Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0056-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Flufenacet; Notice of Filing Pesticide Petitions to Establish Tolerances for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food
Posted Date: 2003-03-20T05:00Z

13703
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
54
/
Thursday,
March
20,
2003
/
Notices
from
5
 
5:
30
p.
m.,
which
will
conclude
the
first
day
of
the
meeting.
For
both
public
comment
sessions
on
April
9th,
the
Board
invites
comments
on
a
wide
range
of
issues,
including
the
topic
for
its
upcoming
Seventh
Report:
links
between
children's
health
in
the
border
region
and
the
region's
environmental
infrastructure.
The
second
day
of
the
meeting,
April
10,
will
begin
at
8
a.
m.
and
conclude
at
11:
45
a.
m.
The
format
will
be
a
routine
business
meeting,
with
agenda
items
including
approval
of
minutes,
planning
for
upcoming
meetings,
and
status
of
reports.
Public
Attendance:
The
public
is
welcome
to
attend
all
portions
of
the
meeting.
Members
of
the
public
who
plan
to
file
written
statements
and/
or
make
brief
(
suggested
5­
minute
limit)
oral
statements
at
the
public
comment
session
are
encouraged
to
contact
the
Designated
Federal
Officer
for
the
Board
prior
to
the
meeting.
Background:
The
Good
Neighbor
Environmental
Board
meets
three
times
each
calendar
year
at
different
locations
along
the
U.
S.­
Mexico
border
and
also
holds
an
annual
strategic
planning
session.
It
was
created
by
the
Enterprise
for
the
Americans
Initiative
Act
of
1992.
An
Executive
Order
delegates
implementing
authority
to
the
Administrator
of
EPA.
The
Board
is
responsible
for
providing
advice
to
the
President
and
the
Congress
on
environmental
and
infrastructure
issues
and
needs
within
the
States
contiguous
to
Mexico
in
order
to
improve
the
quality
of
life
of
persons
residing
on
the
United
States
side
of
the
border.
The
statute
calls
for
the
Board
to
have
representatives
from
U.
S.
Government
agencies;
the
governments
of
the
States
of
Arizona,
California,
New
Mexico
and
Texas;
and
private
organizations
with
expertise
on
environmental
and
infrastructure
problems
along
the
southwest
border.
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
gives
notice
of
this
meeting
of
the
Good
Neighbor
Environmental
Board
pursuant
to
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
(
Public
Law
92
 
463).

Oscar
Carrillo,

Designated
Federal
Officer.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
6705
Filed
3
 
19
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
M
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0056;
FRL
 
7296
 
5]

Flufenacet;
Notice
of
Filing
Pesticide
Petitions
to
Establish
Tolerances
for
a
Certain
Pesticide
Chemical
in
or
on
Food
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
This
notice
announces
the
initial
filing
of
a
pesticide
petition
proposing
the
establishment
of
regulations
for
residues
of
flufenacet
in
or
on
various
food
commodities.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0056,
must
be
received
on
or
before
April
21,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
James
A.
Tompkins,
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
5697;
e­
mail
address:
tompkins.
jim@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

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
the
table
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
or
not
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0056.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
11
Mar
19,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
20MRN1.
SGM
20MRN1
13704
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
54
/
Thursday,
March
20,
2003
/
Notices
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

C.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
in
this
unit,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
email
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0056.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
e­
mail
to
opp­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0056.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB)
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0056.
3.
By
hand
delivery
or
courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0056.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
copies
of
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
the
estimate
that
you
provide.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
deadline
in
this
notice.
7.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
be
sure
to
identify
the
docket
ID
number
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
11
Mar
19,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
20MRN1.
SGM
20MRN1
13705
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
54
/
Thursday,
March
20,
2003
/
Notices
assigned
to
this
action
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
You
may
also
provide
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation.

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

List
of
Subjects
Environmental
protection,
Agricultural
commodities,
Feed
additives,
Food
additives,
Pesticides
and
pests,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
March
10,
2003.
Debra
Edwards,
Acting
Director,
Registration
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

