Library of Congress.
Final regulation.
The Library of Congress issues this final regulation to reflect the revision of Library of Congress Regulations 317-1, 317-2, and 515. This revision of the above mentioned regulation clarifies the responsibilities and policies by which the Library of Congress conducts acquisition of materials by non-purchase means and disposes of surplus library materials.
March 6, 2000.
Elizabeth A. Pugh, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20540-1050. Telephone No. (202) 707-6316.
The purpose of this regulation (36 CFR 701.33) is to identify who at the Library of Congress or outside entities (1) may request and/or approve gifts, deposits, exchanges or transfers of library materials; (2) may receive surplus library materials.
Libraries, Seals and insignia.
In consideration of the foregoing the Library of Congress amends 36 CFR part 701 as follows:
2 U.S.C. 136; 18 U.S.C. 1017.
(a)
(b)
(2) It is the policy of the Library of Congress to accept certain individual items or special collections as deposits when: permanent acquisition of such materials cannot be effected immediately; the depositors give reasonable assurance of their intention to donate the materials deposited to the United States of America for the benefit of the Library of Congress; the Library of Congress determines that such ultimate transfer of title will enrich its collections; and the depositors agree that the materials so deposited may be available for unrestricted use or use in the Library under reasonable restrictions.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Library of Congress.
Final regulation.
The Library of Congress issues this final regulation to revise Library of Congress Regulation 1210 on information about the Library. The revised regulation will now refer interested parties to the Public Affairs Office instead of the Information Office. This revision also clarifies the procedures with regard to relations with representatives of the press, radio, television, and other public-information media.
March 6, 2000.
Elizabeth A. Pugh, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20540-1050. Telephone No. (202) 707-6316.
The purpose of this regulation (36 CFR 701.4) is to identify who at the Library of Congress (1) is the principal contact for representatives of the media; (2) gives advice to Library officers and staff members on public-relations and public-information matters; keeps the Librarian and other officers informed of developments in this field; and (4) promotes the resources and activities of the Library.
Libraries, Seals and insignia.
In consideration of the foregoing the Library of Congress amends 36 CFR part 701 as follows:
2 U.S.C. 136; 18 U.S.C. 1017.
(a)
(b)
(1) During regular office hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.) telephone operators shall refer requests for information, from the media only, about the Library to the Public Affairs Office. All other requests for information shall be referred to the National Reference Service or other appropriate offices of the Library.
(2) All other Library offices and staff members who receive inquiries directly from representatives of the media for information about the Library, other than generally published information, shall refer such inquiries to the Public Affairs Office.
(3) The Public Affairs Office shall respond directly to inquiries concerning the Library, calling upon other offices to supply information to it as necessary, or shall arrange for other offices or staff members, as appropriate, to supply such information directly and report back to Public Affairs after the contact has been made. Requests for Library of Congress records, however, shall be made in accordance with 36 CFR Part 703.
(4) When the Public Affairs Office is closed (evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays), requests from the media for information about the Library shall be referred to the Public Affairs Officer at his/her home. In the event that person is not available, inquiries shall be referred to the Acting Public Affairs Officer, or, in turn, a designated public affairs specialist.
(c) Other Library Units and Staff Members. All Other Library Units and Staff Members shall be responsible for keeping the Public Affairs Office fully and promptly informed of contacts with the press, except in those instances of routine reference inquiries; supplying the Public Affairs Office with any data it requires in order to respond to inquiries from representatives of the media; and reporting promptly to the Public Affairs Office substantive contacts with media representatives about the Library and its policies or activities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyvinyl acetate, copolymer with maleic
This regulation is effective March 6, 2000. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-300942, must be received by EPA on or before May 5, 2000.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VIII. of the
By mail: Amelia M. Acierto, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8377 and e-mail address: acierto.amelia@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In the
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1001(c) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyvinyl acetate, copolymer with maleic anhydride, partially hydrolyzed, sodium salt.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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(c)(2)(A)(ii) 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) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of 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...” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers that should present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b). The following exclusion criteria for identifying these low risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
1. The polymer, polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt, is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is not manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
Additionally, the polymer, polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt, also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
7. The polymer's minimum number average MW of 53,000 is greater than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt meets all the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the above criteria, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number average MW of polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt is 53,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt conforms to the criteria that identify a low risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. Since the Agency has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt, a tolerance is not necessary.
Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance exemption, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” The Agency has not made any conclusions as to whether or not polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other chemicals. However, polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt conforms to the criteria that identify a low risk polymer. Due to the expected lack of toxicity based on the above conformance, the Agency has determined that a cumulative risk assessment is not necessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure to residues of polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt.
FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
There is no available evidence that polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt is an endocrine disruptor.
There are no known exemptions from a tolerance for polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for polyvinyl acetate, carboxyl modified sodium salt nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting polyvinyl acetate, copolymer with maleic anhydride, partially hydrolyzed, sodium salt from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
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 of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) 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), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. 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 control number OPP-300942 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 May 5, 2000.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 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 (202) 260-4865.
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, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
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 an exemption from the tolerance requirement under FFDCA section 408(d) 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.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
2. In § 180.1001 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding alphabetically the following inert ingredient to read as follows:
(c) * * *
National Science Foundation.
Final rule.
This document sets forth revisions of the Foundation's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act. The new FOIA provisions implement the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, including revised time limit on response, negotiating with the requester, and expedited processing procedures. They make no changes in the figures currently used for calculating and charging fees under the FOIA. The Privacy Act regulations have been restructured for ease of use and outdated information eliminated.
April 5, 2000.
D. Matthew Powell (703) 306-1060.
On November 24, 1999 the National Science Foundation published a proposed rule that revised its existing regulations under the FOIA and Privacy Act and added new provisions implementing the Electronic FOIA Amendments (published at 64 FR 66146). Interested persons were invited to submit written comments on the proposed rule. The Foundation received one set of comments on the proposed FOIA regulations, and none on the Privacy Act regulations. After due consideration of the comments, NSF has adopted several of the modifications to the FOIA regulations suggested by the commenter and has made other minor revisions to its proposed rule for clarity.
The commenter objected to the referral procedures proposed by the Foundation, primarily because of the potential for delay in responding to requests. These procedures are in accordance with the guidance and the regulations of the Department of Justice, and thus are retained as appropriate and in keeping with the FOIA.
The commenter also objected to the statement in the proposed regulation
The commenter questioned the absence of the proposed rule of a verbatim restatement of the definition of “unusual circumstances.” Such restatements of statutory language are not necessary to the regulation. However, the phrase “as defined in the FOIA,” has been added for clarity.
The commenter raised a concern regarding the statutory requirement to provide certification to support expedited requests, stating that requesters may not be sufficiently familiar with the Act to know that such certification is necessary and that the need to provide such certification may prove burdensome and time-consuming. The implementation of the statutory requirement for certification is identical to that of other agencies, and the Foundation does not anticipate that this requirement will materially delay processing of requests. It is retained as proposed.
Comments were also made on several examples given in § 612.7, Exemptions. Changes have been made where appropriate.
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U.S.C. 601), the rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities; the rule addresses the procedures to be followed when submitting or responding to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act. For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) the rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and would not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. For purposes of Executive Order 12866, the rule is not a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget. For the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35) it has been determined that this rulemaking does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirement on the public.
Administrative practice and procedure; Freedom of information.
Administrative practice and procedure; Privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.
This part contains the rules that the National Science Foundation follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. Information routinely made available to the public as part of a regular Foundation activity (for example, program announcements and solicitations, summary of awarded proposals, statistical reports on U.S. science, news releases) may be provided to the public without reliance on this part. As a matter of policy, the Foundation also makes discretionary disclosures of records or information otherwise exempt under the FOIA whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption. This policy, however, does not create any right enforceable in court. When individuals seek records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, NSF processes those requests under both NSF's Privacy regulations at part 613 of this chapter, and this part.
(a) The Foundation maintains a public reading room located in the NSF Library at 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 225, Arlington, Virginia, open during regular working hours Monday through Friday. It contains the records that the FOIA requires to be made regularly available for public inspection and copying and has computers and printers available for public use in accessing records. Also available for public inspection and copying are current subject matter indexes of reading room records.
(b) Information about FOIA and Privacy at NSF and copies of frequently requested FOIA releases are available online at <www.nsf.gov/pubinfo/foia.html>. Most NSF policy documents, staff instructions, manuals, and other publications that affect a member of the public, are available in electronic form through the “Documents” option on the tool bar on NSF's Home Page on the World Wide Web at <www.nsf.gov>.
(a)
(b)
(c)(1) If you are making a request for records about yourself and the records are not contained in a Privacy Act system of records, your request will be processed only under the FOIA, since the Privacy Act does not apply. If the records about you are contained in a Privacy Act system of records, NSF will respond with information on how to make a Privacy Act request (see NSF Privacy Act regulations at 45 CFR 613.2).
(2) If you are making a request for personal information about another individual, either a written authorization signed by that individual in accordance with § 613.2(f) of this
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(1) If the Foundation determines that it is the agency best able to process the record in response to the request, then it will do so, after consultation with the other interested agencies where appropriate.
(2) If it determines that it is not the agency best able to process the record, then it will refer the request regarding that record (or portion of the record) to the agency that originated or has a substantial interest in the record in question (but only if that agency is subject to the FOIA). Ordinarily, the agency that originated a record will be presumed to be best able to determine whether to disclose it.
(3) Where the Foundation reasonably believes that multiple requests submitted by a requester, or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request that would otherwise involve unusual circumstances, and the requests involve clearly related matters, they may be aggregated. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters will not be aggregated.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Where the extension is for more than ten working days, the FOIA Officer will provide the requester with an opportunity either to modify the request so that it may be processed within the ten day extension period or to arrange an agreed upon alternative time period with the FOIA Officer for processing the request or a modified request.
(d)
(2)(i) Requests and appeals will be given expedited treatment whenever it is determined that a requester has demonstrated compelling need by presenting:
(A) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(B) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.
(ii) For example, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that he or she is
(3) Within ten calendar days of receipt of a request for expedited processing, the FOIA Officer or OIG will decide whether to grant it, and will notify the requester of the decision orally or in writing. If a request for expedited treatment is granted, the request will be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision will be acted on expeditiously.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Requesters can appeal an agency determination to withhold all or part of any requested record; a determination that a requested record does not exist or cannot be located; a determination that what has been requested is not a record subject to the Act; a disapproval of a fee category claim by a requester; denial of a fee waiver or reduction; or a denial of a request for expedited treatment (see § 612.9).
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) Operating rules, guidelines, manuals on internal procedure, schedules and methods utilized by NSF investigators, inspectors, auditors and examiners.
(ii) Negotiating positions or limits at least until the execution of a contract (including a grant or cooperative agreement) or the completion of the action to which the negotiating positions were applicable. They may also be exempt pursuant to other provisions of this section.
(iii) Information relating to position management and manpower utilization, such as internal staffing plans, authorizations or controls, or involved in determination of the qualifications of candidates for employment, advancement, or promotion including examination questions and answers.
(iv) Computer software, the release of which would allow circumvention of a statute or NSF rules, regulations, orders, manuals, directives, instructions, or procedures; or the integrity and security of data systems.
(3)
(i) Records that disclose any invention in which the Federal Government owns or may own a right, title, or interest (including a nonexclusive license), 35 U.S.C. 205;
(ii) Contractor proposals not specifically set forth or incorporated by reference into a contract, 41 U.S.C. 253b(m);
(iii) Information protected by the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. 423.
(4)
(i) Information received in confidence, such as grant applications, fellowship applications, and research proposals prior to award;
(ii) Confidential scientific and manufacturing processes or developments, and technical, scientific, statistical data or other information developed by a grantee.
(iii) Technical, scientific, or statistical data, and commercial or financial information privileged or received in confidence from an existing or potential contractor or subcontractor, in connection with bids, proposals, or contracts, concerning contract performance, income, profits, losses, and expenditures, as well as trade secrets, inventions, discoveries, or other proprietary data. When the provisions of 41 U.S.C. 253b(m) or 41 U.S.C. 423 are met, certain proprietary and source selection information may also be withheld under Exemption 3.
(iv) Confidential proprietary information submitted on a voluntary basis.
(v) Statements or information collected in the course of inspections, investigations, or audits, when such statements are received in confidence
(5)
(i) Those portions of reports, memoranda, correspondence, workpapers, minutes of meetings, and staff papers, containing evaluations, advice, opinions, suggestions, or other deliberative material that are prepared for use within NSF or within the Executive Branch of the Government by agency personnel and others acting in a consultant or advisory capacity;
(ii) Advance information on proposed NSF plans to procure, lease, or otherwise acquire, or dispose of materials, real estate, facilities, services or functions, when such information would provide undue or unfair competitive advantage to private interests or impede legitimate government functions;
(iii) Trade secret or other confidential research development, or commercial information owned by the Government, where premature release is likely to affect the Government's negotiating position or other commercial interest;
(iv) Records prepared for use in proceedings before any Federal or State court or administrative body;
(v) Evaluations of and comments on specific grant applications, research projects or proposals, or potential contractors and their products, whether made by NSF personnel or by external reviewers acting either individually or in panels, committees or similar groups;
(vi) Preliminary, draft or unapproved documents, such as opinions, recommendations, evaluations, decisions, or studies conducted or supported by NSF;
(vii) Proposed budget requests, and supporting projections used or arising in the preparation and/or execution of a budget; proposed annual and multi-year policy, priorities, program and financial plan and supporting papers;
(viii) Those portions of official reports of inspection, reports of the Inspector General, audits, investigations, or surveys pertaining to safety, security, or the internal management, administration, or operation of NSF, when these records have traditionally been treated by the courts as privileged against disclosure in litigation.
(6)
(i) Reports, records, and other materials pertaining to individual cases in which disciplinary or other administrative action has been or may be taken. Opinions and orders resulting from those administrative or disciplinary proceedings shall be disclosed without identifying details if used, cited, or relied upon as precedent.
(ii) Records compiled to evaluate or adjudicate the suitability of candidates for employment, and the eligibility of individuals (civilian or contractor employees) for security clearances, or for access to classified information.
(iii) Reports and evaluations which reflect upon the qualifications or competence of individuals.
(iv) Personal information such as home addresses and telephone and facsimiles numbers, private e-mail addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, marital status and the like.
(iv) The exemption also applies when the fact of the existence or nonexistence of a responsive record would itself reveal personally private information, and the public interest in disclosure is not sufficient to outweigh the privacy interest.
(7)
(i) This exemption applies only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:
(A) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(B) Would deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of a living person, or living close survivors of a deceased person identified in a record;
(D) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a source within the Federal Government, or a State, local, or foreign agency or authority, or any private institution, that furnished information on a confidential basis; and information furnished by a confidential source and obtained by a criminal law enforcement authority in a criminal investigation;
(E) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
(F) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
(ii) Examples of records normally exempt from disclosure include, but are not limited to:
(A) The identity and statements of complainants or witnesses, or other material developed during the course of an investigation and all materials prepared in connection with related government litigation or adjudicative proceedings;
(B) The identity of firms or individuals investigated for alleged irregularities involving NSF grants, contracts or other matters when no indictment has been obtained, no civil action has been filed against them by the United States, or no government-wide public suspension or debarment has occurred.
(C) Information obtained in confidence, expressed or implied, in the course of a criminal investigation by the NSF Officer of the Inspector General.
(iii) The exclusions contained in 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(1) and (2) may also apply to these records.
(8)
(9)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or
(2) The Foundation has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reason(s) why the submitter's disclosure objections were not sustained;
(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which will be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.
(h)
(1) The Foundation determines that the information should not be disclosed (the Foundation protects from disclosure to third parties information about specific unfunded applications, including pending, withdrawn, or declined proposals);
(2) The information lawfully has been published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 (3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 235); or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (c) of this section appears obviously frivolous, in which case the Foundation will, within a reasonable time prior to a specified disclosure date, give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information.
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(c)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, NSF will provide without charge:
(i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent); and
(ii) The first two hours of search (or the cost equivalent).
(3) Whenever a total fee calculated under paragraph (c) of this section is $25.00 or less for any request, no fee will be charged.
(4) The provisions of paragraphs (d) (2) and (3) of this section work together. This means that noncommercial requesters will be charged no fees unless the cost of search in excess of two hours plus the cost of duplication in excess of 100 pages totals more than $25.00. Commercial requesters will not be charged unless the costs of search, review, and duplication total more than $25.00.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(2) Where NSF determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will be more than $250.00, it may require the requester to make an advance payment of an amount up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request, except where it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester that has a history of prompt payment.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged fee to any agency within 30 days of the date of billing, NSF may require the requester to pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee, before NSF begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request from that requester.
(4) In cases in which NSF requires advance payment or payment due under paragraph (i)(2) or (3) of this section, the request will not be considered perfected and further work will not be done on it until the required payment is received.
(j)
(k)
(2) To determine whether the first fee waiver requirement is met, NSF will consider the following factors:
(i) The subject of the request: Whether the subject of the requested records concerns “the operations or activities of the government.” The subject of the requested records must concern identifiable operations or activities of the federal government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.
(ii) The informative value of the information to be disclosed: Whether disclosure is “likely to contribute” to an understanding of government operations or activities. The disclosable portions of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. Disclosure of
(iii) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the public likely to result from disclosure: Whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to “public understanding.” The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public will be considered. A representative of the news media as defined in paragraph (b)(6) of this section will normally be presumed satisfy this consideration.
(iv) The significance of the contribution to public understanding: Whether disclosure is likely to contribute “significantly” to public understanding of government operations or activities. The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent as compared to the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure. NSF will make no value judgments about whether information that would contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government is “important” enough to be made public.
(3) To determine whether the second fee waiver requirement is met, NSF will consider the following factors:
(i) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest: Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. NSF will consider any commercial interest of the requester (with reference to the definition of “commercial use” in paragraph (b)(1) of this section), or of any person on whose behalf the requester may be acting, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. Requesters will be given an opportunity in the administrative process to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(ii) The primary interest in disclosure: Whether any identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” A fee waiver or reduction is justified where the public interest standard is satisfied and that public interest is greater in magnitude than that of any identified commercial interest in disclosure. NSF ordinarily will presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return will not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(4) Where only some of the requested records satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver will be granted for those records.
(5) Requests for the waiver or reduction of fees should address the factors listed in paragraphs (k) (2) and (3) of this section, insofar as they apply to each request.
Nothing in this part will be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
5 U.S.C. 552a.
This part sets forth the National Science Foundation procedures under the Privacy Act of 1974. The rules in this part apply to all records in systems of records maintained by NSF that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves and request amendment or correction of those records. All Privacy Act requests for access to records are also processed under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (as provided in part 612 of this chapter), which gives requesters the benefit of both statutes. Notice of systems of records maintained by the National Science Foundation are published in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The identity of the record subject, by stating individual's name and current address and, at your option, the social security number and/or date and place of birth of the individual;
(2) Your own identity, as required in paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) That you are the parent or guardian of that individual, which you may prove by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing your parentage or by providing a court order establishing your guardianship; and
(4) That you are acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(h)
(1) Transcripts of testimony given under oath or written statements made under oath;
(2) Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, judicial proceedings, or quasi-judicial proceedings, which are the official record of those proceedings;
(3) Pre-sentence records that originated with the courts; and
(4) Records in systems of records that have been exempted from amendment under Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) by notice published in the
(a)
(1) “Fellowships and Other Awards,”
(2) “Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records,”
(3) “Reviewer/ Proposal File and Associated Records,” and
(4) “Reviewer/Fellowship and Other Awards File and Associated Records.”
