances established by this rule.
Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of cyromazine, (
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0269 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 24, 2003.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm.104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
(a) * * *
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone and its metabolites in or on asparagus; bean, lima, succulent; cabbage; corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; horseradish, roots; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C; peanut; peanut, meal; peppermint, tops; potato; spearmint, tops; sugarcane, cane; sugarcane, molasses; and sunflower, seed. EPA is also deleting certain sulfentrazone tolerances that are no longer needed as result of this action. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 and FMC Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
This regulation is effective September 24, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0270, must be received on or before November 24, 2003.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the
Hoyt Jamerson, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703)308-9368; e-mail address:
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
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
In the
The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.498 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone, [
1. Delete horseradish, roots at 0.1 ppm; replace with horseradish, roots at 0.20 ppm.
2. Delete pea, dry, seed at 0.10 ppm; replace with pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.15 ppm.
3. Delete potato at 0.10 ppm; potato, granules/flakes at 0.20 ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.15 ppm; replace with potato at 0.15 ppm.
4. Delete sugarcane at 0.05 ppm; replace with sugarcane, cane 0.15 ppm and sugarcane, molasses at 0.20 ppm.
5. Delete sunflower at 0.1 ppm; replace with sunflower, seed at 0.20 ppm.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by sulfentrazone are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factors (SF) is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10
1.
i.
ii.
2.
The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for sulfentrazone in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of sulfentrazone.
The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The Screening Concentrations in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow ground water. For a screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a Tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, and both models include a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone, they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit E.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the EECs of sulfentrazone plus its major metabolite 3-carboxylic acid for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 26.0 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 7.8 ppb for surface water and 26.0 ppb for ground water.
3.
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether sulfentrazone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to sulfentrazone and any other substances and sulfentrazone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that sulfentrazone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at
1.
2.
• The dose-response was well characterized.
• There were clear NOAELs and LOAELs for developmental, offspring, maternal, and parental toxicities.
• The developmental effects in rabbits and the offspring effects in the rats were seen in the presence of maternal and parental toxicities, respectively.
• The parental reproductive and offspring effects were reproducible between the two reproductive studies.
3.
1. There are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicities via the oral route since the doses selected for overall risk assessments would address the concerns for the developmental and offspring toxicities seen in the above mentioned studies.
2. There are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicities via the dermal route since the dose/endpoint/study/species of concern was used for dermal-risk assessment.
3. The toxicology data base is complete.
4. The dietary (food) exposure assessment utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level residues and assumes 100% of crops treated with sulfentrazone. The assessment is based on reliable data and is not expected to underestimate exposure/risk.
5. Conservative assumptions are used in the drinking water models. The drinking water exposure assessment is not expected to underestimate exposure/risk.
6. The residential exposure assessment is based on conservative assumptions and is not expected to underestimate risk.
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + residential exposure). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because EPA considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, EPA will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1.
2.
3.
Sulfentrazone is proposed for registration for use that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for sulfentrazone. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs ranging from 6,900 for the U.S. population to 3,200 for children 3 to 5 years old. These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for aggregate exposure to food and residential uses. In addition, short-term DWLOCs were calculated and compared to the EECs for chronic exposure of sulfentrazone in ground water and surface water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect short-term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level of concern, as shown in Table 5 of this unit:
5.
6.
An adequate enforcement method using gas chromatography (GC) for the determination of sulfentrazone, DMS, and HMS residues is available for enforcement. The method was forwarded to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for inclusion in Pesticide Analytical Method Volume II (PAM II). The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
There are no established Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of sulfentrazone in/on the subject commodities. Therefore, no compatibility problems exist for the tolerances established by this rule.
Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of sulfentrazone and its metabolites HMS (
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0270 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 24, 2003.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (703) 603-0061.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
(a)
(2) Tolerances are established for combined residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone and its metabolites HMS (
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to amend its regulations listing the documents that provide adequate evidence of export for shipments of distilled spirits. We also propose to require submission of these documents within a specific 90-day timeframe. This action is being taken to clarify the existing regulations as to the types of acceptable documentation and to inform the public that the Bureau will consider the approval of alternative types of documentation as adequate export evidence.
Written comments must be received by November 24, 2003.
Send written comments to: Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221 (Attn: TTB Notice No. 16). See the “Public Participation” section of this notice for alternative means of commenting.
Copies of the proposed regulation, background materials, and any written comments received will be available for public inspection by appointment at the ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226; telephone 202-927-7890. You may also view online copies of this proposed regulation and any comments received regarding it under this notice number at
Joanne Brady, Specialist, Regulations and Procedures Division (Philadelphia, PA), Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 45797, Philadelphia, PA 19149; telephone 215-333-7050 or e-mail
Effective January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 divided the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) into two new agencies, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) in the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice. Regulation of distilled spirits, including evidence of exportation, is the responsibility of the new TTB. References to ATF in this document relate to events that occurred prior to January 24, 2003, or to functions that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives continues to perform.
Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. 5214, distilled spirits can be withdrawn from bonded premises for exportation, free of tax or without payment of tax, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. To help carry out these statutory provisions, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) has issued regulations which list several types of evidence that a proprietor can submit as adequate proof of export for shipments of distilled spirits. The proprietor is relieved of the tax liability at the time the distilled spirits are exported to a foreign or export destination, provided the proper evidence of exportation is submitted to TTB in a timely manner.