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

Bayer
CropScience
PP
6F4631
and
OF6095
EPA
has
received
pesticide
petitions
(
6F4631
and
0F6095)
from
BayerCropScience,
P.
O.
Box
12014,
2
T.
W.
Alexander
Drive,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27709
proposing,
pursuant
to
section
408(
d)
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
21
U.
S.
C.
346a(
d),
to
amend
40
CFR
180.527(
a)
by
establishing
permanent
tolerance[
s]
for
residues
of
the
herbicide
flufenacet;
N­(
4­
fluorophenyl)­
N­(
1­
methylethyl)­
2­[[
5­(
trifluoromethyl)­
1,3,4­
thiadiazol­
2­
yl]
oxy]
acetamide
and
metabolites
containing
the
4­
fluoro­
Nmethylethyl
benzenamine
moiety
in
or
on
the
raw
agricultural
commodities:
corn,
field,
forage
at
0.4
parts
per
million
(
ppm);
corn,
field,
grain
at
0.05
ppm;
corn,
field,
stover
at
0.4
ppm;
soybean,
seed
at
0.1
ppm
(
PP
6F4631);
cattle,
fat
at
0.05
ppm;
cattle,
kidney
at
0.5
ppm;
cattle,
meat
at
0.05
ppm;
cattle,
meat
byproducts
at
0.1
ppm;
goat,
fat
at
0.05
ppm;
goat,
kidney
at
0.5
ppm;
goat,
meat
at
0.05
ppm;
goat,
meat
byproducts
at
0.1
ppm;
hog,
fat
at
0.05
ppm;
hog,
kidney
at
0.5
ppm;
hog,
meat
at
0.05
ppm;
hog,
meat
byproducts
at
0.1
ppm;
horse,
fat
at
0.05
ppm;
horse,
kidney
at
0.5
ppm;
horse,
meat
at
0.05
ppm;
horse,
meat
byproducts
at
0.1
ppm;
sheep,
fat
at
0.05
ppm;
sheep,
kidney
at
0.5
ppm;
sheep,
meat
at
0.05
ppm;
sheep,
meat
byproducts
at
0.1
ppm;
wheat,
forage
at
10.0
ppm;
wheat,
grain
at
1.0
ppm;
wheat,
hay
at
2.0
ppm;
wheat,
straw
at
0.50
ppm
(
PP
0F6095);
and
40
CFR
180.527(
d)
by
establishing
permanent
tolerances
for
indirect
or
inadvertent
residues
of
the
herbicide
flufenacet;
N­
(
4­
fluorophenyl)­
N­(
1­
methylethyl)­
2­
[[
5­(
trifluoromethyl)­
1,3,4­
thiadiazol­
2­
yl]
oxy]
acetamide
and
metabolites
containing
the
4­
fluoro­
N­
methylethyl
benzenamine
moiety
in
or
on
the
following
raw
agricultural
commodities
from
the
application
of
this
herbicide
to
the
raw
agricultural
commodities
listed
in
40
CFR
180.527(
a):
alfalfa,
forage
at
0.1
ppm;
alfalfa,
hay
at
0.1
ppm;
alfalfa,
seed
at
0.1
ppm;
clover,
forage
at
0.1
ppm;
clover,
hay
at
0.1
ppm;
grain,
cereal,
group
15,
except
rice
at
0.4
ppm;
grain,
cereal,
forage,
fodder
and
straw,
group
16,
except
rice,
forage
at
10.0
ppm;
grain,
cereal,
forage,
fodder
and
straw,
group
16,
except
rice,
stover
at
3.0
ppm;
grain,
cereal,
forage,
fodder,
and
straw,
group
16,
except
rice,
straw
at
1.0
ppm;
grass,
forage,
fodder,
and
hay,
group
17
at
0.1
ppm
(
PP
6F4631).

A.
Residue
Chemistry
1.
Plant
metabolism.
The
nature
of
the
residue
in
field
corn,
soybean,
rotational
crops
and
livestock
is
adequately
understood.
The
residues
of
concern
for
the
tolerance
expression
are
flufenacet
parent
and
its
metabolites
containing
the
4­
fluoro­
N­
methylethyl
benzenamine
moiety.
Based
on
the
results
of
animal
metabolism
studies,
it
is
unlikely
that
secondary
residues
would
occur
in
animal
commodities
from
the
use
of
flufenacet
on
field
corn
and
soybean.
2.
Analytical
method.
An
adequate
analytical
method,
gaschromatography/
mass
spectrometry
with
selected
ion
monitoring,
is
available
for
enforcement
purposes.
Because
of
the
long
lead
time
from
establishing
these
tolerances
to
publication
of
the
enforcement
methodology
in
the
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual,
Vol.
II,
the
analytical
methodology
is
being
made
available
in
the
interim
to
anyone
interested
in
pesticide
enforcement
when
requested
from:
Calvin
Furlow,
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Office
location
and
telephone
number:
Room
119E,
CM
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA
22202,
(
703)
305
 