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the Privacy Act.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document substitutes Channel 285C3 for Channel 285A at Kaukauna, Wisconsin, reallots Channel 285C3 to Denmark, Wisconsin, and modifies the license for Station WPCK to specify operation on Channel 285C3 at Denmark in response to a petition filed by Midwest Dimensions, Inc.
April 14, 2000.
Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-36, adopted February 16, 2000, and released February 29, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule; technical amendment; response to petition to delay effective date.
On November 5, 1998, NHTSA published a final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221,
This rule is effective April 5, 2000. Any petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later than April 20, 2000. The effective day of May 5, 2000 for the final rule published at 63 FR 59732, Nov. 5, 1998 amending § 571.221 is delayed until May 5, 2001.
Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number for this action and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590.
For technical issues you may call: Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-0247. Mr. Hott's FAX number is: (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is: (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
The purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221,
In a final rule published on November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732), NHTSA enhanced the applicability of Standard No. 221 and made a number of other changes. At present, Standard No. 221 applies only to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 4536 kg (10,000 pounds). The standard also specifies strength requirements for each “body panel joint,” currently defined as the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance access panels (MAPs).
The November 5, 1998 final rule extended the applicability of Standard No. 221 to school buses with a GVWR of 4536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less
The final rule also simplified the definition of “maintenance access panel” and adopted a definition of “passenger compartment” based on the definition in Standard No. 217,
NHTSA specified that the final rule would take effect 18 months after
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from AmTran Corporation, Blue Bird Body Company, and Thomas Built Buses. The petitioners asked for reconsideration of decisions regarding issues such as whether the standard would apply to joints from which a test sample cannot be made; the number of fasteners for curved and complex joints; whether the term “automotive” type joints should be defined; whether the term “bus body” should exclude structures forward of the
The manufacturers stated the greatest cost effect would result from the final rule's rescinding a November 28, 1978 interpretation letter that addressed the issue of how to compute the area of a sample of a body panel when testing for Standard No. 221 compliance. In the letter, NHTSA stated that in its compliance testing, it would determine the net cross-sectional area of a body panel sample by multiplying the width of the sample by its thickness and then subtracting the area of each “discreet fastener hole.” Rescinding the letter means that when testing for compliance with Standard No. 221, NHTSA would no longer subtract the area of each discreet fastener hole when determining the net cross-sectional area of the sample. The practical effect of that change is that school bus manufacturers would have to use more fasteners in order to meet the standard. The final rule included a new provision, S6.2(c), making it clear that the cross-sectional area of material removed to facilitate the installation of fasteners shall be considered in determining the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel.
All three petitioners asked that S6.2(c) be removed, and the November 28, 1978 interpretation letter be reinstated. Blue Bird stated that the interpretation letter has been the basis for determining minimum allowable tensile strength for FMVSS certification and NHTSA compliance purposes since it was issued. Blue Bird informed the agency that approximately half of the joint designs used in manufacturing Blue Bird school buses use discrete fasteners, the majority of which will require redesign and retesting. Other school bus manufacturers may use non-discrete fasteners such as welds and adhesives, which may also have to be redesigned and retested. If the November 28, 1978 interpretation letter is not reinstated and if S6.2(c) takes effect, Blue Bird estimated that there will be an increase of 12 to 25 percent in the number of required fasteners. Blue Bird indicated that the new method of calculating joint strength would result in hard tooling (
Thomas Built stated that most of its cost increases would be incurred when providing the extra fasteners needed when the change in the joint strength calculation procedure (in S6.2(c)) becomes effective. Thomas estimated that the increase in costs for a school bus to meet the final rule's maintenance access panel changes only, (including labor, fasteners, tooling and fixtures), would be $157. The cost per school bus of meeting maintenance access panel changes and S6.2(c) would be $352. Thomas also estimated that the total cost to modify its plant (which would be necessary to meet the new final rule) would be $313,000 if the maintenance access panel changes only take effect and $1,388,000 if the maintenance access panel changes and S6.2(c) take effect.
In a letter dated September 28, 1999, Blue Bird asked that NHTSA extend the effective date of its November 5, 1998, final rule to “a minimum of 18 months following publication of an amended final rule, or to May 5, 2002, whichever is later.” Blue Bird cited the expense involved in pursuing redesign, testing, tooling and manufacturing changes that would result when the final rule takes effect. Blue Bird noted that these retooling and other changes would not be necessary if the changes requested by the petitioners are made to the November 5, 1998 final rule. Blue Bird asked that if granted, the petition for extension of the effective date be issued as soon as possible. Blue Bird said that it and other school bus manufacturers already have had to make preparations with tooling and die manufacturers to produce machining that would enable the production (in May 2000) of school buses that meet the November 5, 1998 final rule.
We are carefully reviewing the petitions for reconsideration of the November 1998 final rule. One possible outcome of that review would be a decision to grant the petitioners' request to remove S6.2(c) and reinstate the November 28, 1978, interpretation letter permitting subtraction of holes in calculating joint strength. If we were to remove S6.2(c) and reinstate the letter, the expensive die and tooling changes cited by school bus manufacturers in their petitions for reconsideration would be unnecessary. Therefore, while we are deciding whether to grant the petitions for reconsideration, we are preserving the status quo by extending the effective date for the November 1998 final rule until May 5, 2001. We expect to issue a new document addressing the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration well before May 5, 2001. If additional time is needed, we will issue an additional extension.
This document also corrects an error in S5.2.1(a) of the November 5, 1998 final rule. The preamble of the final rule stated that the rule excluded certain maintenance access panels (MAPs) from the joint tensile strength requirements. Excluded were MAPs with openings of less than 305 mm. Specifically, we stated in the preamble:
To be excluded, the MAP must either: (1) * * * ; or (2) be located within the passenger seating area but have an opening that does not exceed 305 mm (12 inches) when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
The language quoted above makes explicit NHTSA's intent to exclude MAPs with openings of less than 305 mm from joint tensile strength requirements. However, as drafted, S5.2.1(a) of the final rule states that MAPs which
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities:
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Further, we have determined that this action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
In its Final Regulatory Evaluation for the November 5, 1998 final rule, NHTSA estimated that the total cost for implementing the final rule would be approximately $8,500,000 per year. This rule delays the effective date of that final rule for one year,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In the November 5, 1998 final rule, the agency certified that that rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, I certify that this final rule, which delays the implementation of that earlier final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As noted in the November 5, 1998 final rule, the SBA defines a motor vehicle retailer with less than $11,500,000 in annual receipts as a small business. There are approximately 465 school bus dealers and distributors in the United States. The average sales of school buses from 1995 to 1999 was about 40,000 per year, representing an average of less than 100 buses per dealer. In order to reach the threshold of $11,500,000 in annual sales receipts, the average dealer would have to sell a much larger number (270) of large school buses annually, assuming a cost of $45,280 per unit. Thus, most school bus dealers are probably small businesses. Because of the negligible cost impact on manufacturers, the agency also anticipates little measurable impact on retailers' revenue levels, profitability, or employment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason is that this final rule applies to manufacturers of school buses and to school buses, and not to the States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a state or political subdivision of a state may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required before parties may file suit in court.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This final rule will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental, health or safety effects of the rule on children, and explain why the regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does not involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect children.
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
S5.2.1 The requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 do not apply to—
(a) Any interior maintenance access panel which lies forward of the passenger compartment, or which is less than 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy (DOE).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; Correction.
On November 30, 1999, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the policies under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a site for development of a nuclear waste repository. The deadline for submission of comments, originally set for February 14, 2000, was extended to February 28, 2000 in a notice published on January 14, 2000. In the November 30, 1999 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE inadvertently included a mistaken post office box number in the address for submission of comments. Although DOE arranged with the U.S. Postal Service for forwarding of the comments upon receipt, the Postal Service mistakenly returned some of them to the original senders. To remedy this problem, DOE is posting a list of those persons, from whom comments have been received, on the web site given below, and announces that DOE will accept comments that were returned by the U.S. Postal Service as long as they are postmarked and sent to the address stated in the
Written comments must be postmarked by March 20, 2000. DOE requests one copy of the written comments.
See the “Correction” section of this document.
Dr. William J. Boyle or Dr. Jane Summerson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, P.O. Box 30307, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89036-0307, (800) 967-3477.
In the
Written comments should be addressed to Dr. WIlliam J. Boyle, U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, P.O. Box 30307, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89036-0307, or provided by electronic mail to
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Announcement of Meeting.
EPA will conduct a second public meeting on the upcoming Metal Products and Machinery proposed rulemaking on April 10, 2000, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Chicago, IL.
The Office of Science and Technology within EPA's Office of Water is holding a second public meeting in order to inform all interested parties of the current status of the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) effluent guideline. EPA intends to propose effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the MP&M industrial category in October 2000. The public meeting in Chicago will provide the same information as the March 3, 2000 public meeting in Washington, DC (see 65 FR 6950; February 11, 2000). The meeting is intended to be a forum in which EPA can report on the status of the rulemaking and interested parties can provide information and ideas to the Agency on key technical, economic, and implementation issues.
The meeting is open to the public, and limited seating for the public is available on a first-come, first-served basis. For information on the location and directions, see the
EPA will conduct its second public meeting on the upcoming Metal Products and Machinery proposed rulemaking on April 10, 2000, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The Metal Products and Machinery public meeting will be held at the EPA Region 5 building, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Lake Michigan Room, 12th Floor, Chicago, IL (312) 353-2000.
Shari Barash, Office of Water (4303), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7130; email: barash.shari@epa.gov.
EPA is developing proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the MP&M Point Source Category under authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Documents related to the topics mentioned above and a more detailed agenda will be available at the meeting. For those unable to attend the meeting, a document summary will be available following the meeting and can be obtained by an e-mail or telephone request to Shari Barash at the previously mentioned address.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is evaluating the ecological and economic impact of non-indigenous fish and wildlife for possible addition to the lists of injurious fish and wildlife contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. Adding any animals to these lists would prohibit their importation except in limited situations. By this advance notice, we are requesting comments on such non-native animals that you believe should be prohibited entry into the United States, its possessions, or territories. When submitting your suggestions, please include background and available documentation to support your contention that said animals should be determined to be “injurious.” However, if you do not submit comments by the date established in the
Please submit your comments to us so that we receive them by June 7, 2000.
You may submit comments in response to this advance notice in any of the following ways: (1) by mail to Jeff Horwath, Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1749 C Street, NW, ARLSQ-Room 840, Washington, DC 20240; (2) by FAX to 703/358-2044 (Att'n: Jeff Horwath); (3) by electronic mail to <jeffrey_horwath@fws.gov>; or (4) in person to 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 840, Arlington, Virginia.
Jeff Horwath, Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 840, Arlington, VA 22203, Telephone: 703/358-1718.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for implementing the “injurious” provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). Section 42 of this Act and our companion implementing regulations in 50 CFR Part 16 restrict importation into, or the transportation of live wildlife or eggs thereof between, the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States of any non-indigenous species of fish and wildlife determined to be injurious to certain interests including those of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, the health and welfare of human beings, and the welfare and survival of wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States. However, injurious fish and wildlife may be imported by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes, or without a permit by Federal agencies solely for their own use. Our implementing regulations include lists of fish and wildlife determined to be injurious to the interests of the United States as described above. We also implement Executive Order 13112 on invasive species.
To assist us in identifying non-indigenous fish and wildlife that warrant our consideration as injurious, we ask for your comments on non-native fish and wildlife that you believe should be added to the appropriate lists of animals in 50 CFR Part 16. In addition to identifying these animals, we ask that you also submit comments to support your assertion that such animals are, or would be, injurious to U.S. interests and should be added to our regulations.
We will accept and consider petitions after June 7, 2000 requesting that we list non-indigenous fish or wildlife that you believe to be injurious to U.S. interests, even if you are not presently aware of any such animals and you do not submit any comments in response to this Notice.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commerce.
Correction.
NMFS is correcting the proposed rule for A Cost Recovery Program for the Individual Fishing Quota Program published December 27, 1999.
Effective December 27, 1999.
Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228.
Section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to collect fees to recover actual costs incurred for Federal management of the Individual Fishing Quota Program for fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries in waters in and off of Alaska. NMFS proposed a cost recovery program to collect such fees.
In the proposed rule, published December 27, 1999 (64 FR 72302), make the following corrections:
1. On page 72307, in the 2
2. On page 72308, in the 3
3. On page 72309, in the 2
4. On page 72309, in the 3
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announces a forthcoming meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
March 21, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and March 22, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time each day).
Embassy Suites Hotel, 7762 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, California 90620, Phone (714) 739-5600.
Keith Jones, Program Manager, Room 2945 South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AMS, Transportation and Marketing, National Organic Program, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, Phone (202) 720-3252.
Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. Section 6501
In August 1994, the NOSB provided its initial recommendations for the National Organic Program (NOP) to the Secretary of Agriculture. Since that time, the NOSB has submitted 30 addenda to its recommendations and reviewed more than 170 substances for inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The last meeting of the NOSB was held on October 25-29, 1999, in Washington, D.C.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its NOP proposed rule in the
The principal purposes of this meeting are to provide an opportunity for the NOSB to receive committee reports from its standing and ad hoc committees to review ethylene for possible inclusion on the National List for use to induce flowering in pineapples, and to receive briefings on the recently published re-proposed NOP regulation. Copies of the NOSB final meeting agenda can be requested from Mrs. Toni Strother, Room 2510 South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AMS, Transportation and Marketing, NOP, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, by phone at (202) 720-3252 or by accessing the NOP website at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop after March 8, 2000.
All meetings will be open to the public. The NOSB has scheduled time for public input on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 7762 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, California 90620. Individuals and organizations wishing to make an oral presentation at the meeting should forward the request to Mrs. Strother at the above address or by FAX to (202) 205-7808 by close of business March 17, 2000. While persons wishing to make a presentation may sign up at the door, advance registration will ensure an opportunity to speak during the allotted time period and will help the NOSB to better manage the meeting and accomplish its agenda. Individuals or organizations will be given approximately 5 minutes to present their views. All persons making an oral presentation are requested to provide their comments in writing, if possible. Written submissions may supplement the oral presentation with additional material. Attendees who do not wish to make an oral presentation are invited to submit written comments to the NOSB at the meeting or to Mrs. Strother after the meeting at the above address. All persons submitting written comments should provide 25 copies.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared for a proposed decision to extend to one additional potato line
We will consider all comments that we receive by April 5, 2000.
Please send your comment and three copies to: Docket No. 99-036-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 99-036-1.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. James White, Biotechnology Assessments Section, PPQ, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5940. To obtain a copy of the extension request or the environmental assessment, contact Ms. Kay Peterson at (301) 734-4885; e-mail: kay.peterson@usda.gov.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.
On June 22, 1999, APHIS received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS No. 99-173-01p) from Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, for a Russet Burbank potato line designated as NewLeaf® Plus Russet Burbank line RBMT22-82 (RBMT22-82), which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the Colorado potato beetle (CPB) and potato leaf roll virus (PLRV). The Monsanto request seeks an extension of a determination of nonregulated status issued for NewLeaf ® Plus Russet Burbank potato lines RBMT21-129 and RBMT21-350 in response to APHIS petition number 97-204-01p (63 FR 69610-69611, December 17, 1998, Docket No. 97-094-2). Based on the similarity of RBMT22-82 to RBMT21-129, the antecedent organism, Monsanto requests a determination that CPB and PLRV resistant potato line RBMT22-82 does not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, is not a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
Like the antecedent organism, RBMT22-82 contains the
Potato line RBMT22-82 and the antecedent organism were genetically engineered using the same transformation method and with the same genes that make the plants insect and virus resistant. Accordingly, we have determined that potato line RBMT22-82 is similar to the antecedent organism RBMT21-129 in APHIS petition number 97-204-01p, and we are proposing that this line should no longer be regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
The subject potato line has been considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences derived from plant pathogens. However, evaluation of field data reports from field tests of RBMT22-82 conducted under APHIS permits and notifications since 1994 indicates that there were no deleterious effects on plants, nontarget organisms, or the environment as a result of its environmental release.
Should APHIS approve Monsanto's request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status, potato line RBMT22-82 would no longer be considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Therefore, the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations would no longer apply to the field testing, importation, or interstate movement of the subject potato line or its progeny.
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to examine any potential environmental impacts associated with this proposed extension of a determination of nonregulated status. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture.
Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact.
Pursuant to Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Thin-Mat Floating Marsh Demonstration Project, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3737 Government Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302; telephone (318) 473-7751.
The environmental assessment of the federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, has determined that preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.
The demonstration project will test the potential of restoring thin-mat floating marsh to thick-mat maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) floating marsh using three methods and all possible combinations thereof: (1) Transplanting maidencane into the thin-mat marsh, (2) inducing growth through fertilization, and (3) inducing growth through reduction of mammalian grazing. The project directly impacts less than 4 acres of fresh marsh within the northwestern part of the Penchant Basin in Terrebonne Parish. The potential benefits of developing management tools to restore a large area of existing thin-mat marsh exceed the risk of negatively impacting less than 4 acres.
The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data collected during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Donald W. Gohmert.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Notice of availability of proposed changes in section IV of the FOTG of the NRCS in Indiana for review and comment.
It is the intention of NRCS in Indiana to issue a revised conservation practice standard in Section IV of the FOTG. The revised standard is Filter Strip (Code 393). This practice may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land.
Comments will be received on or before April 15, 2000.
Address all requests and comments to John C. Tippie, Acting State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 6013 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. Copies of this standard will be made available upon written request. You may submit electronic requests and comments to joe.gasperi@in.usda.gov
John C. Tippie, 317-290-3200.
Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces RBS' intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection in support of the Intermediary Relending Program (IRP).
Comments on this notice must be received by May 5, 2000.
M. Wayne Stansbery, Loan Specialist, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: (202) 720-6819.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, at (202) 692-0043.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet March 21, 2000, 9 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
1. Opening remarks by the Chairperson.
2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.
3. Update on pending regulatory revisions.
4. Update on BXA policies under review.
5. Discussion of electronic submission of license applications and supporting documentation.
6. Discussion of BXA compliance initiatives.
7. Discussion of encryption regulations.
8. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 12958, dealing with the U.S. export control program and strategic criteria related thereto.
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are neither required nor accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to the following address: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, BXA—MS: 3876, 14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 12, 1999, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the series of meetings or portions of meetings of the Committee and of any Subcommittees thereof, dealing with the classified materials listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in section 10 (a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The remaining series of meetings or portions thereof will be open to the public.
A copy of the Notice of Determination to close meetings or portions of meetings of the Committee is available for public inspection and copying in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. For more information, call Lee Ann Carpenter at (202) 482-2583.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit for final results of expedited five-year (“Sunset”) reviews.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is extending the time limit for the final results of eight expedited sunset reviews initiated on November 2, 1999 (64 FR 59160) covering various antidumping duty orders. Based on adequate responses from domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting expedited sunset reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation of recurrence of dumping. As a result of these extensions, the Department intends to issue its final results not later than May 30, 2000.
March 6, 2000.
Mark D. Young or Melissa G. Skinner, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (
Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of these reviews until not later than May 30, 2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty sunset reviews: chrome-plated lug nuts from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.
On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the notice of initiation of sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on chrome-plated lug nuts (“lug nuts”) from the People's Republic of China (“China”) and Taiwan. The merchandise covered by these orders are one-piece and two-piece chrome-plated and nickel-plated lug nuts. On the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and inadequate response (in these cases, no response) from respondent interested parties, we determined to conduct expedited reviews. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Reviews.”