We propose to amend 27 CFR part 252, Exportation of Liquors, in order to clarify the existing regulations regarding evidence of exportation for shipments of distilled spirits. A new section, 27 CFR 252.39, clarifies the types of documentation that TTB will accept as adequate proof of export for shipments of distilled spirits. This new section will also require the documentation to be submitted within 90 days of the date of withdrawal of the distilled spirits.
We are taking this action regarding the submission of export documents for distilled spirits at the recommendation of the Office of the Inspector General. TTB's current internal processing procedures are directed by order TTB O 5020.8A. According to this order, it is our policy that exporters submit adequate proof of exportation within 90 days. An extension may be granted due to just cause. It is critical that TTB act promptly in tax assessment matters.
The tobacco export regulations at 27 CFR part 44 require that export evidence be furnished within 90 days of the date of removal of the tobacco products, or cigarette papers or tubes. In order to maintain consistency in TTB's internal processing procedures, we propose to apply the 90-day requirement to shipments of distilled spirits. We consider this time period to be a reasonable time for exporters to obtain and submit documentation to us in support of an export shipment. This period may be extended for just cause. At this time we are concentrating on revising the regulations for exporters of distilled spirits only. We will also be developing updated procedures for the beer and wine industries in the future.
We propose to revise 27 CFR 252.40 to reflect a change in the section heading. We also propose to add 27 CFR 252.44 to clarify and remind the industry of the opportunity to submit alternative types of documentation as adequate proof of export, provided such documentation is:
• Complete and accurate;
• Third-party verifiable; and
• Contains the same information required in an export bill of lading as outlined in 27 CFR 252.250.
In addition, we propose to add two new sections, 27 CFR 252.254 and 252.255, addressing certification of form TTB F 5100.11 by U.S. Customs Service and certificates of receipt issued by officials of foreign countries, both of which qualify as evidence of exportation.
TTB believes these additions and changes to the regulations will provide the public with a better understanding of its export documentation requirements, while allowing the industry the opportunity to submit alternative documents for approval.
TTB requests comments from all interested parties on the proposals contained in this notice. We specifically request comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand.
In order for a submission to be considered a “comment,” it must clearly indicate a position for or against the proposed rule or some part of it, or express neutrality about the proposed rule. Comments that use reasoning, logic, and, if applicable, good science to explain the commenter's position are the most persuasive in the formation of a final rule.
To be eligible for consideration, comments must:
• Contain your name and mailing address;
• Reference this notice number;
• Be legible and written in language generally acceptable for public disclosure;
• Contain a legible, written signature if submitted by mail or fax; and
• Contain your e-mail address if submitted by e-mail.
To assure public access to our office equipment, comments submitted by fax must be no more than five pages in length when printed on 8
We will carefully consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date. We will not acknowledge receipt of comments or reply to individual comments. We will summarize and discuss pertinent comments in the preamble to any subsequent notices or the final rule published as a result of the comments.
You may view copies of the comments on this notice of proposed rule making by appointment at the ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 927-7890. You may also request copies of comments (at 20 cents per page) by contacting the ATF Librarian at the above address.
For the convenience of the public, TTB will post comments received in response to this notice on the TTB web site. All comments posted on our web site will show the name of the commenter, but will not show street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses. We may also omit voluminous attachments or material that we do not consider suitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the ATF library as noted above. To access online copies of the comments on this rulemaking, visit
TTB cannot recognize any material in comments as confidential. All comments and materials may be disclosed to the public in the ATF library. We may also post the comment on our web site. (See “
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this notice because no new requirement to collect information is proposed.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect no negative impact on small entities. We are not proposing new requirements. Accordingly, the Act does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the order does not require a regulatory assessment.
The principal author of this document is Joanne Brady, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
Aircraft, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Armed forces, Beer claims, Excise taxes, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Vessels, Warehouses, Wine.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 27 CFR part 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 252 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1202; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5007, 5008, 5041, 5051, 5054, 5061, 5111, 5112, 5114, 5121, 5122, 5124, 5201, 5205, 5207, 5232, 5273, 5301, 5313, 5555, 6302, 7805; 27 U.S.C. 203, 205; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
2. Section 252.39 is added to read as follows:
(a)
(1) A copy of an export bill of lading, such as an ocean bill of lading, signed by the carrier or its agent (§ 252.250); or
(2) A copy of the railway express receipt (§ 252.251), signed by the carrier or its agent, containing the same information required in an export bill of lading (§ 252.250); or
(3) A copy of the air express receipt (§ 252.252), signed by the carrier or its agent, containing the same information
(4) A copy of the through bill of lading, signed by the carrier or its agent, where exportation is to a contiguous foreign country (§ 252.250); or
(5) A certificate from the export carrier or its agent, showing actual exportation, when a bill of lading is required and not obtainable, executed under the penalties of perjury, as provided for in § 252.253. It must contain the same information required in an export bill of lading (§ 252.250); or
(6) U.S. Customs certification on TTB F 5100.11, or a certificate of receipt as provided for in § 252.254; or
(7) A certificate of receipt issued by an official of the country or possession where the shipment of distilled spirits has actually landed, as provided for in § 252.255.
(b)
3. The heading of § 252.40 is revised to read as set forth below:
4. Section 252.44 is added to read as follows:
We may approve alternative types of documentation, upon letterhead request, provided such documentation is complete and accurate, third party verifiable, and contains the same information required in an export bill of lading (§ 252.250). You must follow the procedures in § 252.20 if you wish to request approval for use of alternative types of documentation.