5937).
3.
Magnitude
of
residues.
Field
residue
trials
were
conducted
across
the
major
regions
of
corn
and
soybean
production
in
the
United
States.
In
both
cases,
the
treatment
regime
was
selected
to
represent
the
use
patterns
that
are
most
likely
to
result
in
the
highest
residue
and
used
a
60%
dry
flowable
formulation
of
the
active
ingredient.
In
all
cases,
the
test
plots
received
a
single
application
of
the
product
at
a
rate
of
0.9
lbs.
of
active
ingredient
per
acre.
For
corn,
flufenacet
was
applied
at
preplant
soil
incorporated,
preemergence
broadcast,
and
early
postemergence
application
timings.
The
highest
average
field
trial
residues
in
corn
raw
agricultural
commodities
were
0.36
ppm
in
forage,
0.16
ppm
in
fodder,
and
less
than
0.05
ppm
in
grain.
No
significant
concentration
of
these
residues
occurred
when
the
corn
grain
was
processed
by
either
wet
or
dry
milling
procedures.
For
soybean,
flufenacet
was
applied
as
a
preplant
broadcast
treatment
that
was
incorporated
to
a
depth
of
approximately
2
inches
or
as
a
preemergent
broadcast
treatment
made
within
1
day
of
planting
the
soybean
crop.
The
maximum
residues
detected
were
0.10
ppm
in
seed,
1.20
ppm
in
green
forage,
and
9.75
ppm
in
dry
hay.

B.
Toxicological
Profile
1.
Acute
toxicity.
i.
Technical
grade
flufenacet
has
a
low
to
moderate
order
of
toxicity
in
rats
by
the
oral
route
of
exposure.
The
acute
oral
LD50
was
1,617
milligrams/
kilogram
(
mg/
kg)
for
males
and
589
mg/
kg
for
females.
ii.
A
dermal
toxicity
study
on
technical
grade
flufenacet
revealed
low
acute
toxicity
to
rats.
The
dermal
LD50
for
both
sexes
was
>
2,000
mg/
kg,
the
highest
dose
tested.
iii.
An
acute
inhalation
study
on
technical
grade
flufenacet
showed
low
toxicity
in
rats
with
a
4­
hour
liquid
aerosol
LC50
for
males
and
females
of
>
3,740
mg/
m3
air,
the
highest
concentration
tested.
iv.
An
eye
irritation
study
on
technical
grade
flufenacet
in
rabbits
showed
minimal
irritation
to
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
11
Mar
19,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
20MRN1.
SGM
20MRN1
13706
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
54
/
Thursday,
March
20,
2003
/
Notices
conjunctiva
completely
reversible
within
7
days.
v.
A
dermal
irritation
study
on
technical
grade
flufenacet
in
rabbits
did
not
produced
any
irritation.
vi.
Skin
sensitization
studies
on
technical
grade
flufenacet
in
guinea
pigs
have
produced
equivocal
results.
A
skin
sensitization
potential
was
exhibited
under
the
conditions
of
a
maximization
test,
whereby,
there
was
no
skin
sensitization
potential
when
tested
by
the
Buehler
Topical
Closed
Patch
Technique.
2.
Genotoxicty.
Flufenacet
was
negative
for
mutagenic/
genotoxic
effects
in
a
gene
mutation/
in
vitro
assay
in
bacteria,
a
gene
mutation/
in
vitro
assay
in
Chinese
hamster
lung
fibroblasts
cells,
a
cytogenetics/
in
vitro
assay
in
Chinese
hamster
ovary
cells,
a
cytogenetics/
in
vivo
mouse
micronucleus
assay,
and
an
in
vitro
unscheduled
DNA
synthesis
assay
in
primary
rat
hepatocytes.
3.
Reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity.
i.
A
two­
generation
rat
reproduction
study
with
a
parental
systemic
no
observed
adverse
effect
level
(
NOAEL)
of
20
ppm
(
1.4
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
1.5
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
and
a
reproductive
NOAEL
of
20
ppm
(
1.3
mg/
kg/
day)
and
a
parental
systemic
lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level
(
LOAEL)
of
100
ppm
(
7.4
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
8.2
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
based
on
increased
liver
weight
in
F1
females
and
hepatocytomegaly
in
F1
males
and
a
reproductive
LOAEL
of
100
ppm
(
6.9
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
increased
pup
death
in
early
lactation
(
including
cannibalism)
for
F1
litters
and
the
same
effects
in
both
F1
and
F2
pups
at
the
high
dose
level
of
500
ppm
(
37.2
mg/
kg/
day
in
F1
males
and
41.5
mg/
kg/
day
in
F1
females,
respectively).
ii.
A
rat
developmental
study
with
a
maternal
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg/
day
and
with
a
maternal
LOAEL
of
125
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
decreased
body
weight
gain
initially
and
a
developmental
NOEL
of
25
mg/
kg/
day
and
a
developmental
LOAEL
of
125
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
decreased
fetal
body
weight,
delayed
development
(
mainly
delays
in
ossification
in
the
skull,
vertebrae,
sternebrae,
and
appendages),
and
an
increase
in
the
incidence
of
extra
ribs.
iii.
A
rabbit
developmental
study
with
a
maternal
NOAEL
of
5
mg/
kg/
day
and
a
maternal
LOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
histopathological
finds
in
the
liver
and
a
developmental
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg/
day
and
a
developmental
LOAEL
of
125
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
skeletal
variations.
4.
Subchronic
toxicity.
i.
A
84
 