March 6, 2000.
Mark D. Young, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397.
This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (“Sunset Regulations”) and 19 CFR Part 351 (1999) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“Sunset Policy Bulletin”).
On August 2, 1999, the Department published the notice of initiation of sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on lug nuts from China and Taiwan (64 FR 41915). The Department received Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (“Consolidated”) on August 17, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Consolidated claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. manufacturers of lug nuts. We received a complete substantive response, in both the Chinese and Taiwanese reviews, from Consolidated on September 1, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In its substantive responses, Consolidated stated that it was the petitioner in the original investigations of lug nuts from China and Taiwan. Furthermore, Consolidated stated that it had participated in all phases of the investigation and administrative reviews and in the scope proceedings of lug nuts from China and Taiwan. We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct expedited, 120-day, reviews of these orders.
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (
The products covered by these reviews are one-piece and two-piece chrome-plated and nickel-plated lug nuts from China and Taiwan. The subject merchandise includes chrome-plated and nickel-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more than 11/16 inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal size of at least 3/4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but not over one inch (25.4 millimeters), plus or minus 1/16 of an inch (1.59 millimeters). The term “unfinished” refers to unplated and/or unassembled chrome-plated lug nuts. The subject merchandise is used for securing wheels to cars, vans, trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers. Excluded from the orders are zinc-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, stainless steel capped lug nuts, and chrome-plated lock nuts. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under item 7318.16.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
The Department has made several scope rulings on the subject merchandise from China and Taiwan. The following products were determined to be within the scope of the order:
These reviews cover all imports from all manufacturers and exporters of lug nuts from China and Taiwan.
All issues raised in these cases by parties to these sunset reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 28, 2000 which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. The issues discussed in the attached Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the orders revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in B-099.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/, under the heading “China PRC” and “Taiwan.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on lug nuts from China and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of correction to final results of expedited sunset review: light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Taiwan.
On December 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
The error lies in the first sentence of the scope section: “The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is Taiwanese light-walled welded carbon steel tubing of rectangular (including square) cross-section, having a wall thickness of not less than 0.065 inches, and 0.375 inches or more, but not over 4.5 inches in outside diameter.” This sentence should be replaced with: “The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order on Taiwan includes shipments of light-walled welded carbon steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross-section having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch.”
December 3, 1999.
Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230: telephone (202) 482-1930 and (202) 482-1560, respectively.
This correction is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Preliminary Results and Recission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical transfer presses (MTPs) from Japan in response to a request by petitioner, Verson Division of Allied Products Corp. This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United States during the period of February 1, 1998 through January 31, 1999.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
March 6, 2000.
Michael Strollo or Maureen Flannery, Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-3020, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).
The Department published in the
Due to extraordinarily complicated issues in this case, the Department extended the deadline for completion of this antidumping duty administrative review on October 11, 1999.
On April 12, 1999, we received a letter from Hitachi Zosen indicating that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). On June 28, 1999, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review with respect to IHI. On August 25, 1999, we requested that the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) contact us if they were suspending liquidation of entries of the subject merchandise from Hitachi Zosen. We have received no such response. Therefore, we conclude that there have been no entries of subject merchandise made by Hitachi Zosen, and thus, are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Hitachi Zosen and IHI.
Imports covered by this review include MTPs currently classfiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8462.99.0035 and 8466.94.5040. The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
The term “mechanical transfer presses” refers to automatic metal-forming machine tools with multiple die stations in which the work piece is moved from station to station by a transfer mechanism designed as an integral part of the press and synchronized with the press action, whether imported as machines or parts suitable for use solely or principally with these machines. These presses may be imported assembled or unassembled. This review does not cover certain parts and accessories, which were determined to be outside the scope of the order. (
This review covers one manufacturer of MTPs, and the period February 1, 1998 through January 31, 1999.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by Komatsu using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the verification reports.
To determine whether respondent's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared its United States price to NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.
For United States price, we calculated an export price (EP) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. However, because the subject merchandise was sold by Komatsu directly to unaffiliated purchasers in Japan prior to importation into the United States by Komatsu's wholly-owned subsidiary, we have used the price paid by the unaffiliated purchaser in Japan. Constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by facts on the record.
We calculated EP for Komatsu based on packed, prepaid or delivered prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight and inland insurance, and, where appropriate, brokerage and handling, international freight, installation, supervision, and U.S. Customs duties in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.
We preliminarily determine that the use of constructed value (CV) is warranted to calculate NV for Komatsu, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. While the home market is viable, sales made to the United States do not permit proper price-to-price comparisons with sales made in the home market.
Komatsu asserts that home, third country, and U.S. market products are distinguished by the many differences in specifications between the various presses, and that no merchandise sold in the home market or to a third country is identical or similar to the merchandise sold to the United States.
Petitioner argues that presses may be sufficiently similar to allow for price-to-price comparisons because they are all automotive metal-forming machine tools with multiple die stations.
On July 1, 1999, the Department requested additional cost information from Komatsu. In response to this request, Komatsu placed additional information on the record with respect to its variable cost of manufacturing (VCOM) for its home market sales. Based on the information provided in this response, we asked Komatsu to answer section B of the Department's questionnaire so that we might determine if any home market sales were within the 20 percent difference in merchandise (DIFMER) threshold that we use to determine whether sales might be compared.
Based on the information provided in Komatsu's section B and the revisions of Komatsu's variable cost of manufacturing presented to us at verification, we have concluded that a price-to-price comparison is not feasible. MTPs are made to each customer's specifications, resulting in significant differences among machines. In addition, for all the sales we found to be contemporaneous matches, we found the DIFMER's to be greater than the 20% allowable under
We note that, in past proceedings involving large, custom-built capital equipment, including prior reviews of this order, we have normally resorted to CV. (
CV consists of the costs of design and engineering, the cost of materials, direct labor cost, variable overhead, fixed overhead, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, including interest expense, and profit. We used packing costs for merchandise exported to the United States. We made a circumstance of sale adjustment by deducting from CV home market direct selling expenses (
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists:
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rate will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of MTPs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Komatsu, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be the rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 14.51 percent.
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C 1677f(i)(1)).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of postponement of preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review.
March 6, 2000.
Doreen Chen or Robert Bolling, Office IX, DAS Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0408 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is postponing the preliminary results in the antidumping administrative review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-weld Pipe Fittings (SSBWPF) from Taiwan. The deadline for issuing the preliminary results in this administrative review is now June 28, 2000.
On July 29, 1999, the Department initiated this administrative review, setting February 29, 1999 as the date for issuing the preliminary results of the review.
The date for issuing the preliminary results is moved from February 29, 2000 to June 28, 2000.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of continuation of antidumping duty orders: certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe and tube fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
On February 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”), pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe and tube fittings (“pipe and tube fittings”) from Japan, South Korea (“Korea”), and Taiwan is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (65 FR 5604). On February 24, 2000, the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on pipe and tube fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (65 FR 9298). Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department is publishing notice of the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on pipe and tube fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
March 6, 2000.
Mark D. Young or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated, and the Commission instituted, sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on pipe and tube fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (64 FR 35588 and 64 FR 35691, respectively). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked (See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings From Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, 65 FR 5604 (February 4, 2000).
On February 24, 2000, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on pipe and tube fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings From Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, 65 FR 9298 (February 24, 2000) and USITC Pub. 3263, Investigations Nos. 731-TA-376, 563, and 564 (Review) (February 2000).
The products covered by these orders include certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe and tube fittings. These fittings are used in piping systems for chemical plants, pharmaceutical plants, food processing facilities, waste treatment facilities, semiconductor equipment applications, nuclear power plants and other areas. The subject merchandise are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item number 7307.23.00.00. The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
With respect to the order on subject imports from Japan and Taiwan, the Department has made several scope rulings. The following products were determined to be within the scope of the orders:
The following products were determined to be outside the scope of the orders:
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on pipe and tube fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to continue to collect antidumping duty deposits at the rate in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative reviews.
On October 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 1997-98 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan (A-588-604), and the antidumping finding on TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter, and components thereof, from Japan (A-588-054) (
March 6, 2000.
Stephanie Arthur (Koyo), Charles Ranado (NSK), Deborah Scott (NTN and Fuji), or Robert James, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-6312, (202) 482-3518, or (202) 482-2657, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are in reference to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations
On October 1, 1999, we published in the
Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter when assembled, including inner race or cone assemblies and outer races or cups, sold either as a unit or separately. This merchandise is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.15.
Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-588-054 finding are not included within the scope of this order, except those manufactured by NTN. This merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.80. The HTS item numbers listed above for both the A-588-054 finding and the A-588-604 order are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The period for each 1997-98 review is October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. The review of the A-588-054 case covers TRB sales by two manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and NSK) and one reseller/exporter (Fuji). The review of the A-588-604 case covers TRBs sales by three manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NTN, and NSK).
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 28, 2000, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Main Department building (B-099).
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
We have determined that duty absorption has occurred with respect to the following firms and with respect to the following percentages of sales which these firms made through their U.S. affiliated parties:
For a discussion of our determination with respect to this matter,
For a discussion of comments on our application of facts available, see the “Facts Available” section of the Decision Memorandum, which is on file in B-099 and available on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/.
On October 1, 1999, we published in the
On October 30, 1998, Fuji submitted a request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department revoke the finding covering TRBs from Japan with respect to its sales of this merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), this request was accompanied by certification from Fuji that it had sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities at not less than normal value (NV) for a three-year period including the current review period,
On the basis of Fuji's three consecutive years of exports to the United States of subject merchandise in commercial quantities with zero or
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We have also corrected certain programming and clerical errors in our preliminary results, where applicable. Any alleged programming or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum, accessible in B-099 and on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/.
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998:
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant proceeding during the review period.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of TRBs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,
The cash deposit rate has been determined on the basis of the selling price to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. For appraisement purposes, where information is available, the Department will use the entered value of the merchandise to determine the assessment rate. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
On January 10, 2000, the Department of Commerce published a notice in the
It is further expected that the U.S. private sector members will provide a
A. Maintain the membership list;
B. Perform organizational matters in connection with the meetings of the CBC and its working groups, if such are formed, including but not limited to, logistics, agendas and reports;
C. Perform other administrative duties that might arise between meetings; and
D. Prepare the written report to the Co-Chairs making recommendations on ways to enhance bilateral commercial relations.
Private sector members are fully responsible for travel, living and personal expenses associated with their participation in the CBC, and may be responsible for a pro rata share of administrative and communications costs relating to the CBC, including, as appropriate, the costs of a secretariat to manage administrative and logistical matters relating to the operation of the CBC. The private sector members will serve in a representative capacity presenting the views and interests of the particular business sector in which they operate, not those of their individual firms. Private sector members are not special government employees.
A. Identifying commercial opportunities, impediments, and issues of concern to the business communities in the U.S. and Korea;
B. Improving the dissemination of appropriate commercial information on both markets; and
C. Adopting sectoral approaches to addressing specific problems, and making recommendations to decision-makers.
• A U.S. citizen residing in the United States; and
• Not a registered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA).
In reviewing eligible applicants, the Department of Commerce will consider:
• Experience in doing business in South Korea;
• Readiness to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the CBC will be active; and
• Contribution to CBC diversity (i.e. company size, type, location, demographics and/or traditional under-representation in business).
The Department of Commerce will also give preference to primary companies involved in manufacturing and services.
To be considered for membership, please provide the following: (1) Name and title of the individual requesting consideration; (2) name and address of the company or organization sponsoring each individual; (3) company's product or service line; (4) size of the company; (5) export experience and major markets; (6) a brief statement of why each candidate should be considered for membership on the CBC; (7) the particular segment of the business community each candidate would represent; (8) a personal resume; and (9) a statement signed by the applicant that he or she is a U.S. citizen residing in the United States and not a registered foreign agent under FARA. Up to two applicants from the same organization can be considered.
The earlier notice provided that requests needed to be received by the Department of Commerce not later than February 18, 2000. This notice extends the period for the receipt of applications until March 31, 2000.
Please send your requests for consideration to Philip R. Agress, Director, Office of Korea and Southeast Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2036, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, fax (202) 482-4760.
Linda Droker, Director, Korea and Taiwan Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2323, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482-3876, fax (202) 482-3316.
15 U.S.C. 1512.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230 (or via Internet at LEngelme@doc.gov).
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Alvin Katekaru, NMFS Pacific Islands Area Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814, telephone 808-973-2937; or Jim Morgan, Long Beach Office, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 908022, (562) 980-4036.
Federal permits are required for four fisheries (pelagics, crustaceans, bottomfish, and precious corals) in the western Pacific region and for the coastal pelagics species fisheries off the West Coast. All these fisheries are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This information collection covers the information that must be provided to NMFS to obtain or renew a permit for any of those fisheries. Three types of permits are issued: open access, limited access, and experimental fishing. There are four limited entry fisheries: Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish (Hoomalu Zone and Mau Zone), NWHI crustaceans, and Hawaii longline. The open access fisheries for which NMFS permits are required are western Pacific longline other than Hawaii; crustacean fisheries off the main Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, and Guam; and western Pacific precious corals fisheries. Experimental fishing permits may be issued in any fishery to allow the harvest of managed species that would otherwise be prohibited by Federal regulations.
The information from this collection generally serves to identify actual or potential participants in the fisheries, determine eligibility for limited access permits, and help measure the impacts of management controls on the participants in the fisheries.
Typically, in the western Pacific, a permit applicant files an OMB-approved application form and, if applicable, a supplemental information sheet that collects basic information on the owner of the fishing vessel, the operator, and the vessel itself. Expiration of the permits is not uniform. Some permits expire annually, others are on a two-year cycle, and still others expire every 5 years. The crustacean limited entry permits have no expiration date and become invalid when they are transferred to another owner through established permit procedures.
The coastal pelagics fishery permit is a new requirement implemented in January 2000. Permits are valid indefinitely until either the holder transfers the permit or surrenders it.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and /or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce (DoC) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at LEngelme@doc.gov).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Department of Energy.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Task Force on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs in the Former Soviet Union. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), requires that agencies publish these notices in the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board—Task Force on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs in the Former Soviet Union.
Monday, March 13, 2000, 9:00 am-3:15 pm, Eastern Standard Time.
U.S. Department of Energy, Program Review Center (Room 8E-089), Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Members of the public are requested to contact the Office of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board at (202) 586-7092 in advance of the meeting (if possible), to expedite their entry to the Forrestal Building
Betsy Mullins, Executive Director, or Richard Burrow, Deputy Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (AB-1), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-7092 or (202) 586-6279 (fax).
The purpose of the Task Force on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs in the Former Soviet Union is to provide independent external advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board on the policy priorities established by the Department of Energy to pursue nonproliferation and nuclear safety programs in the Former Soviet Union. Special emphasis will be placed on program areas that may not have been addressed in the past. The Task Force will focus on assessing the performance of DOE's programs in achieving national security and nonproliferation missions, as well as providing policy recommendations on how the Department can be most effective in supporting U.S. national security interests. The Task Force will investigate, but will not be limited to, the following programs: (1) Initiatives for Nonproliferation, (2) Nuclear Cities Initiative, (3) Material Protection Control and Accounting Program, (4) Second Line of Defense Program, (5) Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement, (6) Plutonium Disposition Program, and (7) International Nuclear Safety Program.
This tentative agenda is subject to change.
In keeping with procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the Task Force on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs in the Former Soviet Union and submit written comments or comment during the scheduled public comment period. The Chairman of the Task Force is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in the Chairman's judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. During its open meeting, the Task Force welcomes public comment. Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up at the beginning of the meeting. The Task Force will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. You may submit written comments to Betsy Mullins, Executive Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, AB-1, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to the late resolution of programmatic issues.
A copy of the minutes and a transcript of the open meeting will be made available for public review and copying approximately 30 days following the meeting at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190 Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. Further information on the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and its subcommittees may be found at the Board's web site, located at http://www.hr.doe.gov/seab.
Take notice that on February 28, 2000, the Commission issued an order in the above-indicated dockets initiating a proceeding in Docket No. EL00-44-000 under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL00-44-000 will be 60 days after publication of this notice in the
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, with an effective date of February 1, 2000:
CNG states that the purpose of this filing is to respond to the concerns of certain parties by clarifying the transportation cost tracking mechanism of CNG's tariff consistent with the “Stipulation and Agreement Amending Rate Case Settlement” filed October 5, 1999, approved by the Commission in this proceeding on December 21, 1999, 89 FERC ¶ 61,304.
CNG states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures are being served upon parties to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of
Take notice that on February 25, 2000 Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (KMIGT), formerly KN Interstate Gas Transmission Co. (KNI) filed a complete copy of its proposed FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume Nos. 1-A and 1-B and Second Revised Volume Nos. 1-C and 1-D.
KMIGT states that the proposed tariff is revised only to reflect a change in name from KNI to KMIGT. No changes to the applicable Rate Schedules or General Terms and Conditions in the tariff are being made in this filing.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on February 22, 2000, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203, filed in Docket No. CP00-91-000 an application pursuant to Sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 157) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the replacement of an existing pipeline and permission and approval to abandon facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).
National Fuel requests authorization to replace certain facilities in order to maintain service under existing agreements and to provide additional firm transportation service to National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (Distribution). Specifically, National Fuel requests authorization to: (1) Replace 12.9 miles of 8-inch diameter pipeline, known as Lines S-1 and AM-60 in Warren, McKean and Elk Counties, Pennsylvania, with 20-inch diameter pipeline; (2) abandon in place 18.9 miles of 8-inch and 10-inch pipeline, known as Line L in Warren, McKean and Elk Counties, Pennsylvania; (3) relocate, modify or abandon certain appurtenant stations in Warren, McKean and Elk Counties, Pennsylvania; and (4) add approximately 360 horsepower (hp) of compression at the Roystone Compression Station in Warren County, Pennsylvania by modifying the existing units. It is indicated that there will be no abandonment or decrease in service to any of National Fuel's customers as a result of he proposed abandonment of Line L and appurtenant stations.
National Fuel proposes to abandon the Russell City receipt point located on Line L. It is indicated that Russell City is designated as a receipt point together with several other interconnections between National Fuel and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company under ten firm transportation agreements pursuant to its EFT Rate Schedule. National Fuel states that it would be able to meet the firm transportation requirements of these customers without the use of Russell City. It is indicated that National Fuel is in the process of seeking consent from the affected EFT Shippers.
National Fuel also proposes to abandon the Allegheny National Forest receipt point located at the interconnection between Line L and the facilities of CNG Transmission Corporation. National Fuel states that this receipt point is designated under two EFT Service Agreements but gas has not been received at this point since December 1984. As a result, the abandonment of the Allegheny National Forest receipt point will not impact any of National Fuel's shippers. It is further indicated that National Fuel is in the process of seeking consent from the two affected EFT Shippers.
National Fuel estimates that cost of the project to be $11.4 million. National Fuel states that the facilities will be financed with internally-generated funds and/or interim short-term bank loans.
National Fuel requests that the Commission grant a determination of rolled-in rate treatment with respect to the costs associated with this project. National Fuel states that the project would result in system benefits, improving the reliability and flexibility of service on its system.
In its application, National Fuel requests a waiver of Section 1.5 of its FT Rate Schedule so that it can provide service to Distribution without having to equip the delivery points and primary receipt points with real time measurement, communication and control capability. National Fuel asserts that because the FT service to Distribution would be fed by, and would feed into, a no-notice EFT service that does not require measurement information on a real time basis, installation of facilities to measure gas flowing into Line AM-60 at Lamont and out of Line AM-60 at Roystone would not be operationally necessary.