5. Section 252.254 is added as follows:
To use TTB F 5100.11 as proof of export you must obtain certification by U.S. Customs Service in Part VII, Certificate of Clearance or Use, of the form. A signed certificate of receipt from U.S. Customs Service is also acceptable, if it contains the same information required in an export bill of lading (§ 252.250).
6. Section 252.255 is added as follows:
TTB will accept an appropriate certification from a foreign official as proof of export. If you use this proof, you must provide a signed certificate of receipt by an authorized official of a foreign country or possession verifying actual exportation. The certificate must contain sufficient information to identify the shipment and the TTB F 5100.11 covering the shipment.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 3 (Framework 3) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that would allow the rollover of unused commercial scup quota from the Winter I period to the Winter II period, and to change the regulations regarding the scup commercial quota counting procedures.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before October 9, 2003.
Copies of the Framework 3 document, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the Environmental Assessment, and other supporting documents for the framework adjustment are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at
Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9279, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail
The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management unit for scup (
Scup was most recently assessed at the 35
The Council has initiated this framework adjustment, pursuant to 50 CFR 648.127(a), to allow the commercial scup fishery to be more efficient and to better achieve the management objectives of the FMP, specifically regarding attainment of optimum yield from the scup fishery. The Council intends to continue the management programs detailed in the FMP and reduce overfishing and rebuild the scup stock.
The commercial scup fishery is managed under a system that allocates the annual quota to three periods: Winter I, January-April (45.11 percent); Summer, May-October (38.95 percent); and Winter II, November-December (15.94 percent). During the Winter periods, the quota is monitored on a coastwide basis. During the Summer period, the quota is also monitored on a coastwide basis, but the Commission uses a state-by-state allocation system to help manage the Federal quota. The Federal commercial scup fishery is closed coastwide when the allocation for a period is reached. In addition, any overages during a quota period are subtracted from that period's allocation for the following year. Any quota overages by a state during the Summer period (whether or not the total Summer period quota is exceeded) are subtracted by the Commission from the state's Summer period share the following year. The current regulations do not allow for the transfer of quota between periods within a fishing year. The final rule to implement the 2003 annual quota specifications (68 FR 60, January 2, 2003) established possession limits of 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) per trip during Winter I and 1,500 lb (680 kg) during Winter II, and specified that the Winter I possession limit be reduced to 1,000 lb (454 kg) per trip when 80 percent of the commercial quota allocated to that period is projected to be harvested.
Framework 3 proposes a process, for years in which the full Winter I commercial scup quota is not harvested, to allow unused quota from the Winter I period to be added to the quota for the Winter II period. During the development of this framework adjustment, the Council considered and analyzed three alternatives for unused Winter I quota: Taking no action, which would continue the current regulations without the ability to transfer unused quota between periods (Alternative 1); the proposed option (Alternative 2); and combining the Winter I and Winter II quotas into a single quota spanning the two periods (Alternative 3). A fourth option, to roll over unused quota from both the Winter I and Summer periods into Winter II, was considered but rejected for further analysis due to the impracticability of monitoring the Summer period quota through the end of the Summer period, calculating the amount of unused combined Winter I and Summer period quota, if any, and effecting the quota rollover prior to the beginning of the Winter II period. The proposed option was selected by the Council because, under Alternative 1, regulatory discarding in Winter II would continue to occur, and Alternative 3 introduces the risk that the entire combined winter quota could be taken during Winter I, resulting in no fishery during Winter II. Additionally, it may be difficult to develop possession limits that would accommodate the merged periods under Alternative 3. Alternative 2 is not associated with any risk to the scup stock or stocks of other species, and should provide economic and social benefits while meeting the objectives of National Standard 1.
In addition, commercial possession limits for the Winter II period would be adjusted, based on the amount of quota rolled over from the Winter I period. It is the Council's intention that the quota rollover and any necessary possession limit adjustments would be accomplished via a notification of changes prior to the beginning of the Winter II fishery.
For 2003, the Winter II quota is 1,979,689 lb (897,981 kg), and preliminary Winter I landings information indicates that 2,203,751 lb (999,605 kg) remain of the Winter I quota. Framework 3 proposes that the entire amount of unused 2003 Winter I quota be transferred to Winter II; assuming the transfer of 2,203,751 lb (999,605 kg), the total Winter II quota would be 4,183,440 lb (1,897,576 kg). The amount to be transferred will be updated in the final rule based on the latest landings information for the 2003 Winter I period. In addition to the quota transfer, Framework 3 proposes to increase the 2003 Winter II possession limit to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg ) per trip. For 2004 and future years, the Council will recommend Winter II possession limits, adjusted as appropriate based on the amount rolled over from Winter I to Winter II, as part of the annual commercial quota specification process.
The distribution of scup is such that they are occasionally available in nearshore (state) waters prior to the beginning of the Summer period (May 1). The Commission has informed the Council and NMFS that an addendum to the Interstate FMP will be prepared, in the event of a Federal Winter I closure prior to April 15, to allow scup landed April 15 through April 30 to be counted against the states' Summer period quota allocation. State permit holders would be allowed to land and sell scup to state and federally permitted dealers after April 15 and prior to the Federal opening of the Summer period on May 1, in order to reduce discards. In order to effect the planned change to the Commission allocation system, Framework 3 proposes a mechanism, for years when the Winter I commercial scup quota is completely harvested and the Winter I fishery is closed prior to April 15, and upon a state's written request, to allow for commercial landings of scup by state-only permitted vessels in said state that occur from April 15 through April 30 to be counted against the Summer period quota allocation.