day
rat
feeding
study
with
a
NOAEL
less
than
100
ppm
(
6.0
mg/
kg/
day)
for
males
and
a
NOAEL
of
100
ppm
(
7.2
mg/
kg/
day)
for
females
and
with
a
LOAEL
of
100
ppm
(
6.8
mg/
kg/
day)
for
males
based
on
suppression
of
thyroxine
(
T4)
level
and
a
LOAEL
of
400
ppm
(
28.8
mg/
kg/
day)
for
females
based
on
hematology
and
clinical
chemistry
findings.
ii.
A
13
 
week
mouse
feeding
study
with
a
NOAEL
of
100
ppm
(
18.2
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
24.5
mg/
kg/
day
for
females)
and
a
LOAEL
of
400
ppm
(
64.2
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
91.3
mg/
kg/
day
for
females)
based
on
histopathology
of
the
liver,
spleen
and
thyroid.
iii.
A
13
 
week
dog
dietary
study
with
a
NOAEL
of
50
ppm
(
1.70
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
1.67
mg/
kg/
day
for
females)
and
a
LOAEL
of
200
ppm
(
6.90
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
7.20
mg/
kg/
day
for
females)
based
on
evidence
that
the
biotransformation
capacity
of
the
liver
has
been
exceeded,
(
as
indicated
by
an
increase
in
LDH,
liver
weight,
ALK
and
hepatomegaly),
globulin
and
spleen
pigment
in
females,
decreased
T4
and
ALT
values
in
both
sexes,
decreased
albumin
in
males,
and
decreased
serum
glucose
in
females.
iv.
A
21
 
day
rabbit
dermal
study
with
the
dermal
irritation
NOAEL
of
1,000
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
females
and
a
systemic
NOAEL
of
20
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
150
mg/
kg/
day
for
females
and
a
systemic
LOAEL
of
150
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
1,000
mg/
kg/
day
for
females
based
on
clinical
chemistry
data
(
decreased
T4
and
FT4
levels
in
both
sexes)
and
centrilobular
hepatocytomegaly
in
females.
5.
Chronic
toxicity.
i.
A
1
 
year
dog
chronic
feeding
study
with
a
NOAEL
was
40
ppm
(
1.29
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
1.14
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
and
a
LOAEL
of
800
ppm
(
27.75
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
26.82
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
based
on
increased
alkaline
phosphatase,
kidney,
and
liver
weight
in
both
sexes,
increased
cholesterol
in
males,
decreased
T2,
T4
and
ALT
values
in
both
sexes,
and
increased
incidences
of
microscopic
lesions
in
the
brain,
eye,
kidney,
spinal
cord,
sciatic
nerve
and
liver.
ii.
A
rat
chronic
feeding/
carcinogenicity
study
with
a
NOAEL
less
than
25
ppm
(
1.2
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
1.5
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
and
a
LOAEL
of
25
ppm
(
1.2
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
1.5
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
based
on
methemoglobinemia
and
multi­
organ
effects
in
blood,
kidney,
spleen,
heart,
and
uterus.
Under
experimental
conditions
the
treatment
did
not
alter
the
spontaneous
tumor
profile.
iii.
In
a
mouse
carcinogenicity
study
the
NOAEL
was
less
than
50
ppm
(
7.4
mg/
kg/
day)
for
males
and
the
NOAEL
was
50
ppm
(
9.4
mg/
kg/
day)
for
females
and
the
LOAEL
was
50
ppm
(
7.4
mg/
kg/
day)
for
males
and
the
LOAEL
was
200
ppm
(
38.4
mg/
kg/
day)
for
females
based
on
cataract
incidence
and
severity.
There
was
no
evidence
of
carcinogenicity
for
flufenacet
in
this
study.
6.
Animal
metabolism.
A
rat
metabolism
study
showed
thatradiolabeled
flufenacet
was
rapidly
absorbed
and
metabolized
by
both
sexes.
Urine
was
the
major
route
of
excretion
at
all
dose
levels
and
smaller
amounts
were
excreted
via
the
feces.
7.
Metabolite
toxicology.
A
55
 