National Fuel also requests waivers of Section 2.3(a) and 2.3(d) of its EFT Rate Schedule which limits its obligations to deliver gas at any combination of delivery points to the Contract Maximum Daily Quantity (MDTQ), and limits National Fuel's aggregate receipt
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to David W. Reitz, Assistant General Counsel for National Fuel, 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203 at (716) 857-7949.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make a protest with reference to said application should on or before March 14, 2000, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestant a party to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter finds that permission and approval for the proposed construction and abandonment are required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given. Under the procedures herein provided for, unless otherwise advise, it will be unnecessary for National Fuel to appear or to be represented at the hearing.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 26D, to be effective April 1, 2000.
Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a Negotiated Rate transaction with Nicor Gas Company (Nicor Gas) under Rate Schedules FTS, DSS and NSS pursuant to Section 49 of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's Tariff.
Natural concurrently tenders by a separate filing in this docket with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of the executed negotiated rate agreement between Natural and Nicor Gas, together with a copy of the current Exhibits A and B, the primary receipt and delivery points, respectively, for each of the associated service agreements.
Natural requests waiver of the Commission's Regulations to the extent necessary to permit Original Sheet No. 26D to become effective April 1, 2000.
Natural states that the negotiated rate agreement may deviate in certain respects from the applicable form of service agreement in Natural's Tariff. Specifically, the following categories of provisions may constitute such deviations: MDQ reduction rights, with attendant audit rights, limited contract extension and MDQ reduction rights, shipper limited waiver of Section 5 rights, LN option rights, and certain limited restoration rights upon a change in rate design and service terms.
Natural states that these items do not change the character or nature of the service provided, or the operational conditions of the service. These items were critical to the Agreement by both parties to the resulting negotiated rates. Natural asks the Commission to accept the Agreement to become effective April 1, 2000.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on February 24, 2000, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, those pro forma tariff sheets listed on Appendix A attached to the filing.
Panhandle states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with Ordering Paragraph (B) of the Commission's Order, 90 FERC ¶61,119 (February 9, 2000) (Order) in the above-referenced proceeding.
Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Take notice that on February 16, 2000, Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C., 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800, Houston, Texas, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's Regulations.
Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C., is a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and engaged directly and exclusively in owning and operating the Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C. electric generating facility (the Facility) to be located in Lawrence County, Kentucky and selling electric energy at wholesale. The Facility will consist of three gas turbine generators with a total nominal power output of approximately 500 MW, a metering station, and associated transmission interconnection components.
Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application. All such motions and comments should be filed on or before March 14, 2000, and must be served on the applicant. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection or on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on February 25, 2000, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Viking) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 6; Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 6A; and Third Revised Sheet No. 6B, to become effective April 1, 2000.
Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to make Viking's annual adjustment to its Fuel and Loss Retention Percentages in accordance with Section 154.403 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 154.403 (1998) and Section 26 of the General Terms and Conditions of Viking's FERC Gas Tariff. Application of Section 26 of Viking's tariff results in the following new Fuel and Loss Retention Percentages for Rate Schedules FT-A, FT-B, FT-C, FT-D, IT and AOT respectively: 2.00 percent for Zone 1-1, 2.42 percent for Zone 1-2, and .43 percent for Zone 2-2. Viking states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of its jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-222 for assistance).
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on February 25, 2000, Duke Energy Hidalgo, L.P. filed an amendment to their December 30, 1999 application for Commission determination of exempt wholesale generator status.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E)/Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing a letter clarifying the charges in paragraph 8.4 of several Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements filed on January 5, 2000.
Take notice that on February 24, 2000, Atlantic City Electric Company (Atlantic or the Company) filed its refund report in compliance with the Commission's order dated January 31, 2000 in the above-captioned docket.
Atlantic has served this filing on its affected wholesale customer, Vineland Municipal Electric Utility (Vineland), and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Supply Company) filed Amendment No. 1 to Supplement No. 23 to complete the filing requirement for one (1) new Customer of the Market Rate Tariff under which Allegheny Energy Supply offers generation services.
Allegheny Energy requests a waiver of notice requirements to make service available as of January 7, 2000, to Aquila Energy Marketing Corporation
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and all parties of record.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Supply Company) filed Amendment No. 1 to Supplement No. 8 to complete the filing requirement for one (1) new Customer of the Market Rate Tariff under which Allegheny Energy Supply offers generation services.
Allegheny Energy requests a waiver of notice requirements to make service available as of November 22, 1999, to Statoil Energy Services, Inc.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and all parties of record.
Take notice that on February 24, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies) tendered for filing a Short-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between Entergy Services, Inc., as agent for the Entergy Operating Companies, and Sempra Energy Trading Corp.
Entergy requests that the Transmission Service Agreement be made effective February 15, 2000.
Take notice that on February 24, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies) tendered for filing a Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement and a Short-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement, both between Entergy Services, Inc., as agent for the Entergy Operating Companies, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
Entergy Services requests that the Transmission Service Agreements be made effective February 15, 2000.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, the above-mentioned affiliated power producers and/or public utilities filed quarterly reports.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Supply) filed Supplement No. 25 to add one (1) new Customer to the Market Rate Tariff under which Allegheny Energy Supply offers generation services.
Allegheny Energy Supply requests a waiver of notice requirements to make service available as of January 26, 2000 to Tennessee Valley Authority.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and all parties of record.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power), filed an Amendment to their Standard Transmission Service Rate Schedule in order to incorporate therein the penalty provision contained in their Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Allegheny Power has requested an effective date for the Amendment of February 24, 2000 or a date determined by the Commission.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the public utility's jurisdictional customers, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and all parties of record.
Take notice that on February 24, 2000, PSI Energy, Inc. (PSI) tendered for filing the Transmission and Local Facilities (T&LF) Agreement Calendar Year 1997 Reconciliation between PSI and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (WVPA), and between PSI and Indiana Municipal Power Agency (MPA). The T&LF Agreement has been designated as PSI's Rate Schedule FERC No. 253.
Copies of the filing were served on Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., the Indiana Municipal Power Agency and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc. (Deseret) tendered for filing an executed umbrella short-term firm point-to-point service agreement with the Western Area Power Administration—Colorado River Storage Project Management Center (WAPA) under its open access transmission tariff.
Deseret requests a waiver of the Commission's notice requirements for an effective date of January 24, 2000.
WAPA has been provided a copy of this filing.
Take notice that on February 23, 2000, RS Cogen, L.L.C. (RS Cogen) located at 1300 PPG Drive, Westlake, Louisiana 70669, filed an application pursuant to Section 292.207(b) of the Commission's regulations for a determination by the Commission that RS Cogen's cogeneration facility is a qualifying facility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and the Commission's regulations thereunder.
RS Cogen proposes to construct, own and operate an approximately 425 MW combined-cycle cogeneration facility fueled by natural gas that will produce electricity and provide steam to nearby chemical manufacturing facilities. The facility proposes to interconnect with Entergy Gulf States, Inc. PPG Industries, Inc. and Entergy R.S. Corporation each own 50 percent of the equity of RS Cogen.
The Applicant anticipates the facility will commence commercial operations in the summer of 2002.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
A draft environmental assessment (DEA) is available for public review. The DEA is for an application to surrender the exemption for the Grove Mill Project. The DEA finds that approval of the proposed amendment would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Grove Mill Project is located on the Middle River, in Augusta County, Virginia.
The DEA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the DEA are available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The DEA may be viewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Call (202) 208-2222 for assistance.
Please submit any comments on the DEA within 30 days from the date of this notice. Any comments, conclusions, or recommendations that draw upon studies, reports, or other working papers of substance should be supported by appropriate documentation. Comments should be addressed to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 7108-001 to all comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), of Syracuse, New York, access to information which has been submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be confidential business information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data submitted to EPA occurred as a result of an approved waiver dated January 27, 2000, which requested granting SRC immediate access to TSCA CBI. This waiver was necessary to allow SRC to assist the Risk Assessment Division by providing expertise in the Health and Environmental Sciences, including Biotechnology and Biostatistics; performing hazard and exposure assessments at the screening level; performing hazard assessments, risk assessments and characterization of new and existing chemicals; performing expert analysis of science issues and questions, to organize review panels/workgroups/workshop/symposia; assisting in developing test guidelines/standards; and providing automatic data processing and information management support and literature and translation support.
Joseph S. Carra, Acting Director,
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to “those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
Under contract number 68-W-00-069, contractor SRC of Merrill Lane, Syracuse, NY, will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing expertise in the Health and Environmental Sciences, including Biotechnology and Biostatistics performing hazard and exposure assessments at the screening level performing hazard assessments, risk assessments and characterization of new and existing chemicals performing expert analysis of science issues and questions, to organize review panels/workgroups/workshop/symposia assisting in developing test guidelines/standards and providing automatic data processing and information management support and literature and translation support.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number 68-W-00-069, SRC will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 21 of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract.
SRC personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 21 of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 21 of TSCA that EPA may provide SRC access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and SRC's Syracuse, NY and Arlington, VA facilities.
SRC will be authorized access to TSCA CBI at their facilities under the EPA
Upon completing review of the CBI materials, SRC will return all transferred materials to EPA.
Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under this contract may continue until December 31, 2004.
SRC personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.
Environmental protection, Acess to confidential business information.
Federal Communications Commission.
Announcement of meetings.
The Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services (Joint Conference) was convened by the FCC on October 8, 1999 to further the vision of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Patterned on a resolution by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the Joint Conference joins federal and state forces to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications services to all Americans. Part of the Joint Conference's mission is to gather information on the deployment of advanced services. To this end, the Joint Conference will hold six field hearings in coming months to gather information on the status of deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.
See
See
Emily Hoffnar (202) 418-0940 TTY: (202) 418-0484.
These field hearings will focus on two goals in particular. First, the Joint Conference will seek information on what extent data is available at the state level on the status of deployment of advanced services. Second, the Joint Conference will seek examples of “best practices” of successful deployment in communities. Some communities have found creative ways to bring high speed Internet access to areas that were previously underserved. For example, a community may speed deployment by bringing many potential users of advanced services together, thereby aggregating demand to increase their buying power. A compilation of creative efforts, or best practices, will provide guidance to communities in other states to speed deployment of advanced services.
Transcripts of each field hearing will be made available to the public as soon as possible after each field hearing.
• Washington, DC, March 8, 2000, time to be determined.
• Joint Conference Hosts: FCC Chairman William Kennard and Chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Nanette Thompson.
• All FCC and State Commissioners will attend the first field hearing in Washington, DC, as their schedules permit.
• Special focus on broadband deployment in inner cities.
• Anchorage, Alaska, April 17, 2000, time to be determined.
• Joint Conference Hosts: FCC Commissioner Susan Ness and Chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Nanette Thompson.
• Special focus on the relationship between advanced services deployment and economic development, satellite deployment.
• South Sioux City, Nebraska, April 19, 2000, time to be determined.
• Joint Conference Hosts: FCC Chairman William Kennard and Chair of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Jo Anne Sanford.
• Special focus on cable and fixed wireless deployment and deployment in rural areas.
• Lowell, Massachusetts, May 22, 2000, time to be determined.
• Joint Conference Hosts: FCC Commissioner Michael Powell and Public Utility Commission of Texas Commissioner Brett Perlman.
• Special focus on public/private partnerships, deployment in remote areas, and data gathering initiatives.
• Miami, Florida, June 9, 2000, time to be determined.
• Joint Conference Hosts: FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Chair Irma Muse Dixon, North Carolina Utilities Commission Chair, Jo Anne Sanford, and Public Utility Commission of Texas Commissioner, Brett Perlman.
• Special focus on deployment to rural and urban multicultural communities, fixed wireless deployment, and public/private partnerships.
• Cheyenne, Wyoming, June 23, 2000, time to be determined.
• Joint Conference Hosts: FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Wyoming Public Service Commission Deputy Chair Steven Furtney.
• Special focus on speeding deployment via community demand aggregation, deployment in rural areas and Indian Territory, data gathering initiatives.
Further information about the Joint Conference can be found on its web site: www.fcc.gov/jointconference.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice of prices for Federal Home Loan Bank Services.
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Board) is publishing the prices charged by the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) for processing and settlement of items (negotiable order of withdrawal or NOW), and demand deposit accounting (DDA) and other services offered to members and other eligible institutions.
March 6, 2000.
Gwen R. Grogan, Associate Director, Office of Supervision (202) 408-2892; or Edwin J. Avila, Financial Analyst, (202) 408-2871; Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006.
Section 11(e) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) (12 U.S.C. 1431(e)) authorizes the Banks: (1) to accept demand deposits from member institutions; (2) to be drawees of payment instruments; (3) to engage in collection and settlement of payment instruments drawn on or issued by members and other eligible institutions; and (4) to engage in such incidental activities as are necessary to the exercise of such authority. Section 11(e)(2)(B) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1431(e)(2)(B)) requires the Banks to make charges for services authorized in that section, which charges are to be determined and regulated by the Board.
Section 975.6(c) of the Board's regulations (12 C.F.R. 975.6(c)) provides for the annual publication in the
Pricing for each of these premium services is customer-specific, based upon individual service requirements; please call your Relationship Officer at (800) 288 3400 for further information.
The Bank reserves the right to impose a monthly minimum charge for its services. The standard minimum will be $2,000 per month, applied against Check Processing, Deposit Processing, and/or Proof of Deposit Services. Pass-through items, such as postage and transportation, do not apply.
Greater of $75.00 per day and the daily interest on the amount of the overdraft.
(Rate used for calculation equal to the highest posted advance rate plus 3.0%.)
Programming support for new services, enhancements to existing service levels, or servicer conversions
Rates and charges relative to transportation vary depending on the location of the office(s) serviced. Details regarding the pricing for the transportation to/from specific institutions or individual locations will be provided upon their subscription to that service.
Surcharges may be applicable and will be applied to the customer as effective and without prior notice.
Demand deposit clearings will have the following service charges:
By the Federal Housing Finance Board.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 30, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1. Greater Bay Bancorp, Palo Alto, California; to merge with Coast Bancorp, Santa Cruz, California, and thereby indirectly acquire Coast Commercial Bank, Santa Cruz, California.
General Services Administration.
Meeting notice.
Notice is hereby given that the President's Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History will hold a open meeting from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, and from 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at the White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, DC.
To hear testimony about the Year 2000 Celebration plans for Women's History Month and review current related activities. Guest speakers will address how to celebrate
Martha Davis (202) 501-0705, Assistant to the Associate Administrator for Communications, General Services Administration. Also, inquiries may be sent to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior to the March 20 and 21, 2000, Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee meeting. Because the agency believes there is some urgency to bring these issue to public discussion and qualified members of the Biological Response Modifiers 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).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior to the March 16 and 17, 2000, Blood Products Advisory Committee meeting. Because the agency believes there is some urgency to bring these issues to public discussion and qualified members of the Blood Products 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).
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
Notice of hearing.
This notice announces an administrative hearing on March 17, 2000; 10 a.m.; Seventh Floor (Suite 700); Keystone Room; 1600 Broadway; Denver, Colorado 80202 to reconsider our decision to disapprove Utah SCHIP SPA.
Requests to participate in the hearing as a party must be received by the presiding officer by March 21, 2000.
Kathleen Scully-Hayes, Presiding Officer, HCFA, C1-09-13, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Telephone: (410)-786-2055.
This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider our decision to disapprove Utah State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) State Plan amendment (SPA).
Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (the Act) and 42 CFR part 430 that provide a State with an opportunity for an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a State plan or plan amendment. Section 2107 (e)(2)(B) of the Act makes these provisions applicable under Title XXI to SCHIP State Plans and State Plan amendments. Under these provisions, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) is required to publish a copy of the notice to a State that informs the State of the time and place of the hearing and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the State of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will also publish that notice.
Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76 (b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76 (c). If the hearing is later rescheduled, the presiding officer will notify all participants.
The notice to Utah announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Betit:
I am responding to your request for reconsideration of the decision to disapprove the Utah State Children's Health Insurance Program State Plan Amendment submitted on January 28, 1999.
HCFA disapproved Utah's SCHIP State Plan Amendment because it requested approval, retroactive to August 3, 1998, for the State to impose cost-sharing amounts higher than permitted under Medicaid on SCHIP beneficiaries with family incomes at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty level (FPL). Section 2103 (e)(3)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act limits SCHIP cost-sharing amounts for children in families with incomes below 150 percent of FPL to the amounts permitted under Medicaid, “with such appropriate adjustment for inflation or such other reasons as the Secretary determines to be reasonable.” The Secretary has determined that it would not be reasonable to adjust the Medicaid maximum cost-sharing amounts for SCHIP beneficiaries at or below 100 percent of FPL.
I am scheduling a hearing on your request for reconsideration to be held on March 17, 2000; 10 a.m.; Seventh Floor (Suite 700); Keystone Room; 1600 Broadway; Denver, Colorado 80202.
If this date is not acceptable, we would be glad to set another date that is mutually agreeable to the parties. The hearing will be governed by the procedures prescribed at 42 CFR, part 430.
The issue to be considered at the hearing is whether the Secretary acted within her discretionary authority under Section 2103(e)(3)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act in determining that it would not be reasonable to adjust the Medicaid maximium cost-sharing amounts under 42 CFR 447.54 for SCHIP beneficiaries at or below 100 percent of FPL.
I am designating Ms. Kathleen Scully-Hayes as the presiding officer. If these arrangements present any problems, please contact the presiding officer. In order to facilitate any communication which may be necessary between the parties to the hearing, please notify the presiding officer to indicate acceptability of the hearing date that has been scheduled and provide names of the
Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 1316); (42 CFR section 430.18).
Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301)-443-1129.
The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
The Office of Minority and Women's Health (OMWH) in the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) awarded funding for a pilot study which will develop information about the design of a sample appropriate to determine the health status, behaviors, and health service perceptions of African American women who are: (1) College educated, and (2) low income, non-college educated. The pilot study will be used to evaluate the interview instrument and to discover the practical issues and feasibility of sampling low income African American women from the databases of community health centers in three test locations. The goal is to assess the instrument, the sample sources, the procedures, and the response rates and to determine the extent to which data can be collected in a systematic and comprehensive manner. The pilot study is the first step in a much larger nationwide effort to build a significant data set containing detailed information on health status, health indicators, and health behaviors of African American women.
The burden estimate for the pilot study is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Wendy A. Taylor, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
To request additional information on the proposed collection of information contact: Dennis Rodrigues, NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 31, Rm. 2B03, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-2094, or call non toll-free at (301) 435-2932. You may also e-mail your request to dr3p@nih.gov.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 52b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Part N, National Institutes of Health, of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (40 FR 22859, May 27, 1975, as amended most recently at 64 FR 66925, November 30, 1999, and redesignated from Part HN as Part N at 60 FR 56605, November 9, 1995), is amended as set forth below: Within the Office of Program Coordination (1) Revise the functional statement and (2) Assign standard administrative codes to its two subcomponents, the Executive
The Department of Health and Human Services; Program Support Center (PSC) will periodically publish summaries of proposed information collection projects and solicit public comments in compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans and instruments, call the PSC Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-1494.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The PHS-50 is being revised to reflect a reorganization and clarification of the questions to permit a more logical entry of data by both the applicant and the processing personnel office. No changes are being proposed for the PHS-1813.
The PHS-50, Application for Appointment as a Commissioned Officer in the United States Public Health Service, is used to determine if an applicant is qualified for appointment in the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS). In addition, the information contained in PHS-50 establishes the basis for future assignments and benefits as a commissioned officer.