During the development of this framework adjustment, the Council considered and analyzed two options for the quota counting procedures: A no-action alternative, which would not allow these landings to be counted against the Summer period quota, but would continue to require that they be recorded as an overage to the Winter I period quota; and the proposed option. The Council selected the proposed action because it would not alter the current quota period or allocations, would require only a minimal change to current Federal regulations, would reduce the negative effects associated with harvest demand when scup availability is high but landings are not allowed, and would not place the scup stock or stocks of other species at risk.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble. The preamble to this proposed rule also includes complete descriptions of the proposed, no action, and other alternatives discussed here.
The purpose of this framework is to better coordinate the timing of the fishery's harvest potential with availability of the resource. Under the no-action quota rollover alternative, the current allocation system as specified in the FMP would remain unchanged, and any negative economic impacts associated with it could persist. More specifically, a portion of the annual quota allocated to Winter I may be left unharvested, which would result in foregone economic opportunities to the fishing industry. Additionally, the existing regulations require that once the Winter II quota has been achieved, additional scup captured by the fishery operating during that time of year be discarded.
Allowing the transfer of unused scup quota from the Winter I period to the Winter II period could potentially increase landings of scup during the Winter II period. Applying the nominal average ex-vessel price of scup for the 1998-2002 Winter II period of $0.80/lb, and assuming the transfer of 2,203,751 lb (999,605 kg), the additional amount of scup available for harvest during the 2003 Winter II period would be valued at $1.763 million. If this increase in revenue is equally distributed among the 213 vessels that landed scup during the 2002 Winter II period, then overall ex-vessel gross revenues could increase by $8,277 per vessel. However, as it is possible that the average price for scup during Winter II may decrease, given the potential increase in scup landings, the estimate of the increase to ex-vessel gross revenues most likely represents an upper limit.
The proposed Winter II possession limit for 2003 of 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) per trip is not expected to impact the scup fishery negatively. In fact, the increased possession limit may have positive impacts by providing the market a regular product supply, and avoiding market gluts and price fluctuations.
It is expected that the proposed action regarding quota rollover from Winter I to Winter II would reduce social burdens associated with early closures that may occur under the current system for managing scup. It is expected that this alternative would have a positive impact on the ports and communities associated with the vessels participating in this fishery.
The impacts of the combination of Winter I and Winter II into one period are expected to be similar to those for the proposed action. However, it is possible that the entire quota could be harvested during Winter I. If this were to occur, fishermen would not be able to fish for scup during the Winter II period, potentially disrupting product supply, increasing discards, and contributing to price fluctuations, as well as severely constraining fishing opportunities for those fishermen that depend upon access to the Winter II quota period fishery. The proposed action would provide the maximum economic benefit to the fishing industry by ensuring that any unused Winter I period scup quota would be made available in the Winter II period.
Federal Northeast permit data indicate that there were 878 vessels with scup commercial permits in 2001. This action would affect only how certain landings are attributed, and would not affect the ability of vessels holding only a state permit to land and sell scup during a Federal closure.
The preferred quota counting procedures alternative would not affect overall scup landings, as total landings would continue to be restricted to the annual commercial quota. It is possible that, if the Winter I fishery were closed and inshore fishermen were allowed to land and sell scup, scup prices could increase. However, given the short length of time that inshore fishermen would have to land any scup harvested during a Winter I closure, i.e., April 15 through April 30, it is not expected that the scup price would be significantly affected. Nevertheless, selling scup harvested by inshore fisheries prior to May 1 during a Winter I closure would likely provide economic and social benefits to inshore fisheries. It is possible that the preferred alternative could result in the Summer period quota being harvested earlier. This would depend on the amount of the summer quota, numbers of fishermen that may participate in an early summer fishery, and/or the amount of scup that could potentially be landed after April 15 and prior to May 1 in the event of a Winter I closure. However, due to lack of information on these factors, this cannot be analyzed in detail.
Fishing, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. In § 648.120, paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (c) are revised; paragraph (d)(3) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(4) and the introductory text is revised; and new paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(5) are added to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) Landing limits for the Winter I and Winter II periods, including landing limits that result from potential rollover of quota from Winter I to Winter II. The possession limit is the maximum quantity of scup that is allowed to be landed within a 24-hour period (calendar day).
(4) All scup landed for sale in any state during a quota period shall be applied against the coastwide commercial quota for that period, regardless of where the scup were harvested, except as provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
(c)
(d) * * *
(3) The Regional Administrator will monitor the harvest of commercial quota for each quota period based on dealer reports, state data, and other available information and shall determine the total amount of scup landed during the Winter I period. If, in any year that the Regional Administrator determines that the landings of scup during Winter I are less than the Winter I quota for that year, he/she shall increase, through publication of a notification in the
(4) All scup landed for sale in any state during a quota period shall be applied against the coastwide commercial quota for that period, regardless of where the scup were harvested, except as provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this section. Any current year landings in excess of the commercial quota in any quota period will be deducted from that quota period's annual quota in the following year as prescribed below:
(5) If authorized by the Regional Administrator, and in a year in which the Winter I fishery has been closed prior to April 15, scup landed for sale from April 15 through April 30 by vessels issued a state permit only and fishing exclusively within the waters of a state may be counted against the Summer period quota. Requests to the Regional Administrator to count scup landings in a state from April 15 through April 30 against the Summer period quota must be made by letter signed by the principal state official with marine fishery management responsibility and expertise, or his/her designee, and must be received by the Regional Administrator no later than April 15. Within 10 working days following receipt of the letter, the Regional Administrator shall notify the appropriate state official of the disposition of the request.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant Mainstream Engineering Corporation of Rockledge, Florida an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 6,126,722, “Electrostatic Reduction System for Reducing Airborne Dust and Microorganisms,” issued on October 3, 2000. Notice of Availability of this invention for licensing was published in the
Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2003.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Mainstream Engineering Corporation of Rockledge, Florida has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and intent.