day
dog
study
withsubcutaneous
administration
of
thiadone
(
flufenacet
metabolite)
supports
the
hypothesis
that
limitations
in
glutathione
interdependent
pathways
and
antioxidant
stress
result
in
metabolic
lesions
in
the
brain
and
heart
following
flufenacet
exposure.
8.
Endocrine
disruption.
EPA
is
required
to
develop
ascreening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticides
and
inerts)
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen,
or
such
other
effect.
The
Agency
is
currently
working
with
interested
stakeholders,
including
other
government
agencies,
public
interest
groups,
industry
and
research
scientists
in
developing
a
screening
and
testing
program
and
a
priority
setting
scheme
to
implement
this
program.
Congress
has
allowed
3
years
from
the
passage
of
FQPA
(
August
3,
1999)
to
implement
this
program.
At
that
time,
EPA
may
require
further
testing
of
this
active
ingredient
and
end
use
products
for
endocrine
disrupter
effects.
Based
on
the
toxicological
findings
for
flufenacet
relating
to
endocrine
disruption
effects,
flufenacet
should
be
considered
as
a
candidate
for
evaluation
as
an
endocrine
disrupter
when
the
criteria
are
established.
9.
Other
studies.
i.
An
acute
rat
neurotoxicity
study
with
a
NOAEL
less
than
75
mg/
kg/
day
and
a
LOAEL
of
75
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
decreased
motor
activity
in
males.
ii.
A
rat
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
with
a
NOAEL
of
120
ppm
(
7.3
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
8.4
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
and
a
LOAEL
of
600
(
38.1
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
42.6
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
based
on
microscopic
lesions
in
the
cerebellum/
medulla
and
spinal
cords.
iii.
A
rat
developmental
neurotoxicity
dietary
study
established
an
overall
NOAEL
for
both
dams
and
offspring
of
17.5
ppm.
A
LOAEL
of
80.8
ppm
was
established
based
on
body
weight
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
11
Mar
19,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
20MRN1.
SGM
20MRN1
13707
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
54
/
Thursday,
March
20,
2003
/
Notices
feed
consumption
declines
common
to
both
dams
and
offspring
as
well
as
developmental
delays
which
were
noted
in
the
offspring
(
eye
opening,
preputial
separation).
No
evidence
of
specific
neurobehavioral
effects
in
the
offspring
were
observed
at
dietaryconcentrations
of
up
to
404
ppm.

C.
Aggregate
Exposure
1.
Dietary
exposure.
Flufenacet
is
an
herbicide
withcurrently
registered
uses
on
corn
and
soybean.
Section
18
emergency
exemptions
for
use
on
wheat
have
been
approved
in
several
states.
Also,
time
limited
tolerances
exist
for
inadvertent
or
indirect
residues
on
alfalfa,
clover,
and
crop
groups
15,
16
and
17.
Tolerances
are
proposed
for
use
on
Crop
Group
1C,
tuberous
and
corm
vegetables,
which
includes
potatoes
and
sweet
potatoes.
There
are
no
residential
uses
for
flufenacet,
therefore
aggregate
exposure
would
consist
of
any
potential
exposure
to
flufenacet
residues
in
the
registered
and
proposed
crops
and
in
drinking
water.
i.
Food.
Acute
and
Chronic
dietary
exposure
assessments
were
conducted
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEM
 
,
Version
7.76)
from
Exponent,
Inc.
and
the
1994
 
1996,
1998
CSFII
consumption
database.
Dietary
exposure
values
were
compared
to
the
acute
RfD
of
0.083
milligrams/
kilogram
of
body
weight
per
day
(
mg/
kg
bw/
day)
based
on
a
LOEL
from
an
acute
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats
and
a
900
 
fold
uncertainty
factor.
The
chronic
RfD
of
0.004
mg/
kg
bw/
day
is
based
on
a
LOEL
from
a
combined
chronic
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
study
in
the
rat
with
a
300
 
fold
uncertainty
factor.
The
refined
acute
and
chronic
dietary
risk
assessments
were
performed
using
anticipated
residues
for
all
registered
and
proposed
crops
and
crop
groups.
Adjustments
were
made
to
account
for
percent
of
crop
treated
and
processing
factors
where
available.
The
Tier
2
acute
analysis
resulted
in
the
U.
S.
population
using
0.00437
mg/
kg
bw/
day
or
5.2%
of
the
acute
RfD.
The
highest
exposed
subpopulation
was
non­
nursing
infants
at
0.00893
mg/
kg
bw/
day
utilized
or
10.7%
of
the
acute
RfD.
For
the
Tier
3
chronic
analysis
the
U.
S.
population
utilized
0.000087
mg/
kg
bw/
day
or
2.2%
of
the
chronic
RfD.
The
highest
exposed
subpopulation
was
children
1
 