The PHS 1813, Reference Request for Applicants to the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, is used to obtain reference information concerning applicants for appointment in the Commissioned Corps of the PHS. Each applicant is required to provide four references.
Send comments to Irene West, PSC Reports Clearance Officer, Room 17-A18, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services notifies Federal agencies of the laboratories currently certified to meet standards of Subpart C of Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (59 FR 29916, 29925). A similar notice listing all currently certified laboratories will be published during the first week of each month, and updated to include laboratories which subsequently apply for and complete the certification process. If any listed laboratory's certification is totally suspended or revoked, the laboratory will be omitted from updated lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Guidelines.
If any laboratory has withdrawn from the National Laboratory Certification Program during the past month, it will be listed at the end, and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This Notice is available on the internet at the following website:
Mrs. Giselle Hersh or Dr. Walter Vogl, Division of Workplace Programs, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall 2 Building, Room 815, Rockville, Maryland 20857; Tel.: (301) 443-6014, Fax: (301) 443-3031.
Please use the above address for all surface mail and correspondence. For all overnight mail service use the following address: Division of Workplace Programs, 5515 Security Lane, Room 815, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100-71. Subpart C of the Guidelines, “Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies,” sets strict standards which laboratories must meet in order to conduct urine drug testing for Federal agencies. To become certified an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification a laboratory must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements expressed in the HHS Guidelines. A laboratory must have its letter of certification from SAMHSA, HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with Subpart C of the Guidelines, the following laboratories meet the minimum standards set forth in the Guidelines:
The following laboratory is voluntarily withdrawing from the NLCP program, effective March 9, 2000:
* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. DHHS, with the DHHS' National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, the DHHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of funding availability.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services(CMHS) announces the availability of FY 2000 funds for grants for the following activity. This activity is discussed in more detail under Section 4 of this notice. This notice is not a complete description of the activity; potential applicants must obtain a copy of Parts I and II of the Guidance for Applicants (GFA) before preparing an application. Part I is entitled Cooperative Agreements for
The actual amount available for awards and their allocation may vary, depending on unanticipated program requirements and the number and quality of applications received. FY 2000 funds for the activity discussed in this announcement were appropriated by the Congress under Public Law 106-113. SAMHSA's policies and procedures for peer review and Advisory Council review of grant and cooperative agreement applications were published in the
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of Healthy People 2000, a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. The SAMHSA Centers' substance abuse and mental health services activities address issues related to Healthy People 2000 objectives of Mental Health and Mental Disorders; Alcohol and Other Drugs; Clinical Preventive Services; HIV Infection; and Surveillance and Data Systems. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of Healthy People 2000 (Full Report: Stock No. 017-001-00474-0) or Summary Report: Stock No. 017-001-00473-1) through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (Telephone: 202-512-1800). SAMHSA has published additional notices of available funding opportunities for FY 2000 in past issues of the
When requesting an application kit, the applicant must specify the particular activity for which detailed information is desired. This is to ensure receipt of all necessary forms and information, including any specific program review and award criteria.
The PHS 5161-1 application form and the full text of the activity described in Section 4 are also available electronically via SAMHSA's World Wide Web Home Page (address: http://www.samhsa.gov).
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 *
Competing applications must be received by the indicated receipt date to be accepted for review. An application received after the deadline may only be accepted if it carries a legible proof-of-mailing date assigned by the carrier and that date is not later than one week prior to the deadline date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
Applications received after the deadline date and those sent to an address other than the address specified above will be returned to the applicant without review.
Requests for activity-specific technical information should be directed to the program contact person identified for the activity covered by this notice (see Section 4).
Requests for information concerning business management issues should be directed to the grants management contact person identified for the activity covered by this notice (see Section 4).
SAMHSA's mission within the Nation's health system is to improve the quality and availability of prevention, early intervention, treatment, and rehabilitation services for substance abuse and mental illnesses, including co-occurring disorders, in order to improve health and reduce illness, death, disability, and cost to society.
Reinventing government, with its emphases on redefining the role of Federal agencies and on improving customer service, has provided SAMHSA with a welcome opportunity to examine carefully its programs and activities. As a result of that process, SAMHSA moved assertively to create a renewed and strategic emphasis on using its resources to generate knowledge about ways to improve the prevention and treatment of substance abuse and mental illness and to work with State and local governments as well as providers, families, and consumers to effectively use that knowledge in everyday practice.
SAMHSA's FY 2000 Knowledge Development and Application (KD&A) agenda is the outcome of a process whereby providers, services researchers, consumers, National Advisory Council members and other interested persons participated in special meetings or responded to calls for suggestions and reactions. From this input, each SAMHSA Center developed a “menu” of suggested topics. The topics were discussed jointly and an agency agenda of critical topics was agreed to. The selection of topics depended heavily on policy importance and on the existence of adequate research and practitioner experience on which to base studies. While SAMHSA's FY 2000 KD&A program will sometimes involve the evaluation of some delivery of services, they are services studies and application activities, not merely evaluation, since they are aimed at answering policy-relevant questions and putting that knowledge to use.
SAMHSA differs from other agencies in focusing on needed information at the services delivery level, and it is question-focus. Dissemination and application are integral, major features of the programs. SAMHSA believes that
SAMHSA also continues to fund legislatively-mandated services programs for which funds are appropriated.
SAMHSA's legislatively-mandated services programs do provide funds for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment and prevention services. However, SAMHSA's KD&A activities do not provide funds for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment and prevention services except sometimes for costs required by the particular activity's study design. Applicants are required to propose true knowledge application or knowledge development application projects. Applications seeking funding for services projects under a KD&A activity will be considered nonresponsive.
Applications that are incomplete or nonresponsive to the GFA will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.
Review criteria that will be used by the peer review groups are specified in the application guidance material.
Applications will be considered for funding on the basis of their overall technical merit as determined through the peer review group and the appropriate National Advisory Council review process. Availability of funds will also be an award criteria. Additional award criteria specific to the programmatic activity may be included in the application guidance materials.
Cooperative Agreements for Comprehensive Community Actions to Promote Youth Violence Prevention, Suicide Prevention and Resilience Enhancement (short title: Youth Violence Prevention Cooperative Agreements, SM00-005)
•
•
•
This program is related to the Community Prevention Grants (GFA SM00-004) in that similar activities could be supported under that grant or this cooperative agreement; however, the Community Prevention Grants offer support exclusively to State, Tribes, and their political subdivisions. State and local governmental units are not eligible for this cooperative agreement program with the following exceptions: educational units are eligible to apply for both youth violence and suicide prevention projects and governmental community mental health organizations can serve as applicant organizations for suicide prevention, but not youth violence prevention projects.
•
•
•
•
or
For questions regarding grants management issues, contact: Steve Hudak, Grants Management Officer, Division of Grants Management, OPS, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Room 15C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 443-4456.
•
The Public Health System Impact Statement (PHSIS) is intended to keep State and local health officials apprised of proposed health services grant and cooperative agreement applications submitted by community-based nongovernmental organizations within their jurisdictions.
Community-based nongovernmental service providers who are not transmitting their applications through the State must submit a PHSIS to the head(s) of the appropriate State and local health agencies in the area(s) to be affected not later than the pertinent receipt date for applications. This PHSIS consists of the following information:
a. A copy of the face page of the application (Standard form 424).
b. A summary of the project (PHSIS), not to exceed one page, which provides:
(1) A description of the population to be served.
(2) A summary of the services to be provided.
(3) A description of the coordination planned with the appropriate State or local health agencies.
State and local governments and Indian Tribal Authority applicants are not subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
Application guidance materials will specify if a particular FY 2000 activity
The PHS strongly encourages all grant and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Applications submitted in response to the FY 2000 activity listed above are subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372, as implemented through DHHS regulations at 45 CFR Part 100. E.O. 12372 sets up a system for State and local government review of applications for Federal financial assistance. Applicants (other than Federally recognized Indian tribal governments) should contact the State's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert them to the prospective application(s) and to receive any necessary instructions on the State's review process. For proposed projects serving more than one State, the applicant is advised to contact the SPOC of each affected State. A current listing of SPOCs is included in the application guidance materials. The SPOC should send any State review process recommendations directly to: Division of Extramural Activities, Policy, and Review, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 17-89, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
The due date for State review process recommendations is no later than 60 days after the specified deadline date for the receipt of applications. SAMHSA does not guarantee to accommodate or explain SPOC comments that are received after the 60-day cut-off.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Steven Tursky, Reports Liaison Officer, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 5222, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Steven Tursky, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 5222, (202) 708-2288 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8399.
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). The Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Notice of receipt of permit applications.
The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531
The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests an amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly (
The applicant requests an amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the El Segundo blue butterfly (
The applicant requests an amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly (
The applicant requests an amendment to take (capture and handle) the California tiger salamander (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (collect cysts; sacrifice cultured individuals) the San Diego fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, mark) the salt marsh harvest mouse (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, mark) the Stephens' kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to remove and reduce to possession specimens of the following plant species:
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the San Diego fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, mark, hold in captivity) the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (
The applicant request a permit to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to purchase, in interstate commerce, one female and four male captive bred Hawaiian (=nene) geese (
The applicant requests a permit to remove and reduce to possession the seeds, inflorescence, and leaves of
Written comments on these permit applications must be received on or by April 5, 2000.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Chief—Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Fax: (503) 231-6243. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice to the address above; telephone: (503) 231-2063. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when requesting copies of documents.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Resource Advisory Council Call for Nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public nominations for each of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) that have member terms expiring this year. The RACs provide advice and recommendations to BLM on land use planning and management of the public lands within their geographic areas. Public nominations will be considered for 45 days after the publication date of this notice.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by BLM.
Section 309 of FLPMA directs the Secretary to select 10 to 15 member citizen-based advisory councils that are established and authorized consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by the FACA, RAC members appointed to the RAC must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. These include three categories:
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State or States in which the RAC has jurisdiction. Nominees will be evaluated based on their education, training, and experience and their knowledge of the geographical area of the RAC. Nominees should have demonstrated a commitment to collaborative resource decisionmaking. All nominations must be accompanied by letters of reference from represented interests or organizations, a completed background information nomination form, as well as any other information that speaks to the nominee's qualifications.
Simultaneous with this notice, BLM State Offices will issue press releases providing additional information for submitting nominations, with specifics about the number and categories of member positions available for each RAC in the State. Nominations for RACs should be sent to the appropriate BLM offices listed below.
All nominations should be received by the appropriate BLM State Office by April 20, 2000.
Melanie Wilson, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Intergovernmental Affairs, MS-LS-406, Washington, D.C., 20240; 202-452-0377.
Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 20, 2000, B.I. Chemical, Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of methylphenidate (1724), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
The firm plans to manufacture methylphenidate for product development.
Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration.
Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than May 5, 2000.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 14, 2000, Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 3708 St. Elmo Avenue, Chattanooga, Tennessee 34709, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of amphetamine (1100), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
The firm plans to bulk manufacture amphetamine for distribution to its customers.
Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration.
Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than May 5, 2000.
By Notice dated October 8, 1999, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture meperidine as bulk product for
DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Nycomed, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Nycomed, Inc. on a regular basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's physical security system, audits of the company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR §§ 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacture of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above is granted.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 99 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation for BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact Karin Kurz ((202) 219-5096 ext. 159 or by e-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA, OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King ((202) 219-5096 ext. 151 or by e-mail to King-Darrin@dol.gov).
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM, ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or VETS; Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Employment and Training Admininstration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the ETA 191, Statement of Expenditures and Financial Adjustments of Federal Funds for Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees and Ex-Service members. A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before May 5, 2000.
Sharon L. Jones, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment And Training Administration, Office Of Workforce Security, Room S4231, 200 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20210; telephone number (202) 219-5312 ext. 373 (this is not a toll—free number); fax (202) 219-8506.
Public Law 97-362, Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1982 amended the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Service members (UCX) law (5 USC 8509) and Public Law 96-499, Omnibus Reconciliation Act amended the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) law (5 USC 8501,
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This collection continues to be needed to assure that the provisions of law are met regarding the requirement for each Federal agency to meet its obligations for paying for its unemployment compensation costs and to assure that SESAs are reimbursed properly for their expenditures of UCFE and UCX benefit on behalf of the Federal agencies.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the application of Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (Wyle), for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of this application.
Comments submitted by interested parties must be received no later than May 5, 2000.
Send comments concerning this notice to: Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N3653, Washington, D.C. 20210.
Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program at the above address, or phone (202) 693-2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (Wyle), has applied for renewal of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL). Wyle requests renewal for its existing scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has meet the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgement that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, OSHA can accept products “properly certified” by the NRTL. OSHA processes applications related to an NRTL's recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish this public notice of the preliminary finding on an application.
The most recent notices published by OSHA for Wyle's recognition covered an expansion of recognition for additional test standards and programs, which OSHA announced on July 12, 1996 (61 FR 36764) and granted on November 20, 1996 (61 FR 59115). The only other notices that OSHA has published for Wyle covered its initial recognition, which OSHA announced on January 6, 1994 (59 FR 783) and granted on July 22, 1994 (59 FR 37509). The renewal would incorporate all recognitions granted to Wyle through the date of publication of this preliminary finding.
The current address of the Wyle facility recognized by OSHA is: Wyle Laboratories, 7800 Highway 20 West, P.O. Box 077777, Huntsville, Alabama 35807.
Wyle has submitted a request, dated August 19, 1998 (see Exhibit 15), to renew its recognition as an NRTL. The letter requested renewal for its existing scope of recognition, which includes the facility listed above, and 122 test standards and 8 supplemental programs. However,some of the test standards for which Wyle is currently recognized have been withdrawn by the standards developing organization. As appropriate, OSHA has eliminated or replace these test standards in the list shown below.
Wyle was first recognized as an NRTL in 1994 and, at the time, it was part of Wyle Laboratories, a publicly-held corporation first established in 1949. In 1995, Wyle informed OSHA (see Exhibit 13) that it had become a “privately held company incorporated in the State of Delaware.” The “new” company name was also “Wyle Laboratories.” In 1997, the NRTL informed OSHA of the sale of its “Electronic Enclosures Division,” and requested that OSHA remove a condition that the Agency had imposed in the notice of Wyle's recognition. This condition excluded from the recognition any testing and certification of an “enclosure cabinet manufactured or distributed by Wyle.” OSHA granted this request on January 16, 1998 (63 FR 2700).
Wyle seeks renewal of its recognition for testing and certification of products to demonstrate compliance to the following one hundred thirty nine (139 test standards, all of which OSHA has determined are appropriate, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7(c). As mentioned, some of these standards are substitutes for the test standard that OSHA originally recognized for Wyle. As is the case for any NRTL, Wyle's recognition for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. As a result, OSHA's recognition of an NRTL for a test standard excludes any product(s), falling within the scope of the test standard, for which OSHA has no such requirements.
The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice.
In its renewal, Wyle also seeks continued use of the supplemental programs listed below, based upon the criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995
Program 2: Acceptance of testing data from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 3: Acceptance of product evaluations from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 4: Acceptance of witnessed testing data.
Program 5: Acceptance of testing data from non-independent organizations.
Program 6: Acceptance of evaluation data from non-independent organizations (requiring NRTL review prior to marketing).
Program 7: Acceptance of continued certification following minor modifications by the client.
Program 8: Acceptance of product evaluations from organizations that function as part of the International Electrotechnical Commission Certification Body (IEC-CB) Scheme.
Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents.
OSHA developed the program descriptions to limit how an NRTL may perform certain aspects of its work and to accept the activities covered under a program only when the NRTL meets certain criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, OSHA does treat these programs as one of the three elements that defines an NRTL's scope of recognition.
Wyle has submitted an acceptable request for renewal of its recognition as an NRTL. In connection with the request, OSHA performed an on-site assessment (review) of Wyle's facility in Huntsville, Alabama, on August 3-5, 1999. Discrepancies noted by the assessor during the on-site review were addressed by Wyle following the on-site evaluation and are factored into the recommendation in the non-site review report (see Exhibit 16).
Following a review of the application file, the on-site review report, and other pertinent documents, the NRTL Program staff has concluded that OSHA can grant to Wyle the renewal of its recognition as an NRTL to use the facility, test standards, and programs, listed above, with any limitations to be applied as noted. The staff therefore recommended to the Assistant Secretary that the application be preliminarily approved.
Based upon the recommendation of the staff, the Assistant Secretary has made a preliminary finding that the Wyle Laboratories, Inc., can meet the requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for renewal of its recognition, subject to any limitations described above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application.
OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether Wyle has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comment should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. To consider a comment, OSHA must receive it at the address provided above (see
The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant Wyle's application for renewal of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the renewal and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR Section 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
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 NASA Advisory Council, Aero-Space Technology Advisory Committee, Aviation Safety Reporting System Subcommittee meeting.
Tuesday, March 28, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, March 29, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Airline Pilots Association International, 535 Herndon Parkway, Conference Room 3, Herndon, VA 20170.
Ms. Linda Connell, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, 650/969-8340.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Agenda topics for the meeting are as follows:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitors register.
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 April 20, 2000. 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 301-713-6852 or by e-mail to records.mgt@arch2.nara.gov. Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request.
Marie Allen, Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: (301)713-7110. E-mail: records.mgt@arch2.nara.gov.
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 Justice, United States Attorneys Offices (N1-118-99-1, 12 items, 12 temporary items). Automated case management and collections systems records. Systems are used to track and maintain information on pending workloads and generate reports and correspondence. Included are such records as input documents, master files, outputs, systems documentation, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Annual compilations of case data accumulated by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys are proposed for permanent retention in Disposition Job N1-60-99-1 (see below).
2. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (N1-60-99-1, 17 items, 14 temporary items). Automated case management and collections systems records. Systems are used for statistical analysis and to generate reports and correspondence. Included are such records as input data forwarded from United States Attorneys Offices, master files, monthly and quarterly reports, systems documentation, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are such records as a subset, in electronic form, of annual national aggregate case data, with related systems documentation, and annual statistical reports.
3. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (N1-29-00-2, 62 items, 44 temporary items). Comprehensive schedule pertaining to all textual and electronic records of the 2000 Decennial Census, except the paper questionnaire forms and Individual Census Record File which are proposed for disposition in Disposition Job No. N1-29-00-1. The schedule covers six major processes of the decennial census: Address list development, data collection, data capture, data processing, accuracy and coverage evaluations, and final Decennial Census data products. Also included are related program and administrative records such as publications and reports, Census pre-test and Dress Rehearsal questionnaires and related records, and contracts and related records. Records proposed for disposal include address lists and map update records, block canvassing, special place and group quarters
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques for other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received on or before April 5, 2000. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained at 703-306-1125 X 2017.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, NSF Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 306-1125 X 2017 or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
A total response rate of 92% of the total 42,683 persons who earned a research doctorate was obtained in fiscal year 1998.
The Foundation estimates that, on average, 20 minutes per respondent will be required to complete the survey, for a total of 14,228 hours for all respondents.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by May 5, 2000, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (lower level), Washington, DC. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide web site (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/index.html). The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-6 E6, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail at BJS1@NRC.GOV.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-18 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee) for operation of LaSalle County Station Unit 2, located in LaSalle County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TSs) to defer the required examination of weld RH-2005-29 until the next scheduled refueling outage or December 31, 2000, whichever is earlier.
TS Section 3.4.8, “Structural Integrity,” requires the structural integrity of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Class 1 components to be maintained in accordance with the surveillance requirements of TS Section 4.4.8, “Structural Integrity.” TS Section 4.4.8 invokes the surveillance requirements (SR) of TS SR 4.0.5. TS SR 4.0.5.f requires that piping susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) be examined in accordance with the NRC staff positions on schedule, methods, personnel and sample expansion included in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 88-01, “NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping.”