Notice is hereby given that the Federally owned invention disclosed in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/135,224 “Naphtalene and Naphthenate Derivates as Bait Toxicants for Subterranean Termites”, filed April 30, 2002, is available for licensing and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Waterbury Companies, Inc. of Waterbury, Connecticut, an exclusive license to this invention.
Comments must be received or or before December 23, 2003.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: (301) 504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Waterbury Companies, Inc. of Waterbury, Connecticut has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of inquiry.
The Department of Commerce requests industry comments on pressing standards issues and priority foreign markets. As part of the Department's Secretarial Initiative to Enhance Commerce Department Standards Activities, the Department is currently conducting a series of industry roundtables, seeking comment on barriers in export markets caused by foreign governments' policies on standards and technical regulatory requirements. The Department is supplementing these roundtables with a general solicitation of comments from industry representatives via this notice.
The Department has also scheduled an open roundtable standards discussion, to be held on October 23 at the Department of Commerce and invites interested parties to indicate their interest in participating in this roundtable.
Written comments on standards issues and foreign markets must be submitted to NIST no later than November 1, 2003.
The Department also invites industry to attend an open roundtable standards discussion, to be held on October 23 at the Department of Commerce. Participants in the discussion will be asked for their individual input and advice, and will not be asked to furnish group consensus advice.
A request to attend the open roundtable standards discussion should
The public is strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically rather than by facsimile or by mail.
All comments on standards issues and foreign markets should be addressed to: Dr. Belinda Collins, Deputy Director, Technology Services, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, fax (301) 975-2183. E-mail:
Those wishing to attend the open roundtable discussion should contact: Ms. Lisa Handy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development, International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail:
The full text of the Initiative is available at:
For further information on submitting input on standards issues and barriers in export markets, contact Dr. Belinda Collins, Deputy Director, Technology Services, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Tel: 301-975-4500 or Ms. Christine DeVaux, Technology Services, NIST, Tel: 301-975-4679.
For further information on the open roundtable, contact Ms. Lisa Handy, International Trade Administration, Tel: 202-482-2788.
On March 19, 2003, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans announced an eight-point Standards Initiative to help break down trade barriers. The initiative is in response to industry concerns that foreign standards and technical regulation issues are becoming among the greatest challenges to expanding exports.
Foreign standards and methods used to assess conformity to standards can facilitate efficient international trade and its benefits, or they also can be used intentionally or unintentionally to impede access to foreign markets. Many in industry view foreign standards and technical regulation as a principal non-tariff barrier in markets around the world. Divergent standards, redundant testing and compliance procedures, and unilateral and non-transparent standard setting exercises are now recognized as major impediments to free trade—estimated to affect 80 percent of world commodity trade.
Over the course of the last several months, a number of industry associations and companies have highlighted foreign standards development and technical regulations as an issue of increasing importance for U.S. exports. There is a sense from industry that the U.S. Government, specifically the Commerce Department, could do more to reduce the barriers to export markets caused by foreign governments' adverse policies on standards and technical regulatory requirements.
In response to industry concerns, the Commerce Department has developed an eight-point initiative to augment current activities as an effective framework to address the relationship between foreign standards and the international competitiveness of U.S. companies. The outputs of the Initiative will be used to determine recommendations to the Secretary by January 2004 for future action.
The full text of the Initiative may be found at
Under the Initiative, the Department will carry out the following activities:
(1) Conduct a standards activity assessment of all existing Commerce Department programs and efforts to reduce standards-related barriers in foreign markets; recommendations will be made to the Secretary for future action.
(2) Reinforce expertise in key markets through a new, redesigned, intensive training program for standards liaisons posted abroad.
(3) Devise an effective standards training and outreach program for all Commerce Department Foreign Commercial Service Officers.
(4) Develop and create a “best practices” database in addressing standards issues in foreign markets.
(5) Expand the early warning system to disseminate market intelligence and information on standards developments in key priority foreign markets in Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
(6) Support the development of a dialogue on standards within the proposed President's Export Council subcommittee on technology and competitiveness.
(7) Reach out to U.S. industry by hosting a series of industry-specific roundtables to gather input from industry on the most pressing standards issues and priority foreign markets. Summaries of the industry roundtables will be made publicly available by December 31, 2003.
(8) Appoint a liaison at the International Trade Administration to ensure that industry's priorities on standards are promoted through the Department's international policies and programs.
As part of the Initiative, the Department of Commerce is conducting a series of standards roundtables in order to gain U.S. industry's insight into how foreign standards and related technical regulations affect their competitiveness overseas. The Department is also interested in industry's views on national standards issues. Industry input will be used for the following:
(1) Outlining a roadmap for future action by DOC, based on some of the major concerns and issues raised by industry and based on areas where the Department's efforts are either supporting or not supporting industry's most important needs;
(2) Determining standards-related programs and strategies for Department activities; and,
(3) Informing Commerce offices on the current status of industry issues and on industry perspectives, and ensuring that their concerns are heard by a broad cross-section of the Department, including at senior levels.