6
at
0.000179
mg/
kg
bw/
day
or
4.5%
of
the
chronic
RfD.
ii.
Drinking
water.
The
EPA
has
calculated
drinking
waterlevel
of
comparison
(
DWLOCs)
for
acute
exposure
to
flufenacet
in
drinking
water
as
2.87
ppm
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
813
ppb
for
children
(
1
 
6
years
old).
The
Agency's
screening
concentration
in
ground
water
(
SCI­
Grow)
model
estimates
peak
levels
of
flufenacet
and
its
metabolite
thiadone
in
groundwater
to
be
15.3
ppb.
EPA's
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model/
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
PRZM/
EXAMS)
estimates
peak
levels
of
flufenacet
and
its
metabolite
thiadone
in
surface
water
to
be
17
ppb.
EPA's
acute
drinking
water
levels
of
comparison
are
well
above
the
estimated
exposures
for
flufenacet
in
water
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
the
subgroup
with
highest
estimated
exposure.
The
EPA
has
calculated
the
drinking
water
level
of
comparison
for
chronic
exposure
to
flufenacet
in
drinking
water
as
136
ppb
for
the
U.
S.
population
assuming
that
an
adult
weighs
70
kg
and
consumes
a
maximum
of
2
liters
of
water
per
day.
For
children
(
1
 
6
years
old),
the
DWLOC
was
37.7
ppb
assuming
that
a
child
weighs
10
kg
and
consumes
a
maximum
of
1
liter
of
water
per
day.
The
drinking
water
estimated
concentration
(
DWECs)
for
groundwater
(
parent
flufenacet
and
degradate
thiadone)
calculated
from
modeling
data
is
0.03
ppb
for
chronic
concentrations
which
does
not
exceed
the
DWLOC
of
37.7
ppb
for
children
(
1
 
6
years
old).
The
DWEC
for
surface
water
based
on
the
computer
models
PRZM
2.3
and
EXAMS
2.97.5
was
calculated
to
be
14.2
ppb
for
chronic
concentration
(
parent
flufenacet
and
degradate
thiadone)
which
does
not
exceed
the
DWLOC
of
37.7
ppb
for
children
(
1
 
6
years
old).
The
EPA
has
concluded
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
flufenacet
residues.
2.
Non­
dietary
exposure.
There
are
no
non­
food
uses
of
flufenacet
currently
registered
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act,
as
amended.
No
non­
dietary
exposures
are
expected
for
the
general
population.

D.
Cumulative
Effects
Flufenacet
is
structurally
a
thiadiazole.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
other
pesticides
with
this
structure.
For
flufenacet,
EPA
has
not
yet
conducted
a
detailed
review
of
common
mechanisms
to
determine
whether
it
is
appropriate,
or
how
to
include
this
chemical
in
a
cumulative
risk
assessment.
After
EPA
develops
a
methodology
to
address
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
issues
to
risk
assessments,
the
Agency
will
develop
a
process
(
either
as
part
of
the
periodic
review
of
pesticides
or
otherwise)
to
reexamine
these
tolerance
decisions.
Unlike
other
pesticides
for
which
EPA
has
followed
a
cumulative
risk
approach
based
on
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
flufenacet
does
not
appear
to
produce
a
toxic
metabolite
produced
by
other
substances.
For
the
purposes
of
these
tolerance
actions;
therefore,
EPA
has
not
assumed
that
flufenacet
has
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
substances.