At 1527 hours Central Standard Time (CST) on February 17, 2000, the licensee entered TS SR 4.0.3 due to a missed TS surveillance requirement to examine weld RH-2005-29. TS SR 4.0.3 allows 24 hours to perform the surveillance or pursue enforcement discretion. Without enforcement discretion, LaSalle County Station Unit 2 would have been required to be in at least STARTUP within the next 7 hours, HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours, and COLD SHUTDOWN within the subsequent 24 hours, since the action statement of TS Section 3.4.8 could not be complied with due to current plant conditions in accordance with TS Section 3.0.3. The licensee requested enforcement discretion from the requirements of TS 3.4.8 on February 18, 2000. The NRC verbally granted enforcement discretion at approximately 1130 hours CST on February 18, 2000, to be effective until a TS change is approved that would allow the examination of weld RH-2005-29 to be deferred until the next refueling outage. The written Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) was issued by the NRC on February 23, 2000. The licensee requested that this proposed TS change be processed on an exigent basis consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Administrative Letter 95-05, “Revisions to Staff Guidance for Implementing NRC Policy on Notices of Enforcement Discretion, Revision 1.” The licensee stated that the circumstances surrounding this request for exigent review were unavoidable and not created by a failure to make a timely application for a license amendment.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change represents a minimal increase in the probability of a pipe break resulting in a Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA). The proposed change will not impact the source term used in the derivation of the LOCA dose consequences. Therefore, the consequences will remain unchanged since the resulting LOCA is bounded by the current analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not involve a physical modification to the plant. The proposed change does not introduce a new failure mode.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Since the LOCA analysis remains unchanged, the fuel integrity margin, as expressed as Peak Cladding Temperature, is not affected. The change does not impact the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Overpressure Analysis; therefore, the margin of safety for the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary is not affected. The blowdown energy, resulting from a LOCA and the ability of the suppression chamber to maintain the margin of safety of the containment barrier are not affected.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards considerations.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By April 5, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest maybe affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become partners to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the
If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Ms. Pamela B. Stroebel, P.O. Box 767, Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated February 21, 2000, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Omaha Public Power District (the licensee) to withdraw its January 30, 1998, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 for the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, located in Washington County, Nebraska.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 30, 1998, and the licensee's letter dated January 24, 2000, which withdrew the application for license amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of application under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
The order would permit applicant, ASA Limited (“ASA”), a South African closed-end management investment company registered under section 7(d) of the Act, to maintain its assets with a central securities depository in South Africa. The requested order would amend a prior order.
The application was filed on July 18, 1997, and amended on December 21, 1999.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on March 24, 2000, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Applicant, 36 Wierda Road West, Sandton 2196, South Africa.
Elaine M. Boggs, Senior Attorney, at (202) 942-0572 or Christine Y. Greenless, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0564 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application is available for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 942-8090).
1. ASA is a closed-end management investment company organized in 1958
2. ASA has received several Commission orders that address, among other things, ASA's custodial arrangements (collectively, and together with the Original Order, the “Prior Orders”).
3. The Prior Orders permit ASA to keep up to 33% of its assets abroad—up to 5% of its assets in each of Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland, under certain circumstances, up to 5% of its assets in rand-denominated interest bearing accounts in South Africa, and up to 3% of its assets in South Africa in short term rand-denominated investments issued or guaranteed by the Republic of South Africa.
4. Until recently, South African equity securities existed and traded only in paper form. In a transition that has begun and will continue through next year, paper certificates will be replaced with an electronic book-entry securities will be maintained electronically with a central securities depository (“CSD System”). Under the CSD System, ownership records of equity securities will be maintained electronically with a central securities depository (“CSD”). Security holders will not directly interact with the CSD but with a “CSD Participant.” Once the process of converting to the CSD System is complete, paper certificates will no longer be an acceptable form of ownership to clear and settle securities transactions on the JSE.
5. Currently, JSE owns 50% of the CSD and the CSD Participants, including Standard Bank, own the remaining 50%. CSD Participants are not required to own shares of the CSD and parties other than the CSD Participants may own shares of the CSD in the future. The CSD is regulated by the Financial Services Board (“FSB”), which is an agency of the South African government that supervises the activities of South African financial services institutions.
6. To become a CSD Participant, an entity must meet the CSD's criteria, which include the maintenance of a minimum level of capitalization, the ability to provide certain specialized services to shareholders, and other requirements relating to technology, human resources, internal controls, corporate governance, and risk management. CSD Participants are regulated by either the FSB or the Register of Banks in South Africa. ASA plans to retain Standard Bank, which meets the CSD's criteria for CSD Participants and is a CSD Participant, to be its CSD Participant.
7. Once the CSD System becomes fully operational, in order for JSE listed shares owned by ASA to be tradable on the JSE, the share certificates must be voided and ASA's ownership interests must be recorded electronically in book entry form in the CSD system. This would be prohibited under the terms of the Prior Orders because ASA's assets would not be physically maintained in the U.S. but in the South African CSD System. The requested order would permit ASA to maintain its portfolio securities that trade on the JSE and are eligible for the CSD System (“CSD-Eligible Securities”) in electronic book-entry form with the CSD System in South Africa, rather than in the U.S. in paper share certificates.
1. Section 7(d) of the Act prohibits a foreign investment company from making a public offering of its securities in the U.S. but authorizes the Commission to permit a foreign investment company to register under the Act and make a public offering of its securities if the Commission finds that “by reasons of special circumstances or arrangements, it is both legally and practically feasible to enforce the provisions of [the Act] against such company and that the issuance of such order is otherwise consistent with the public interest and protection of investors.” Rule 7d-1 under the Act sets forth the conditions that a Canadian investment company must satisfy in order to receive an order under section 7(d) Under the Original Order, ASA met the requirements of rule 7d-1.
2. ASA requests an order under section 7(d) to amend the Prior Orders to permit it to maintain its CSD-Eligible Securities in the CSD. ASA states that it s custodian arrangement with the CSD meets the requirements of rule 17f-5 under the Act, which governs foreign custody arrangements of U.S. investment companies, and that the requested relief is consistent with the standards of section 7(d).
3. Rule 17f-5 under the Act permits a U.S. investment company (“fund”) to maintain its assets overseas with an “Eligible Foreign Custodian.” Under the rule, an Eligible Foreign Custodian includes “a securities depository that acts as a system for the central handling of securities or equivalent book-entries in the country that is regulated by a foreign financial regulatory authority, as defined under section 2(a)(50) of the Act.“ ASA states that the CSD meets this definition of an Eligible Foreign Custodian.
4. Under the 17f-5, a fund's board of directors, its investment adviser, or custodian bank (“Foreign Custody Manager”) must determine that the fund's assets in the custody of an Eligible Foreign Custody will be subject to reasonable care, based upon the standards applicable to custodians in the relevant market after considering certain factors. Under rule 17f-5, the custody arrangement also must be governed by a written contract and/or rules, practices and procedures of the securities depository (“governing documents”) that the Foreign Custody Manager determines will provide reasonable care for fund assets. Finally, the Foreign Custody Manager must
5. ASA notes that the Commission recently proposed rule 17f-7 under the Act that would govern the custody of fund assets with foreign securities depositories.
6. ASA further states that the conditions of the Prior Orders will contine to apply to ASA. ASA states that these conditions are designed, among other things, to address any jurisdictional concerns and otherwise assure the protection of investors. ASA also states that, as a condition to the requested order, it will keep at least 5% of its assets in the U.S. in the custody of a U.S. bank.
ASA agrees that the Original Order, as amended by any subsequent order, including any order of the SEC granting the requested relief (collectively, the “ASA Orders”), will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Chase will serve as ASA's custodian and will continue to meet the qualifications of a custodian under section 17(f) of the Act and Standard Bank will serve as Chase's subcustodian in South Africa. As long as Standard Bank holds ASA's assets, Standard Bank will designate Chase as its agent for service of process in the U.S. ASA will comply with rule 17f-5 under the Act, as it may be amended, as if it were a registered management investment company organized or incorporated in the United States with respect to any of its assets held by eligible foreign custodians (including Standard Bank and the CSD) or overseas branches of qualified U.S. banks (including Chase) outside the United States.
2. The Board will serve as foreign custody manager and will not delegate such functions to its custodian or any other person.
3. ASA will seek an order of the Commission prior to any amendment of its custodian agreement with its custodian.
4. ASA will cause each present and future officer, director, investment adviser, principal underwriter, and custodian of ASA to enter into an agreement (“Agreement”) (to be filed by ASA with the Commission when that person assumes office), which will provide that each person agrees: (a) to comply with ASA's Memorandum of Association (“Charter”) and Articles of Association (“Bylaws”), the Act and the rules of the Commission under the Act, and the terms and conditions of the ASA Orders as applicable to each person and as each may be amended from time to time, as applicable to each person; (b) to do nothing inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the ASA Orders, the provisions of the Act, or the rules under the Act; (c) that the undertakings described in (a) and (b) above constitute representations and inducements to the Commission to issue the ASA Orders, and (d) each Agreement constitutes a contract between the person and ASA and the shareholders of ASA with the intent that ASA's shareholders will be beneficiaries of and will have the status of parties to the Agreement so as to enable them to maintain actions at law or in equity within the United States or South Africa. In addition, each Agreement of each officer and director of ASA will contain provisions similar to those contained in condition 21 below.
5. So long as ASA is registered under the Act, ASA's Charter and Bylaws, together, will contain in substance the provisions required by rule 7d-1(b)(8), and neither the Charter nor the Bylaws will be changed or amended in any manner inconsistent with rule 7d-1(b)(8) of the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act, unless authorized by the Commission.
6. No person will qualify to serve as a director or officer of ASA until he or she has transmitted to ASA a list of his or her affiliated persons, as that term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act. ASA will: (a) Require each of its directors, officers, and investment advisers to transmit to ASA quarterly a list of affiliated persons or a statement that there has been no change since the last list so transmitted to ASA; (b) transmit each list to its custodian promptly after receipt by ASA; and (c) transmit to its custodian quarterly a list of its affiliated persons or a statement that there has been no change since the last list was transmitted. The contract between ASA and its custodian will provide that the custodian will not consummate any transaction on behalf of ASA with any person who, on the basis of the lists transmitted to the custodian, is an affiliated person of ASA or an affiliated person of any director, officer, or investment adviser of ASA, unless the transaction is of a type permitted by the Act or any regulation under the Act or specifically permitted by order of exemption issued under the Act.
7. ASA will furnish to the Commission, concurrently with the filing of periodic reports required to be filed under the Act, any changes to its list previously submitted to the Commission of persons affiliated with ASA and with ASA's investment adviser and principal underwriter.
8. The chief executive officer of ASA, a majority of the directors of ASA, and a majority of the officers of ASA will be both citizens and residents of the U.S.
9. ASA will hold all of its shareholder meetings in the U.S.
10. ASA will maintain in the U.S. a transfer agent for transfer of its shares, and a registrar for the registration of its shares.
11. ASA will file, and will cause each of its present or future directors, officers, or investment advisers who is not a resident of the U.S. to file with the Commission irrevocable designation of ASA's custodian as an agent in the U.S. to accept service of process in any suit, action, or proceeding before the Commission or any appropriate court to enforce the provisions of the laws administrated by the Commission, or to enforce any right or liability based upon ASA's Charter or Bylaws, contracts, or the respective undertakings and agreements of any of these persons required by the terms and conditions of the ASA Orders, or which alleges a liability on the part of any of these persons arising out of their services, acts, or transactions relating to ASA.
12. As an exhibit to the application, ASA will file with the Commission an amendment to the subcustodian agreement that irrevocably designates ASA's custodian as an agent in the U.S. to accept service of process in any suit, action, or proceeding (collectively, “Proceeding”) before the Commission or any appropriate court to enforce the provisions of the laws administered by the Commission in connection with the subcustodian agreement, or to enforce any right or liability (“Liability”) based on the subcustodian agreement or which alleges a liability on the part of Standard Bank arising out of its services, acts, or transactions under the subcustodian agreement relating to ASA's assets. This designation will automatically terminate upon Standard Bank ceasing to hold ASA's assets, except as to a Proceeding or a Liability based on an action or inaction of Standard Bank prior to Standard Bank having ceased holding ASA's assets.
13. ASA will perform every action and thing necessary to cause and assist the custodian of its assets to distribute the same, or the proceeds, if the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction,
14. ASA will take all steps necessary to insure that it will continue to be listed on the NYSE, including the publishing of financial statements and other information required by the NYSE for the benefit of holders of the shares listed on the NYSE and the performance of all the covenants contained in its listing agreement.
15. The Commission, in its discretion, may revoke its order permitting registration of ASA and the public offering of its securities if the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that there has been a violation of the ASA Orders or the Act and may determine whether distribution of ASA's assets is necessary or appropriate in the interests of investors and may so direct.
16. Neither ASA's Charter nor Bylaws will be changed in any manner inconsistent with the Act, nor will the terms and conditions of the application be changed without approval by the Commission or its staff.
17. ASA waives any counsel fees to which it may be entitled and waives security for costs in any action brought against it in South Africa by any shareholder based on its Charter or Bylaws or any of the terms and conditions of the ASA Orders. ASA will cause each of its present or future directors who is a non-resident of the U.S. to make similar waivers.
18. ASA will promptly notify the Commission in the event that there is any change in South African law that will be contrary to any provision of the Act or detrimental to or inconsistent with the protection afforded by the conditions of the ASA Orders.
19. If proposed rule 17f-7 under the Act is adopted by the Commission, ASA's use of the CSD will comply with the rule and any amendments to the rule as if ASA were a registered management investment company organized or incorporated in the U.S.
20. Any shareholder of ASA or the Commission on its own motion or on request of any ASA's shareholders will have the right to initiate a proceeding: (a) before the Commission for the revocation of the order permitting registration of ASA; or (b) before a court of competent jurisdiction for the liquidation of ASA and a distribution of its assets to its shareholders and creditors. The court may enter the order in the event that it finds, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that ASA, its officers, directors, investment adviser, principal underwriter, or custodian has violated any provision of the Act or the ASA Orders.
21. Any shareholder of ASA will have the right to bring suit at law or equity, in any court of the U.S. or South Africa having jurisdiction over ASA, its assets or any of its officers or directors to enforce compliance by ASA, its officers and directors with any provision of ASA's Charter or Bylaws, the Act, the rules under the Act, or the terms and conditions of the ASA Orders, in so far as applicable to these persons. The court may appoint a trustee or receiver of ASA with all powers necessary to implement the purposes of the suit, including the administration of the estate, the collection of corporate property including chooses-in action, and distribution of ASA's assets to its creditors and shareholders. ASA and its officers and directors waive any objection they may be entitled to raise and any right they may have to object to the power and right of any shareholder of ASA to bring such suit, reserving, however, their right to maintain that they have complied with these provisions, undertakings, and agreements, and otherwise to dispute the suit on its merits. ASA, its officers, and directors also agree that any final judgment or decree of any U.S. court may be granted full faith and credit by a court of competent jurisdiction of South Africa and consent that the South African court may enter judgment or decree on ASA at the request of any shareholder, receiver, or trustee of ASA.
22. ASA will settle its purchases and sales of portfolio securities in the U.S. by use of the mails or means of interstate commerce, except for: (a) Purchases and sales on an “established securities exchange” (defined as a national securities exchange as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act, the JSE, the London Stock Exchange, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Stock Exchange of Melbourne, Ltd., and the Effektenborsenverein Zurich Exchange (collectively the “Established Exchanges”)) and (b) purchases and sales, through ASA's custodian or custodian's agent, in South Africa of South African Treasury Bills from or to the South African Treasury, South African Reserve Bank securities, or CSD-Eligible Securities. Assets purchased on an Established Exchange will be maintained in the U.S. with Chase, unless prohibited by law or regulation or financially impracticable as provided in condition 25 below.
23. Contracts of ASA, other than those executed on an Established Exchange which do not involve affiliated persons, will provide that: (a) the contracts, irrespective of the place of their execution or performance, will be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, if the subject matter of the contracts is within the purview of these acts; and (b) in effecting the purchase or sale of assets, the parties to the contracts will utilize the U.S. mails or means of interstate commerce.
24. ASA will keep at least 5% of its assets in the U.S. in the custody of a U.S. bank (“5% Requirement”). ASA's remaining assets (which may include U.S. dollars invested in time deposits and bank certificates of deposit) will be kept in the custody of a U.S. custodian, except:
(a) Subject to the 5% Requirement, up to 100% of its CSD-Eligible Securities may be kept in the CSD through its custodian and subcustodian;
(b) $200,000 may be kept in cash to cover administrative expenses, to be kept in a checking account with a South African bank;
(c) Up to 3% of its assets may be kept in South Africa in short-term rand-denominated investments issued or guaranteed by the Republic of South Africa; and
(d) Up to 5% of its assets may be kept in rand-denominated interest bearing bank accounts with “eligible foreign custodians” or “overseas branches of
25. If removal of securities purchased on the Established Exchanges becomes either prohibited by law or regulation or financially impracticable, up to 5% of ASA's assets may be held by an eligible foreign custodian or overseas branch of Chase in each of London, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada.
26. If an “eligible foreign custodian” or an overseas branch of the custodian is to be appointed as subcustodian, ASA will comply with the requirements of rule 17f-5, as it may be amended, prior to the purchase of securities on an Established Exchange.
27. ASA will withdraw its assets from the care of a subcustodian as soon as practicable, and in any event within 180 days of the date when a majority of the Board makes the determination that a particular subcustodian may no longer be considered eligible under rule 17f-5 of the Act, as it may be amended, or may no longer be considered an overseas branch of the custodian, or that continuance of the subcustodian arrangement would not be consistent with the best interests of ASA asnd its shareholders.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain series of a registered open-end management investment company to acquire all of the assets and certain stated liabilities of the series of another registered open-end management investment company. Because of certain affiliations, applicants may not rely on rule 17a-8 under the Act.
STI Classic Funds (“STI Funds”), ESC Strategic Funds, Inc. (“ESC Funds”) and SunTrust Banks, Inc. (“SunTrust”).
The application was filed on December 3, 1999. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment to the application during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 23, 2000, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o W. John McGuire, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5869.
Emerson S. Davis, Sr., Counsel, at (202) 942-0714, or George J. Zornada, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0564 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 942-8090).
1. STI Funds, a Massachusetts business trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and offers thirty-seven series, including the STI Classic Growth and Income Fund (“Growth and Income fund”), STI Small Cap Growth Stock Fund (“Small Cap Growth Fund”) and STI Classic International Equity Fund (“International Equity Fund”) (together, the “Existing Acquiring Funds'') and a newly established series, STI Classic High Income Fund (“High Income fund”) (together with the Existing Acquiring Funds, the Acquiring Funds”). ESC Funds, a Maryland corporation, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and offers five series, ESC Strategic Small Cap Fund, ESC Strategic Small Cap II Fund, ESC Strategic International Equity Fund, ESC Strategic Appreciation Fund, and ESC Strategic Income Fund (together the “Acquired Funds”) (the Acquired Funds and the Acquiring Funds, the “Funds”).