Any advice will be provided by the participants acting as individuals and not as a group.
Input directed to the Department of Commerce should focus on the following questions (additional comments are also welcome):
1. What are the highest priority standards issues facing your industry?
2. Are there adequate national and/or international standards to satisfy your industry's trade/export-related needs?
3. Does your industry experience standards-related problems in specific countries or regions, or do these problems affect multiple regions?
4. Do your industry's problems result primarily from the technical requirements contained in standards or technical regulations that adopt such standards? Please describe specific examples where the technical requirements resulted in market entry problems in your industry.
5. Do your industry's problems result from how compliance with technical requirements is assessed? Do you have examples of cases where either the
6. Has your industry been able to take an effective approach to address international standards issues? What steps have produced the most benefit? Could other industrial sectors benefit from using these approaches?
7. Has your industry been able to take an effective approach to address national standards issues? What steps have produced the most benefit? Could other industrial sectors benefit from using these approaches?
8. Do you have examples of a problem experienced by your industry where the federal government has been effective in resolving the issues? What steps taken by federal government officials were effective in resolving the issue, and why were they effective? Would such steps or approaches be applicable in other cases or were their successes unique to a specific problem? What steps were ineffective or less effective, and why do you think that this was so? Was it the unique nature of the problem, or would such steps have been equally ineffective in most cases?
9. What actions would you recommend the Department undertake following this and similar roundtables? Would your industry be willing to help to improve the situation encountered with respect to problems associated with standards and conformity assessment?
All comments must be submitted no later than November 1, 2003.
11 a.m., Friday, October 3, 2003.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, October 10, 2003.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, October 17, 2003.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, October 24, 2003.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, October 31, 2003.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.
Closed.
Surveillance matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Community College of the Air Force.
Notice of meeting.
The Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) Board of Visitors will hold a meeting to review and discuss academic policies and issues relative to the operation of the college. Agenda items include a review of the operations of the CCAF and an update on the activities of the CCAF Policy Council.
Members of the public who wish to make oral or written statements at the meeting should contact First Lieutenant Richard W. Randolph, Designated Federal Officer for the Board, at the address below no later than 4 p.m. on 31 October 2003. Please mail or electronically mail all requests. Telephone requests will not be honored. The request should identify the name of the individual who will make the presentation and an outline of the issues to be addressed. At least 35 copies of the presentation materials must be given to Lieutenant Randolph no later than three days prior to the time of the board meeting for distribution. Visual aids must be submitted to Lieutenant Richard Randolph on a 3
The meeting will be held on Thursday, 20 November 2003 at 9 a.m., in the Conference Room, Commanders Conference Center, Bldg T905D, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150.
First Lieutenant Richard W. Randolph, (334) 953-7322, Community College of the Air Force, 130 West Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama,
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice of meeting; correction.
The Air Force published a notice of meeting of the Scientific Advisory Board in the
Mr. Paul Hazell, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Rm. 5D982, Washington, DC 20330-1180, (703) 693-8284.
In the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11:30 a.m., Monday, September 29, 2003.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of Board Members; 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
The Depository Library Council to the Public Printer (DLC) will meet on Sunday, October 19, 2003, through Wednesday, October 22, 2003, in Arlington, Virginia. The sessions will take place from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday, 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday and from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday. The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel Crystal City, National Airport, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Federal Depository Library Program. All sessions are open to the public.
A limited number of rooms are being held for Council attendees at the rate of $150 (plus tax) single, $170 (plus tax) double. Reservations can be made by dialing toll free, 1-800-222-TREE or the hotel directly at (703) 416-4100. The rate is good for the meeting dates as well as the three (3) days prior to the meeting and the three (3) days after the meeting. To receive the Government rate, you must make your reservation no later than September 28, 2003 and mention that you are attending the Depository Library Council meeting. After that date, rooms will be subject to availability at the best obtainable rate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kimberly Littleton Topper at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior to the September 25, 2003, Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting. Because the agency believes there is some urgency to bring this issue to public discussion and qualified members of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee were available at this time, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs concluded that it was in the public interest to hold this meeting even if there was not sufficient time for the customary 15-day public notice.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before August 23, 2003. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by October 9, 2003.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before August 30, 2003. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by October 9, 2003.