E.
Safety
Determination
1.
U.
S.
population.
Using
the
assumptions
and
data
described
above,
it
is
concluded
that
chronic
dietary
exposure
to
all
registered
and
proposed
uses
of
flufenacet
will
utilize
at
most
2.2%
of
the
chronic
RfD
for
the
U.
S.
population.
The
acute
dietary
exposure
assessment
results
in
the
U.
S.
population
utilizing
5.2%
of
the
acute
RfD.
EPA
generally
has
no
concern
for
exposures
below
100%
of
the
acute
or
chronic
reference
dose.
Drinking
water
levels
of
comparison
based
on
the
dietary
exposure
are
greater
than
the
highly
conservative
drinking
water
estimated
concentrations
as
shown
above.
Therefore,
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
occur
to
the
U.
S.
population
from
aggregate
exposure
(
food
and
drinking
water)
to
residues
of
flufenacet.
2.
Infants
and
children.
In
assessing
the
potential
for
additional
sensitivity
of
infants
and
children
to
residues
of
flufenacet,
EPA
considered
data
from
developmental
toxicity
studies
in
the
rat
and
rabbit
and
a
two­
generation
reproduction
study
in
the
rat.
The
developmental
toxicity
studies
are
designed
to
evaluate
adverse
effects
on
the
developing
organism
resulting
from
pesticide
exposure
during
prenatal
development
to
one
or
both
parents.
Reproduction
studies
provide
information
relating
to
effects
from
exposure
to
the
pesticide
on
the
reproductive
capability
of
mating
animals
and
data
on
systemic
toxicity.
FFDCA
section
408
provides
that
EPA
shall
apply
an
additional
tenfold
margin
of
safety
for
infants
and
children
in
the
case
of
threshold
effects
to
account
for
pre­
and
post­
natal
toxicity
and
the
completeness
of
the
data
base
unless
EPA
determines
that
a
different
margin
of
safety
will
be
safe
for
infants
and
children.
Although
there
is
no
indication
of
increased
sensitivity
to
young
rats
or
rabbits
following
pre­
and/
or
post­
natal
exposure
to
flufenacet
in
the
standard
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
studies,
an
additional
developmental
neurotoxicity
study,
which
is
not
normally
required,
is
needed
to
access
the
susceptibility
of
the
offspring
in
function/
neurological
development.
Therefore,
EPA
has
required
that
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
be
conducted
with
flufenacet
and
a
threefold
safety
factor
for
children
and
infants
will
be
used
in
the
aggregate
dietary
acute
and
chronic
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
11
Mar
19,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
20MRN1.
SGM
20MRN1
13708
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
54
/
Thursday,
March
20,
2003
/
Notices
risk
assessment.
Although
there
is
no
indication
of
additional
sensitivity
to
young
rats
or
rabbits
following
pre­
and/
or
post­
natal
exposure
to
flufenacet
in
the
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
studies;
the
Agency
concluded
that
the
FQPA
safety
factor
should
not
be
removed
but
instead
reduced
because:
i.
There
was
no
assessment
of
susceptibility
of
the
offspring
in
functional/
neurological
developmental
and
reproductive
studies.
ii.
There
is
evidence
of
neurotoxicity
in
mice,
rats,
and
dogs.
iii.
There
is
concern
for
thyroid
hormone
disruption.
Using
the
assumptions
and
data
described
in
the
aggregate
exposure
section
and
the
appropriate
safety
factors
as
discussed
above
it
is
concluded
that
the
most
sensitive
subpopulations
of
infants
and
children
have
a
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm.
For
the
chronic
assessment,
the
most
sensitive
subpopulation,
children
1
 
6,
uses
4.5%
of
the
chronic
RfD.
The
acute
assessment
shows
the
most
sensitive
subpopulation
to
be
non­
nursing
infants
at
10.7%
of
the
acute
RfD.
The
calculated
drinking
water
levels
of
comparison
(
DWLOCs)
for
children
of
765
ppb
(
acute)
and
38
ppb
(
chronic)
are
well
above
the
conservative
drinking
water
estimated
concentrations.
Therefore,
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
occur
to
infants
and
children
from
aggregate
exposure
to
potential
residues
of
flufenacet
in
food
and
drinking
water.

F.
International
Tolerances
Maximum
residue
levels
are
established
or
proposed
for
countries
of
the
European
Communities
in
the
following
commodities:
Cereals
at
0.5
ppm;
corn
at
0.5
ppm;
potato
at
0.1
ppm;
sunflower
at
0.05
ppm;
soybean
at
0.05
ppm;
animal
meat
at
0.05
ppm;
animal
edible
offal's
at
0.05
ppm;
animal
fat
at
0.05
ppm;
milk
at
0.01
ppm;
and
eggs
at
0.05
ppm.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
6711
Filed
3
 
19
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public
Information
Collection(
s)
Requirement
Submitted
to
OMB
for
Emergency
Review
and
Approval
March
13,
2003.