2. SunTrust, a Georgia corporation, is a bank holding company and the parent of Trusco Capital Management, Inc. (“Trusco”) and STI Capital Management, N.A. (“STI Capital”). Trusco is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and is the investment adviser to the Growth and Income Fund, High Income Fund and Small Cap Growth Fund. STI Capital, a bank, is exempt from registration under the Advisers Act and is the investment adviser to the International Equity Fund. SunTrust Equitable Securities (“STES”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of SunTrust, and an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act, is the investment adviser to each of the Acquired Funds. Currently, bank subsidiaries of SunTrust own in the aggregate, in a fiduciary capacity, 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of each of the Existing Acquiring Funds and 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of three of the acquired Funds.
3. On January 15, 2000 and February 15, 2000, the board of trustees of the Acquired Funds and the board of directors of the Existing Acquiring Funds (together, the “Boards”), respectively, including all the trustees and directors who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Directors”), approved a plan of reorganization between the Funds (the “Plan”). Under the Plan, on the date of exchange (“Closing Date”), each Acquiring Fund will acquire all the assets and certain stated liabilities of the corresponding Acquired Fund or Funds in exchange for shares of the Acquiring Fund (the “Reorganization”).
4. Applicants state that the investment objectives, policies and restrictions of each Acquired Fund are substantially similar to those of its corresponding Acquiring Fund. The Acquired Funds each offer Class A shares and Class D shares. Both Class A and Class D shares have a front-end sales load and are subject to a distribution fee adopted under rule 12b-1 under the Act. The Acquiring Funds each offer: (a) Investor shares, which are subject to a front-end sales charge and rule 12b-1 distribution fee, and (b) Flex Shares, which are subject to a rule 12b-1 distribution fee and a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”).
5. The Boards, including all of the Independent Directors, determined that the Reorganization is in the best interests of the shareholders of each Fund, and that the interests of the existing shareholders of each Fund would not be diluted as a result of the Reorganization. In assessing the Reorganization, the Boards considered various factors, including: (a) The compatibility of the investment objectives, policies and limitations of the Acquired and corresponding Acquiring Funds; (b) the expense ratios of the Acquired and Acquiring Funds; (c) the terms and conditions of the Reorganization; (d) the tax-free nature of the Reorganization; and (e) the potential economies of scale to be gained from the Reorganization.
6. The Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions precedent, including that: (a) The shareholders of each Acquired Fund will have approved the Plan; (b) the Funds will have received opinions of counsel that the Reorganization will be tax-free for the Funds and their shareholders; and (c) applicants will receive from the Commission an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act for the Reorganization. The Plan may be terminated and the Reorganization abandoned at any time prior to either Closing Date by either Board if it is determined that circumstances have changed to make the Reorganization inadvisable. Applicants agree not to make any material changes to the Plan without prior Commission approval.
7. Definitive proxy materials have been filed with the Commission and were mailed to shareholders of the Acquired Funds on or about January 31, 2000. A special meeting of shareholders of the Acquired Funds is scheduled for March 22, 2000.
1. Section 17(a) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal, from selling any security to, or purchasing any security from, the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person; (b) any person 5% or more of whose securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote by the other person; (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the other person; and (d) if the other person is an investment company, any investment adviser of that company.
2. Rule 17a-8 under the Act exempts certain mergers, consolidations, and sales of substantially all of the assets of registered investment companies that are affiliated persons, or affiliated persons of an affiliated person, solely by reason of having a common investment adviser, common directors, and/or common officers, provided that certain conditions set forth in the rule are satisfied. Applicants believe that rule 17a-8 may not be available in connection with the Reorganization because the Funds may be deemed to be affiliated by reasons other than having a common investment adviser, common directors, and/or common officers. Applicants state that subsidiary banks of SunTrust own in the aggregate, as a fiduciary, 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of each of the Existing Acquiring Funds and that subsidiary banks of SunTrust, as a fiduciary, also own 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of three of the Acquired Funds. Applicants state the SunTrust therefore may be deemed to be an affiliated person of those Funds, resulting in the Acquiring Funds being affiliated persons of an affiliated person of the Acquired Funds.
3. Section 17(b) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may exempt a transaction from the previous of section 17(a) if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and that the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company concerned and with the general purposes of the Act.
4. Applicants request an order under section 17(b) of the Act exempting them from section 17(a) to the extent necessary to complete the Reorganization. Applicants submit that the Reorganization satisfies the standards of section 17(b) of the Act. Applicants state that the terms of the Reorganization are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching. Applicants state that the investment objectives and policies of each Acquired Fund are substantially similar to those of its corresponding Acquiring Fund. Applicants also state that the Boards, including all of the Independent Directors, have made the requisite determinations that the participation of the Acquired and Acquiring Funds in the Reorganization is in the best interests of each Fund and that such participation will not dilute the interests of the existing shareholders of each Fund. In addition, applicants state that the Reorganization will be on the basis of relative net asset value.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On October 13, 1999, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis through March 1, 2000, a new Article XXA and amendments to existing CHX rules that allowed the CHX to implement a new extended hours trading session (the “E-Session”).
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In SR-CHX-99-16, the Exchange proposed new CHX Article XXA and several related rule changes to implement the E-Session. The E-Session was designed to meet the needs of market participants and CHX members who had demanded that the Exchange begin trading in hours that extent beyond the then-current trading day. The Exchange continues to believe that investors are best served if registered securities exchanges are participants in the burgeoning after-hours trading market, and submits this proposal to extend the operation of its E-Session. The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to its E-Session at this time; this proposal seeks only to extend the E-Session's operation through October 1, 2000.
Trading during the E-Session is conducted, in some respects, as it is during the CHX's primary trading session; however, new features more fully automate the transmission of orders and provide additional protections to investors who trade during the session. Only unconditional limit orders are eligible for execution in the E-Session, and each limit order must be appropriately designated for trading in the E-Session. Any orders remaining unexecuted at the end of the session are automatically canceled, and do not carry over to any other trading session. Specialist firms continue to make two-sided, continuous markets in E-Session eligible stocks, generally the more active stocks assigned to them during the existing trading sessions, at their posts on the floor of the CHX (unless a specialist firm has transferred its assignment, for the E-Session only, to another specialist firm with the approval of the Committee on Specialist Assignment and Evaluation).
During the E-Session, in most cases (subject to an exception described below), limit orders must be electronically and directly transmitted, via the Midwest Automated Execution System (“MAX”) electronic order routing system, to the specialist's limit order book. Floor brokers may route limit orders to the specialist's limit order book via MAX or may transmit the orders to another market. In addition, a floor broker may route orders to buy and sell equivalent quantities of the same security eligible to be executed at the same price through MAX to the specialist's limit order book or may execute those orders as a crossing transaction at the specialist's post in accordance with existing Exchange rules.
Except as described in Article XXA or in other E-Session rule amendments, execution, reporting, clearance and settlement of transactions that occur during the E-Session follow the procedures currently in place for those activities in the Exchange's primary trading session.
The proposed extension of the operation of the E-Session is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange believes that no burden will be placed on competition as a result of the proposed extension of the effective dates of the E-Session. Indeed, the Exchange believes this new session has fostered competition in the after-hours trading arena by permitting investors to trade on a registered securities exchange, rather than through an electronic communications network or alternative trading system.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
The Exchange has requested that the Commission accelerate the operative date. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate the proposal to become operative today because such designation is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Acceleration of the operative date will allow the CHX to operate its E-Session without interruption through October 1, 2000, and to continue providing investors who wish to trade after-hours with the option of trading on a registered securities exchange. For these reasons, the Commission good cause to designate that the proposal become operative today.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. All submissions should refer to file number SR-CHX-00-02 and should be submitted by March 27, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The ISE proposes to adopt fees to be imposed on members of the Exchange.
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE proposes to establish its fee schedule for the services it will offer to its members and others. This schedule includes membership fees, trading fees, and fees for a variety of other services, including the installation and maintenance of certain equipment. With these fees, ISE intends to recover its costs of operating a trading market and building a reserve for future needs. ISE does not intend to use these fees to generate an operating profit to distribute to its members. As the ISE gains experience in the operation of its market, it will adjust its fees to maintain the appropriate balance between costs and expenses.
The ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-00-02 and should be submitted by March 27, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend its crossing rules to reduce from two minutes to thirty seconds the amount of time that Electronic Access Members are required to expose orders on the Exchange before executing them as principal or executing them against solicited order. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
Rule 717 Limitations on Orders
(a) Principal Transactions.
Electronic Access Members may not execute as principal orders they represent as agent unless (i) agency orders are first exposed on the Exchange for at least [two (2) minutes]
(b) Solicitation Orders.
Electronic Access Members must expose orders they represent as agent on the Exchange for at least [two (2) minutes]
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IIV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to reduce from two minutes to 30 seconds the order exposure time required in paragraphs (d) and (e) of ISE Rule 717. The purpose of the order exposure requirements is to assure that agency orders have an opportunity to interact on the Exchange before they are executed, either by the broker representing the order, or by another order solicited by the broker. However, market participants have indicated to the exchange that two minutes is too long to delay the execution of an order when there is a party willing to execute against the order.
The Exchange has taken this view into consideration and weighed the need to assure that orders interact in the Exchange's electronic auction market system against the competing customer interest of receiving a speedy execution. In this respect, the Exchange recognizes the benefits of order interaction, as well as the risk that an order left unexecuted might “miss the market.” Upon reconsideration of the two minute exposure time, the Exchange believes that the objective of the exposure rule can be satisfied by a shorter time period, which will benefit limit orders by providing them an opportunity for a more rapid execution. The Exchange believes that exposing an order for 30 seconds will provide sufficient opportunity for orders to interact with other trading interest on the Exchange, and thereby preserve the benefits of the ISE's electronic auction market.
The ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-00-04 and should be submitted by March 27, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
February 29, 2000.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The ISE is proposing commentary to ISE Rules 716(c) and (d) with respect to the Block Order Mechanism and the Facilitation Mechanism, which states that participants will be given 30 seconds to respond to a broadcast message. The ISE is also proposing to amend Rule 716(d)(4) to provide that only public customer bids (offers) on the Exchange at the time a facilitation order is executed that is priced higher (lower) than the facilitation price will be executed at the facilitation price unless there is sufficient size to execute a facilitation order entirely at a better price. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(d) Facilitation Mechanism. The Facilitation Mechanism is a process by which an Electronic Access Member can facilitate block-size Public Customer orders.
(4) At the end of the period given for the entry of Indications, the facilitation order will be automatically executed in full.
.01 It will be a violation of a member's duty of best execution to its customer it it were to cancel a facilitation order to avoid execution of the order at a better price. The availability of the Facilitation Mechanism does not alter a member's best execution duty to get the best price for its customer. Accordingly, while facilitation orders can be canceled during the thirty seconds given for the entry of Indications, if a member were to cancel a facilitation order when there was a superior price available on the Exchange and subsequently re-enter the facilitation order at the same facilitation price after the better price was no longer available without attempting to obtain that better price for its customer, there would be a presumption that the member did so to avoid execution of its customer order [by other market participants]
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE Rule 716(c) establishes a “block mechanism” through which ISE members can obtain liquidity for the execution of block-size orders
The proposed rule change specifies that Crowd Participants will be given 30 seconds to respond to a broadcast message from either the block or facilitation mechanism.
The ISE also is proposing to amend ISE Rule 716(d)(4)(i) to provide that only public customer bids (offers) on the Exchange at the time a facilitation order is executed that are priced higher (lower) than the facilitation price will be executed at the facilitation price, unless there is sufficient size to execute a facilitation order entirely at a better price. Higher bids and lower offers from non-customer orders and quotes will be executed at their stated price. Currently, under the Rule, such non-customer orders and quotes are given the benefit of the facilitation or “block clean-up” price.
The Exchange believes that in the case where there are non-customer orders or quotes that can provide the order being facilitated a better price, the order being facilitated should receive the better price for the number of contracts available. The proposed change creates the opportunity for a facilitation order to receive partial execution at an improved price, while continuing to protect public customer orders on the book by giving them the benefit of a better block execution price.
For example, under current ISE Rule 716(d)(4)(i), assume that a Member proposes to facilitate an order to sell 500 contracts at the ISE's best bid price of $4. During the exposure period, further assume that a non-customer order to buy 100 contracts at $4
The ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-00-03 and should be submitted by March 27, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The ISE is proposing commentary to ISE Rule 713(e) regarding precedence of non-customer orders and market maker quotes to define its trading algorithm. Proposed new language is in italics.
Rule 713 Priority of Quotes and Orders
No change to text of Rule
(c)
(c)
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE Rule 713(d) provides that customer orders at a given price have priority based on the time priority of such orders. ISE Rule 713(e) provides that, if there are two or more noncustomer orders or market maker quotations at the Exchange's inside market, after filling all customer orders at that price, executions will be allocated between the non-customer orders and market maker quotations “pursuant to an allocation procedure to be determined by the Exchange from time to time * * *.” ISE Rule 713(e) also states that, if the Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) is quoting at the Exchange's inside market, it will have precedence over non-customer orders and Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”) quotes for execution of orders that are up to a specified number of contracts. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish the ISE's allocation procedure for non-customer orders and market maker quotations, and to define the size of orders for which the PMM has priority.
The allocation procedure is a trading algorithm programmed in the ISE's electronic auction market system (the “System”) that determines how to split the execution of incoming orders among professional trading interests at the same price. All public customer orders at a given price are always executed fully before the trading algorithm is applied. Moreover, because the algorithm is applied automatically by the System upon the receipt of an executable order, only those non-customer orders and market maker quotes that are in the System participate in the algorithm. Thus, there is no opportunity for a market participant to receive an allocation unless it had an order or quote in the System at the execution price at the time the System received the incoming order.
Subject to the PMM's participation rights discussed below, the allocation of executions to non-customer orders and market marker quotes is based on the size associated with the order or quote relative to the total size available at the execution price. For example, assume there is a public customer order for 10 contracts, a non-customer order for 60 contracts and a CMM quotation for 40 contacts in the System at the best bid price, so that there is a total of 110 contracts available at the best bid. If a market order to sell 30 contracts is received, the customer order to buy 10 contracts will be executed first. The trading algorithm is then applied to allocate the remaining 20 contracts to sell between the non-customer order and CMM quote. The non-customer order is 60 percent of the available size at the best bid (60 out of 100) and the CMM quote is 40 percent of the size available at the best bid (40 out of 100). Therefore, twelve contracts will be allocated to the non-customer order (60 percent of 20 is 12) and eight contracts will be allocated to the CMM (40 percent of 20 is 8). The size associated with the non-customer order and CMM quote are then reduced by twelve and eight respectively, so that there is a total of 80 contracts available at the best bid following the execution of the market order. This entire process will be completed by the System in a fraction of a second.
The Exchange believes that priority for non-customer orders and market maker quotes based on size at the execution price, rather than on strict time priority, is beneficial because size priority encourages market participants to provide deeper, more liquid markets.
Because PMMs have unique obligations to ISE's market,
These participation rights are programmed into the trading algorithm,
According to the participation rights, a PMM quoting at the inside market generally is allocated the plurality of an order. For example, if both a PMM and CMM are quoting at the inside market for 50 contracts each, an incoming order for 10 contracts will be allocated between the two for six and four contracts respectively (a 60% allocation to the PMM). If the PMM is quoting for 50 contracts and there are two CMMs each quoting for 50 contracts, the PMM is allocated four contracts and the two CMMs are allocated three each (40 percent for the PMM, and the remaining 60 percent split equally between the CMMs because they are quoting an equal size). At a minimum, a PMM will be allocated 30 percent of an order, regardless of the number of other quotes or orders at that price.
PMMs quoting at the ISE's inside market will trade against all incoming orders of five contracts or less first. The size of an ISE “odd lot” is roughly equivalent to the similar concept in the equity markets. Specifically, the average options contract premium is approximately $542.
The proposed participation rights for PMMs described above is part of the ISE's balancing of the rewards and obligations that pertain to each of the Exchange's classes of memberships. This balancing is part of the overall market structure that is designed to encourage vigorous price competition between market makers on the Exchange, as well as maximize the benefits of price competition resulting from the entry of customers and non-customer orders, while encouraging participants to provide market depth.
The ISE is the first exchange in the United States to attempt to combine all of the elements of an auction market in an electronic environment. The Exchange believes the proposed trading algorithm, which includes participation rights for PMMs only when they are quoting at the best price, strikes the appropriate balance within its market and will maximize the benefits of an electronic auction market for all participants.
The ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All submissions should refer to File No.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The Phlx proposes to amend its By-laws as follows: (i) By-Law Article III, § 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12, Article IV, § 4-7, Article V, § 5-5, Article X, § 10-1, 10-4 and 10-11, combining the Nominating and Elections Committees; (ii) By-Law Article X, § 10-8 and 10-14 eliminating the Arbitration Committee and transferring its functions to the Executive Committee; and (iii) By-Law Article XI, § 11-1, to create a single Quality of Markets Committee. The Phlx also proposes to make technical changes to certain of its rules to reflect the changes to the by-laws.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has proposed By-law amendments to provide for streamlining the committee process as follows: (i) Dissolving the Arbitration Committee, whose limited remaining functions would be transferred to the Executive Committee, who will oversee ongoing arbitrations filed before the transfer of arbitration responsibilities to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) in October, 1998;
First, the Exchange proposes to dissolve the Arbitration Committee and transfer its duties to the Executive Committee. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to rescind By-Law Article X, § 10-8, entitled Arbitration Committee, and move its remaining powers to the Executive Committee by By-Law Article X, § 10-14(d). Additiionally, the Exchange proposes to delete reference to the Arbitration Committee in By-Law Article XI, § 11-1(a). These changes are intended to eliminate a standing committee, while transferring its respoinsibilities to the Executive Committee whose powers are broadly provided for in By-Law Article X, § 10-14.
By way of background, the Exchange ceased accepting arbitration cases on October 1, 1998. Jurisdiction for Phlx arbitration cases now resides with the NASD. Currently, the exchange is processing and closing the cases that were filed prior to October 1, 1998. Following the cessation of these cases, the arbitration function at the Exchange will cease, as will the need for any committee oversight of these matters. In addition, based on the experience since October 1, 1998 to the present, the Exchange believes that any remaining questions requiring committee oversight will be minimal.
Second, the Exchange proposes several changes to the Nominating Committee and the Elections Committee, essentially collapsing them into a single committee. The Exchange proposes to rescind By-Law Article X, § 10-13, entitled Elections Committee, and moves its powers to the Nominating Committee in By-Law Article III, § 3-5(e). The Exchange proposes changing the name of the Nominating Committee to the Nominating and Elections Committee in By-Law Article II, § 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9 and 3-12, Article IV, § 4-7, Article VI § 5-5, Article X, § 10-1 and 10-4 and Article XI, § 11-1. These changes are intended to streamline the functions of these two committees, as described more fully below.
The Elections Committee performs the limited, yet important function of administering membership elections. The Nominating Committee submits nominations for industry Governors who stand for election by the members. It also submits nominations for non-industry Governors. Because these two Committees perform functions related to the election and appointment of Governors of the Exchange, the Exchange believes that the merging of the Elections Committee with the Nominating Committee will not impair the functioning of any of their tasks.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to reduce the number of Quality of Markets Committees from three to one, also to improve efficiency. Specifically, the
Given the composition requirements of the Committees and the scheduling problems associated with convening meetings in Philadelphia for a significant number of public, non-industry as well as industry Governors not associated with Philadelphia-based member organizations, the proposed amendments are designed to make the Committee process more efficient, while lowering costs. The Exchange believes that this consolidation of committee functions will be beneficial to the functioning of the committee process by decreasing the number of committee assignments for some public, non-industry and industry Governors, allowing them to concentrate more of their energies to their remaining assignments. The Exchange believes the quality of information received from the committees by the Board of Governors will not be affected by the consolidation.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6 and, specifically with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, in that it continues to assure Phlx members fair representation in the administration of the Exchange's affairs by providing a committee structure that is more efficient and accessible in achieving the goals of the Exchange and the membership.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at the above address. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory organization. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-99-26 and should be submitted by March 27, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Charter of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) is being renewed for a two-year period. The membership of this advisory committee consists of private sector defense trade specialists appointed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs who advise the Department on policies, regulations, and technical issues affecting defense trade.