The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Foggy Mountain Coal Company, Inc., 13903 Elkhorn Creek Road, Shelby Gap, Kentucky 41653 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 1 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15-17813) located in Pike County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed, spring-loaded device on mobile battery-powered machine plug connectors in lieu of a padlock to prevent unintentional loosening of battery plugs from battery receptacles to eliminate the hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
MRI Mining, Inc., P.O. Box 308, Hi Hat, Kentucky 41636 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 1 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15-17228) located in Floyd County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed, spring-loaded device on mobile battery-powered machine plug connectors in lieu of a padlock to prevent unintentional loosening of battery plugs from battery receptacles to eliminate the hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
MRI Mining, Inc., P.O. Box 308, Hi Hat, Kentucky 41636 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 2 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15-17583) located in Floyd County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed, spring-loaded device on mobile battery-powered machine plug connectors in lieu of a padlock to prevent unintentional loosening of battery plugs from battery receptacles to eliminate the hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
RAMA Development Company, Inc., Route 3, Box 706, Delbarton, West Virginia 25670 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 2 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15-18560) located in Floyd County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed, spring-loaded device on mobile battery-powered
Star Coal Trucking, Inc., P.O. Box 3881, Pikeville, Kentucky 41502 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 2 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15-02240) located in Floyd County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed, spring-loaded device on mobile battery-powered machine plug connectors in lieu of a padlock to prevent unintentional loosening of battery plugs from battery receptacles to eliminate the hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Coal Services, LLC, P.O. Box 295, Inez, Kentucky 41224 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 1 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 15-16643) located in Pike County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed, spring-loaded device on mobile battery-powered machine plug connectors in lieu of a padlock to prevent unintentional loosening of battery plugs from battery receptacles to eliminate the hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Phelps Dodge Morenci Incorporated, 4521 N. US Hwy 191, Morenci, Arizona 85540 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 56.6309 (Fuel oil requirements for ANFO) to its Morenci Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 02-00024) located in Greenlee County, Arizona. The petitioner proposes to use recycled waste oil to prepare ammonium nitrate-fuel oil at the Morenci Mine. The petitioner has included specific procedures in this petition that would be used for recycling waste oil. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Cargill Deicing Technology, P.O. Box 106, Avery Island, Louisiana 70513 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 57.14100(b) (Safety defects; examination, correction and records) to its Avery Island Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 16-00509) located in Iberia County, Louisiana. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to allow Operator Presence switches to be removed from its John Deere 970 and 1070 tractors used to transport men, tools, and equipment to and from job sites. The petitioner states that the switches are designed to automatically kill the engine when pressure is released from the seat, but using these switches will present a hazard to the equipment operator.
Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via e-mail to
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Aerospace Medicine Occupational Health Advisory Committee.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW., Room 9H40 (Program Review Center), Washington, DC. Attendees must check in at the Visitor's Center located in the West Lobby (4th and E Streets) and will be escorted to the conference room.
Ms. Pamela Barnes, Code AM, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-2390.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/greencard information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, phone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees can provide identifying information in advance by contacting Pamela Barnes via e-mail at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before November 10, 2003. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.
To request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice, write to the Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Requests also may be transmitted by FAX to 301-837-3698 or by e-mail to
Paul M. Wester, Jr., Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-3120. E-mail:
Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
1. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (N1-145-02-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). General counsel files created by the Appeals and Litigation Group. Included are case files, agency copies of summaries and data used for reporting or tracking purposes, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.
2. Department Commerce, Bureau of the Census (N1-29-03-4, 8 items, 5 temporary items). Records of the Geography Division including duplicate electronic and paper copies of reference and thematic maps. Also included are cartographic records that contain no significant information that is not essentially reproduced in the final copy and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of reference maps, thematic maps, and printed large sheet maps.
3. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N1-370-02-3, 32 items, 26 temporary items). Records of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, including supporting materials associated with sanctuary designations, sanctuary management plan review and revision, environmental impact statements and environmental assessments, and damage assessment and restoration. Also included are such records as sanctuary permit applications and a related database, civil penalty case files, oil spill trusteeship and restoration files, sanctuary geographic information systems, a reference material database, and electronic copies
4. Department of Defense, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (N1-537-03-17, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Systems and equipment control files relating to printing and copying equipment. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
5. Department of State, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (N1-59-03-6, 11 items, 5 temporary items). Schedules of daily activities covering routine non-substantive matters, routine correspondence files, and reference files. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of subject, chronological, speech, and meeting files are proposed for permanent retention.
6. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (N1-59-03-7, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Routine correspondence and inquiries received by the Office of Defense Trade Controls. Records do not relate to specific arms export cases.
7. Department of State, Secretariat Staff (N1-59-03-8, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Logs and registers of retired records, telegrams, and memorandums for the 1950s and 1960s. Lists of memorandums of conversation with high level Soviet officials and lists of high level correspondence are proposed for permanent retention.
8. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser (N1-59-03-9, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Standard Forms 95, Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death, accumulated in connection with claims stemming from the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.
9. Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices (N1-56-03-10, 41 items, 29 temporary items). Records common to Departmental Offices. Included are such records as program, subject, and correspondence files maintained at or below the Deputy Assistant Secretary level, chronological reading files, copies of weekly reports submitted to high level officials, working papers and background materials relating to orders and directives, routine or informal publications, calendars and daily schedules, telephone logs, records that publicize activities not related to the agency's mission, and routine administrative records accumulated by committees and task forces. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such records as program, subject, and correspondences files maintained by an Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or the General Counsel, weekly reports to the Secretary submitted by an Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or the General Counsel, orders and directives, publications, studies, and reports, press releases, speeches made by high level officials, still pictures, sound and video recordings, posters, and minutes, agendas, and other official records of agency-sponsored committees and task forces.
10. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (N1-56-03-11, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Financial transaction files that document routine compliance actions and activities that do not require the creation of a project or case file. This schedule also reduces the retention period for one-time license authorities to release funds and inquiries requesting information on agency regulations, which were previously approved for disposal.
11. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (N1-412-01-12, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Certification statements and related correspondence pertaining to the importation of materials regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.
12. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service (N1-121-03-1, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to construction grants, including grant award documents, requests for the release of funds, balance sheets, and close out records. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.