SUMMARY:
The
Federal
Communications
Commission,
as
part
of
its
continuing
effort
to
reduce
paperwork
burden
invites
the
general
public
and
other
Federal
agencies
to
take
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
following
information
collection(
s),
as
required
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
Public
Law
104
 
13.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
control
number.
No
person
shall
be
subject
to
any
penalty
for
failing
to
comply
with
a
collection
of
information
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
that
does
not
display
a
valid
control
number.
Comments
are
requested
concerning
(
a)
whether
the
proposed
collection
of
information
is
necessary
for
the
proper
performance
of
the
functions
of
the
Commission,
including
whether
the
information
shall
have
practical
utility;
(
b)
the
accuracy
of
the
Commission's
burden
estimate;
(
c)
ways
to
enhance
the
quality,
utility,
and
clarity
of
the
information
collected;
and
(
d)
ways
to
minimize
the
burden
of
the
collection
of
information
on
the
respondents,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
or
other
forms
of
information
technology.
DATES:
Written
comments
should
be
submitted
on
or
before
April
21,
2003.
If
you
anticipate
that
you
will
be
submitting
comments,
but
find
it
difficult
to
do
so
within
the
period
of
time
allowed
by
this
notice,
you
should
advise
the
contacts
listed
below
as
soon
as
possible.
ADDRESSES:
Direct
all
comments
to
Kim
A.
Johnson,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
Room
10236
NEOB,
Washington,
DC
20503,
(
202)
395
 
3562
or
via
internet
at
Kim_
A._
Johnson@
omb.
eop.
gov,
and
Les
Smith,
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Room
1
 
A804,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20554
or
via
internet
to
jboley@
fcc.
gov.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
additional
information
or
copies
of
the
information
collections
contact
Les
Smith
at
202
 
418
 
0217
or
via
internet
at
lesmith@
fcc.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
Commission
has
requested
emergency
OMB
review
of
this
collection
with
an
approval
by
March
19,
2003.
OMB
Control
Number:
3060
 
0110.
Type
of
Review:
Revision
of
a
currently
approved
collection.
Title:
Application
for
Renewal
of
Broadcast
Station
License,
FCC
Form
303
 
S.
Form
Number:
FCC
303
 
S.
Respondents:
Business
or
other
forprofit
entities;
Not­
for­
profit
institutions.
Number
of
Respondents:
3,217.
Estimated
Time
per
Response:
40
mins.
to
9.75
hrs.
Frequency
of
Response:
Eight­
year
reporting
requirement;
Third
party
disclosure.
Total
Annual
Burden:
5,271
hours.
Total
Annual
Cost:
$
1,567,401.
Needs
and
Uses:
FCC
Form
303
 
S
is
used
in
applying
for
renewal
of
a
license
for
a
commercial
or
non­
commercial
AM,
FM,
or
TV
broadcast
station
and
FM
translator,
TV
translator,
or
low
power
TV
(
LPTV),
or
low
power
FM
broadcast
station.
It
can
also
be
used
to
seek
the
joint
renewal
of
licenses
for
an
FM
or
TV
translator
station
and
its
coowned
primary
FM,
TV,
or
LPTV
station.
The
FCC
has
recently
made
two
new
statutory
changes
 
47
U.
S.
C.
312(
g),
which
provides
for
automatic
expiration
of
a
license
if
the
licensee
does
not
broadcast
(``
goes
silent'')
for
twelve
months;
and
47
U.
S.
C.
309(
k),
which
affects
renewal
standards
and
FCC
violations.
The
Commission
is
also
revising
Form
303
 
S
to
make
it
a
simpler
and
clearer
form
that
shifts
to
a
convenient
certification­
based
approach
to
applicants.
Furthermore,
the
Commission
is
changing
this
form
in
line
with
the
release
on
November
20,
2002
of
the
Second
Report
and
Order
and
FNPRM,
Review
of
the
Commission's
Broadcast
and
Cable
Equal
Employment
Opportunities
Rules
and
Policies,
MM
Docket
No.
98
 
204,
FCC
02
 
303.

Federal
Communications
Commission.
William
F.
Caton,
Deputy
Secretary.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
6514
Filed
3
 
19
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6712
 
01
 
P
FEDERAL
ELECTION
COMMISSION
Sunshine
Act
Meeting
Notices
AGENCY:
Federal
Election
Commission.

PREVIOUSLY
ANNOUNCED
DATE
AND
TIME:
Thursday,
March
20,
2003,
10
a.
m.,
meeting
open
to
the
public.
This
meeting
was
cancelled.

PREVIOUSLY
ANNOUNCED
DATE
AND
TIME:
Thursday,
March
27,
2003,
10
a.
m.,
meeting
open
to
the
public.
This
meeting
was
cancelled.

DATE
AND
TIME:
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003,
at
10
a.
m.
PLACE:
999
E
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
STATUS:
This
meeting
will
be
closed
to
the
public.

ITEMS
TO
BE
DISCUSSED:
Compliance
matters
pursuant
to
2
U.
S.
C.
437g.
Audits
conducted
pursuant
to
2
U.
S.
C.
437g,
438(
b),
and
Title
26,
U.
S.
C.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
11
Mar
19,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
20MRN1.
SGM
20MRN1