The National Credit Union Administration Board voted to reschedule the date of the previously announced open Board meeting (
Matters to be considered are as follows:
1. Requests from Two (2) Federal Credit Unions to Convert to Community Charters.
2. Proposed Rule: Part 708a of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Conversion of Insured Credit Unions to Mutual Savings Banks.
3. Proposed Rule: Sections 701.20 and 741.2 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Suretyship and Guaranty; Maximum Borrowing Authority.
4. Final Rule: Parts 723, 702, 704, 712, and 742 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Member Business Loans.
Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: (703) 518-63004.
The time of the previously announced closed Board meeting (
Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: (703) 518-6304.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for reclearance of a revised information collection for the Scholarship For Service (SFS) Program Internet Webpage. Approval of the Webpage is necessary to facilitate the timely registration, selection and placement of program-enrolled students in Federal agencies.
The SFS Program was established by the National Science Foundation in accordance with the Federal Cyber Service Training and Education Initiative as described in the President's National Plan for Information Systems Protection, an outcome of Presidential Decision Directive 63. This program seeks to increase the number of qualified students entering the fields of information assurance and computer security in an effort to respond to the threat to the Federal Government's information technology infrastructure. The program provides capacity building grants to selected 4-year colleges and universities to develop or improve their capacity to train information assurance professionals. It also provides selected 4-year colleges and universities scholarship grants to attract students to the information assurance field. Participating students who receive scholarships from this program are required to serve a 10-week internship during their studies and complete a post-graduation employment commitment equivalent to the length of the scholarship or one year, whichever is longer.
We estimate 200 respondents annually. The application process takes approximately 60 minutes for a total annual burden of 200 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey at (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or e-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to:
and
Office of Personnel Management.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of a revised information collection. Standard Form 3112, CSRS/FERS Documentation in Support of Disability Retirement Application, collects information from applicants for disability retirement so that OPM can determine whether to approve a disability retirement. The applicant only completes Standard Forms 3112A and 3112C. Standard Forms 3112B, 3112D, and 3112E, are completed by the immediate supervisor and the applicant's employing agency.
Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Approximately 12,100 applicants for disability retirement complete Standard Forms 3112A and 3112C annually. This is a combined figure including 9,000 CSRS and 3,100 FERS applications. The SF 3112C requires approximately 60 minutes to complete. A burden of 12,100 hours is estimated for SF 3112C. SF 3112A is used each year by approximately 1,350 persons who are not Federal employees. This is a combined figure including 1,000 CSRS and 350 FERS applications. SF 3112A requires approximately 30 minutes to complete and a burden of 675 hours is estimated for SF 3112A. The total annual burden for SF 3112 is 12,775 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, Fax (202) 418-3251 or via e-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to—Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operation Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349A, Washington, DC 20415-3540.
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, Support Group, (202) 606-0623.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is providing notice of revised normal cost percentages for employees covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986.
The revised normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2004.
Agency appeals of the normal cost percentages must be filed no later than March 24, 2004.
Send or deliver agency appeals of the normal cost percentages
Send requests for actuarial assumptions and data to the Actuaries Group, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4307, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
Patrick Jennings, (202) 606-0299.
The FERS Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-335, created a new retirement system intended to cover most Federal employees hired after 1983. Most Federal employees hired before 1984 are under the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Section 8423 of title 5, United States Code, as added by the FERS Act of 1986, provides for the payment of the Government's share of the cost of the retirement system under FERS. Employees' contributions are established by law and constitute only a small fraction of the cost of funding the retirement system; employing agencies are required to pay the remaining costs. The amount of funding required, known as “normal cost,” is the entry age normal cost of the provisions of FERS that relate to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (Fund). The normal cost must be computed by OPM in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and standards (using dynamic assumptions). Subpart D of part 841 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates how normal costs are determined.
Recently, the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System approved a revised set of economic assumptions for use in the dynamic actuarial valuations of FERS. These assumptions were adopted after the Board reviewed statistical data prepared by the OPM actuaries and considered trends that may affect future experience under the System.
Based on its analysis, the Board concluded that it would be appropriate to assume a rate of investment return of 6.25 percent, a reduction of .50 percent from the current rate of 6.75 percent. The Board reduced the anticipated inflation rate from 3.75 percent to 3.25 percent, and reduced the projected rate of General Schedule salary increases from 4.25 percent to 4.00 percent. These salary increases are in addition to assumed in-grade increases that reflect past experience.
The new assumptions anticipate that over the long term the annual rate of investment return will exceed inflation by 3 percent and General Schedule salary increases will exceed inflation by .75 percent a year, as compared to 3 percent and .50 percent, respectively, under the previous assumptions. In addition, due to a considerable decline in the rate of early retirements, the Board reduced its demographic assumption of the anticipated rate of early retirements.
The normal cost calculations depend on both the economic and demographic assumptions. The demographic assumptions are determined separately for each of a number of special groups, in cases where separate experience data is available. Based on the new economic assumptions and the change in the demographic assumption concerning the rate of early retirements, OPM has determined the normal cost percentage for each category of employees under § 841.403 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The Governmentwide normal cost percentages, including the employee contributions, are as follows:
Under §841.408 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, these normal cost percentages are effective at the beginning of the first pay period commencing on or after October 1, 2004.
The time limit and address for filing agency appeals under § § 841.409 through 841.412 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, are stated in the
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—
NSR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicant's representative: James R. Paschall, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510-9241.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
NSR has filed an environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by September 29, 2003. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1539. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by October 24, 2004 and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.