Mike Slack, DTAG Secretariat, U.S. Department of State, Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfer Policy (PM/RSAT), Room 7424 Main State, Washington, D.C. 20520-2422. Phone: (202) 647-2882, Fax: (202) 647-9779.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations (Authority: 40 CFR 1500-1508) and FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is making available the Draft
Written comments will be accepted prior to April 26, 2000. A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 12, 2000, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Warwick, RI.
Address all written comments to Ms. Terry Flieger, Environmental Specialist, FAA, Air Traffic Division, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. Oral or written comments may also be given at the public hearing that will be held at the Veterans Memorial High School Auditorium/Cafeteria, 2401 West Shore Road, Warwick, RI.
Ms. Terry Flieger, 781-238-7524.
The FAA is making available the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the following proposed action: the implementation of seven noise abatement departure procedures and one noise abatement arrival procedure including other associated noise compatibility program mitigation measures that were recommended in the T.F. Green Noise Compatibility Program Update. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared and will be available for public review and comment. This document will be available 30 days prior to the April 12, 2000, hearing during normal business hours at the following locations:
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed actions. During the hearing the public will be given an opportunity to present oral and/or written comments for the public record. This hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190) and other laws as applicable.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for RTCA Government/Industry Certification Steering Committee meeting to be held March 17, 2000, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, in the Bessie Coleman Conference Center, Room 2AB (second floor).
Formation of the Certification Steering Committee is a follow-on initiative recommended in RTCA's Report of Task Force 4, Certification. The concept of the Certification Steering Committee is supported by the FAA and will provide a public advisory forum for developing consensus-based recommendations for implementing the opportunities identified by Task Force 4. The Task Force completed its work in 1999 and published its findings in the “Final Report of RTCA TASK FORCE 4, Certification.” This report serves as a starting point for the Certification Steering Committee.
The Certification Steering Committee is Co-Chaired by Mr. Tom McSweeny, FAA Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification and Mr. Clay Jones, President, Rockwell Collins. The Certification Steering Committee will function as a Federal Advisory Committee with all meetings open to the public.
The agenda will include: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks: (a) RTCA Certification Activity Structure and Procedures; (b) Review Steering Committee Charter; (2) Background: (c) Task Force Four (TF4) Recommendations; (3) Certification Select Committee: (d) Membership; (e) Terms of Reference and Proposal for Implementing TF4 Recommendations; (f) Working Group Organization and Work Plans; (g) Near Term Certification Improvement Goals; (h) Deliverables and Milestones; (4) Other Business; (5) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (6) Closing.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel Ursa Major.
As authorized by Public Law 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S. build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before April 5, 2000.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2000-6998. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR 832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
Title V of Public Law 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (less than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commentor's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested:
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel: 65 feet in length, 109 gross tons, 87 tons net. Tonnage calculated for full displacement deep V trawler hull at time of initial documentation in 1982.
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade. According to the applicant: “Vessel will be used for six to twelve passenger charters for individuals interested in touring the areas of the Puget Sound and Alaska near coastal areas.”
(4) Date and place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding. Date of construction 1972, place of original construction: hull in Norway, upper structures and interior in Malahide, County of Dublin, Ireland. Added information from the applicant: “Reconstruction and major refits: Vessel has remained under U.S. citizenship ownership since construction and has had extensive refitting, repowering, hull work, and interior work done at various northeast shipyards (1972 to 1978), Merrill Stevens Shipyard in Florida (1978 to 1992), Seaview East in Seattle (1999-2000 and future) and currently Brower Boat Inc. in Seattle (1999-2000 and future). Work in US shipyards since launch in 1972 exceeds a minimum of 5 times its original cost and fair market value (average 1978 to 1992 was > $100,000 per year per prior owner and shipyard; 1994 to 2000 > $300,000).”
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators. According to the applicant: “The Ursa Major will be joining her sistership, the Explorer, in providing custom yacht cruises in Pacific Northwest and Alaskan waters to promote the preservation of these classic full displacement wooden hulled North Sea Trawlers. Similar vessels, including sistership EXPLORER and Norwegian ROMSDAHL VIKING FJORD, have received congressional waivers of the coastwise trade laws for the purposes of doing charter cruises in Puget Sound and Southeast Alaska. These boats have provided access to the public to maritime environments for interested individual tour groups and offered quality maritime training to individuals seeking to gain skills of seamanship.
The URSA MAJOR will be commanded by Captain Mike Fleming, formerly of the VIKING FJORD. Captain Fleming has a degree in oceanography from the University of Washington. He is a retired career officer of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce and is responsible for charting much of Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound waters. He is a former Commander of NOAA coast and geodetic vessels. He is very sensitive to the cultural and biologic aspects of the areas in which we will be touring. He embodies the approach to trade and activity that the URSA MAJOR will project as a commercial operation. We will work with environmental groups and special needs groups to provide access to unique environments as customized cruises and promote the safe and responsible use of our marine environment. Studies have indicated the growth rate of cruise ship passengers booking to Alaska to increase at the rate of 20% per year over the last decade. This growth in Alaskan tourism leaves room for the entrance of additional small vessel operators without having measurable impact on existing operators. Due to the small size of these vessels and their low environmental impact they are often welcomed into areas and communities not accessible to larger ships. The small and highly individualized nature of this operation and the increasing public interest in these types of low environmental impact nature tours makes it unlikely that this will have significant negative impact on any major cruise programs or other commercial operators.”
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards. According to the applicant: “The URSA MAJOR has remained under private U.S. ownership as a recreational vessel throughout her life but is a perfect candidate for the near coastal trade waiver to allow her to support her own maintenance. As such, she will be available for enjoyment by the maximum number of individuals.
As noted in Item 4 on reconstruction and major refits, the URSA MAJOR has had over five times her original cost reinvested in her renovation at U.S. shipyards to date. At this point in time no commercial U.S. shipyard is involved in construction of 65-foot wooden yachts. Therefore, granting this exemption to URSA MAJOR will have no impact on new vessel construction while providing commercial viability for this boat will assure continued marine repair work. It would not be economically feasible to construct a vessel of this type due to the lack of many of the woods and skills needed to replace her. Appropriate repair skills exist for wooden boats of this type in the Puget Sound region. This vessel remains a fine example of wooden boat building skills of the world and would allow many interested shipwrights, both professional and amateur, the opportunity to learn from her construction, her history, and sense the pride in being involved in her repair and maintenance. Her commercial viability will assure quality maintenance of this vessel for decades to come. The URSA MAJOR is currently completing a refit lasting over the last six years. This has been done exclusively at commercial Seattle shipyards amounting to over her fair market value.”
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel Victory of Burnham.
As authorized by Public Law 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S. build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with P.L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before April 5, 2000.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2000-6999. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR 832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
Title V of Public Law 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (less than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commentor's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested:
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel: 44′ foot sailboat of 15 gross tons, 13 net tons, displacing 22,280 pounds measured by the United States Sailing Association. She will carry six passengers.
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade. According to the applicant: “The intended use of this vessel is to provide sail racing and team building charters in Northeastern Florida, and Southeastern Georgia, specifically Amelia Island, Fl.”
(4) Date and place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding. The sailboat was built in Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom in 1981.
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators. According to the applicant: “I believe by granting this waiver it will have no impact on other charter boats in the area. The majority are fishing vessels and the few 6 passenger cruising/sightseeing vessels in the area do not offer racing or team building. Tourism has grown to such an extent on Amelia Island that there were not enough charter sailboats to keep up with the demand last year and some people had to be turned away.”
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards. According to the applicant: “In reference to United States shipyards, the only impact would be positive, because of the following facts: I purchased
Additional information supplied by the applicant: “
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 5, 2000.
Gary R. Toth at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Research and Development (NRD-32), 202-366-5378. 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 6213, Washington, DC 20590.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Forest River, Inc., a recreational vehicle manufacturer in Goshen, Indiana, has estimated that shades furnished in 511 of their model year 2000 motorhomes
This notice of receipt of a petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
The agency has assigned a Recall Campaign No. 99V-353 for this noncompliance case. FMVSS No. 302's paragraph S4.1 specifies shades, among others, as a component of vehicle occupant compartments, and that shades, therefore, shall meet the requirements of S4.3. Paragraph S4.3 specifies that when a component material is tested in accordance with paragraph S5, it shall not burn, nor transmit a flame across its surface, at a rate of more than 102 mm (4 inches) per minute. FMVSS No. 302's burn rate testing requires a 102 mm (4-inch) wide by 356 mm (14-inch) long sample, wherever possible (S5.2).
On January 12, 2000, Forest River voluntarily submitted a Part 573 Noncompliance Report and acknowledged that shades used in the affected vehicles do not comply with FMVSS No. 302. The conclusion was based on a one-sample test conducted on November 9, 1999. The test showed a 199 mm (7.84 inches) per minute burn rate which is a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 302. Forest River stated that it immediately corrected their production designs and that the new shades comply with FMVSS No. 302 as demonstrated by a new test conducted on November 24, 1999, showing a 0 mm (0 inch) per minute burn rate.
Forest River supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance with the following:
“1. The shades are not used in the driver/passenger area. They are used in the living portion only, which is behind the driver/passenger compartment.
2. FMVSS No. 302 does not apply to Traveltrailers, Fithwheels (sic) and Truck Campers with similar living areas. Some states do allow people to travel in them as well.
3. The total area of the shades represents a minimal area compared to the total interior surface area.
4. There has been no reports of problems or fires involving these shades. “
Based on above stated reasons, Forest River requested NHTSA to grant the inconsequentiality petition since the noncompliance represents a minimal potential for occupant injury due to interior fire. It also stated that because there have been no reports of fires involving the noncompliance shades, the noncompliance presents no reasonably anticipated risk to motor vehicle safety.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the application of Forest River described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that six copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
Comment closing date: April 5, 2000.
Department Offices, Treasury.
Renewal of the Treasury Advisory Committee on International Child Labor Enforcement (“the Committee”) and solicitation of applications for membership.
The Treasury Department has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Advisory Committee on International Child Labor Enforcement. The Department proposes to file a charter for an additional two-
Dennis M. O'Connell, Director, Office of Tariff and Trade Affairs ((202) 622-0220), or Mary Dinh, Research Assistant, Office of Tariff and Trade Affairs ((202) 622-9062), Office of the Under Secretary (Enforcement). Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I (1962), the Under Secretary (Enforcement) renews the following advisory committee.
Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) prohibits the importation of “goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor or/and forced labor or/and indentured labor under penal sanctions * * *.” The prohibition is enforced by the United States Customs Service in accordance with the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR 12.42-12.48. A general provision in the Fiscal Year 1998 Treasury Appropriations Act made explicit that merchandise manufactured with “forced or indentured child labor” falls within the prohibition of Section 307, and also mandated that Customs not use any of the appropriation to permit the importation into the United States of such merchandise. The provision has been renewed annually.
In the last three State of the Union addresses, President Clinton pledged to fight abusive child labor. The Advisory Committee constitutes a partnership between Executive agencies, labor and human rights advocacy groups, industry representatives, and the public to promote effective enforcement of the law and to further the President's commitment to combat abusive child labor.
The Committee advises the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Customs Service, and other Executive agencies, on measures to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement of the import prohibition on merchandise manufactured in foreign countries with forced or indentured child labor. Among other matters, the Committee assists in identifying specific information resources regarding, and avenues of productive inquiry into, prohibited child labor operations overseas. A major objective of the Committee is to share the expertise of private sector, specialists regarding methods of operation employed, and international trade channels used, by manufacturers and distributors of merchandise produced with forced or indentured child labor. The ultimate purpose of this combined effort is to support a vigorous laws enforcement initiative to stop illegal shipments of products of forced or indentured child labor and to punish violators.
Among other things, the Committee makes recommendations in the following areas. The Committee may consider additional governmental and non-governmental measures to prevent child labor imports. The Committee may recommend measures and furnish information that will assist the Executive agencies in establishing a vigorous outreach and educational program calling upon industries and individuals in the private sector to promote voluntary compliance with the child labor prohibition. During its first term, the Committee established a Subcommittee on Business Outreach for this purpose. The Committee may explore avenues for encouraging the cooperation of both foreign governments and foreign non-governmental organizations in nations where child labor is widely perceived to be a serious problem in order to enlarge the reach and effectiveness of U.S. enforcement efforts and resources.
Private sector members will be selected by the Secretary of the Treasury from persons with expertise in the subject of the use of child labor in foreign countries, particularly in the production of merchandise for international trade and/or who have commercial interests that may be affected by governmental enforcement measures. Members will be drawn from such organizations as labor rights, human rights, and child welfare groups; labor unions; affected private firms and trade associations; academic experts and others who possess relevant expertise and/or who represent affected constituencies. Appointments will be made with the objective of creating a diverse and balanced body with a variety of interests, backgrounds, and viewpoints represented. In general, there will be at least twelves private sector members and not more than twenty. The Committee has seventeen private sector members during its first term. Members currently serving on the Committee are eligible to apply for appointment. The Committee also will continue to include ex officio members from relevant government agencies and entities.
The Committee will be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement who may designate another official to serve in his or her absence as Acting Chairperson for purposes of presiding over a meeting of the Committee or performing any other duty of the Chairperson. The Committee will function for a two-year period before renewal or termination. It will meet periodically, but generally not more than four times per year, at the Treasury Department in Washington. The Committee may elect to hold a meeting(s) at another location if there is a consensus that this would further the objectives of the Committee.
The meetings are open to public observers, including the press, unless special procedures have been followed to close a meeting. However, participation in the meetings is limited to members unless the Committee elects to hold a hearing or to hear presentations from nonmembers.
No person who is required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as an agent or representative of a foreign principal may serve on an advisory committee. Members shall not be paid compensation nor shall they be considered Federal Government employees for any purpose. No per diem, transportation, or other expenses are reimbursed for the cost of attending Committee meetings at any location.
Membership on the Committee is personal to the appointee. Regular attendance is essential to the effective operation of the Committee. However, in the event of an unavoidable absence, a member may designate an alternate to represent him or her at a meeting.
Any interested person wishing to serve on the Treasury Advisory Committee on International Child Labor Enforcement must provide the following:
In addition, applicants must state in their applications that they agree to submit to pre-appointment security and tax checks. There is no prescribed format for the application. Applicants may send a cover letter describing their interest and qualifications and enclosed a resume.
The application period for interested candidates will extend to April 7, 2000. Applications should be submitted in sufficient time to be received by the close of business on the closing date and be addressed to Dennis M. O'Connell, Director, Office of Tariff and Trade Affairs, Office of the Under Secretary (Enforcement), Room 4004, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20220, Attention: CHILD 2000.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of proposed new system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury gives notice of a proposed IRS system of records, Disclosure Authorizations for U.S. Residency Certification Letters—Treasury/IRS 22.028.
Comments must be received no later than April 5, 2000. The proposed system of records will be effective April 17, 2000 unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination.
Comments should be sent to the IRS Freedom of Information Reading Room, 1621, at 1111 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20224. Comments will be made available for inspection and copying. An appointment for inspecting the comments can be made by contacting the IRS Reading Room at (202) 622-5164 (this is not a toll-free call).
Beth Ann Leshinski, Chief, International and Domestic Program Support at 215-516-7544.
The IRS is establishing the Disclosure Authorizations for U.S. Residency Certification system of records to maintain the taxpayer's authorization granting the IRS permission to send the U.S. residency certification or rejection letter to their designated third party (generally a financial institution authorized by the taxpayer). Since parts of this system are retrieved by individual identifier, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, requires a general notice of the existence of this system of records to the public.
This system will incorporate stringent controls to ensure full protection of the taxpayer's rights. The establishment of this system will save time, promote efficiencies within the IRS, and provide greater service to the public since it will reduce the flow of paper between the IRS, the financial community, and the taxpayer.
The IRS will maintain these authorizations to allow them to be used for up to 3 years instead of being discarded each time they are used. This would greatly reduce the number of “specific purpose” authorizations by the taxpayer as they pertain to the residency certification letters. Currently, the authorizations must be received within 60 days of the taxpayer's signature. The taxpayer can designate authorization up to 3 years on the form, but the IRS does not have any means to maintain this information. Since there is no established system of records that enables the IRS to maintain “specific purpose” authorizations, we are restricted in our ability to process the third-party requests without receiving a newly signed authorization yearly.
The proposed IRS system of records, “Disclosure Authorizations for U.S. Residency Certification Letters—Treasury/IRS 22.028,” is published in its entirety below.
Disclosure Authorizations for U.S. Residency Certification Letters.
Internal Revenue Service, Northeast Region, Philadelphia Service Center, 11601 Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19154.
Individuals and third parties who are subjects of correspondence and who initiate correspondence for disclosure authorizations for U.S. Residency Certification Letters. The correspondence may include any form of communications, including telephone calls, and e-mail.
Records relating to the entity requesting certification, including taxpayer identification number, name and address, countries for which certification has been requested, and when applicable, business activity code; records relating to the designated entity authorized to receive tax information specific to the U.S. Residency Certification Letters, name, address, and number of years authorization has been granted.
5 U.S.C. 301; 26 U.S.C. 7801 & 7802.
The records will enable the IRS to determine if there is a valid disclosure authorization to provide a third party with the Residency Certification Letter (Form 6166, Form 2297 or Form 2298) or related taxpayer information.
Disclosure of returns and return information may only be made as provided by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Electronic media, and/or hard copy media (paper).
Records may be retrieved by the taxpayer's name, authorized individual or company name, and by the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
Protection and control of the records are in accordance with the requirements of IRM 2(10), the Automated Security System Security Handbook, and IRM 1(16)12.
Records are maintained in accordance with Records Control Schedule 206 for Service Centers, IRM 1(15)59.26. Records will be maintained up to 3 years. Hard copy and microfilm media will be disposed by shredding or incineration. Electronic media will be erased electronically.
Director, Philadelphia Service Center, Internal Revenue Service, Northeast Region, Philadelphia Service Center, 11601 Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19154.
Individuals seeking to determine if this system of records contains a record pertaining to themselves may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix B.
Individuals seeking access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed to the Philadelphia Service Center Director. (See IRS appendix A for addresses.)
See record access procedures above. 26 U.S.C. 7852(e) prohibits Privacy Act amendment of tax records.
Information supplied by the initiators of the correspondence.
None.
In notice document 00-4445, appearing on page 10067, in the issue of Friday, February 25, 2000, the docket line should appear as set forth above.
In notice document 00-3762 appearing on page 8129 in the issue of Thursday, February 17, 2000, the docket number should read as set forth above.
In notice document 00-3517 beginning on page 7574 in the issue of Tuesday, February 15, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 7574, in the third column, the second full paragraph, the third line, “March 18, 2000” should read “March 16, 2000”.
In notice document 00-3518 beginning on page 7574 in the issue of Tuesday, February 15, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 7575, in the third column, the second full paragraph, the third line, “March 18, 2000” should read “March 16, 2000”.
In notice document 00-3436 beginning on page 7581, in the issue of Tuesday, February 15, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 7581, in the second column, the docket number is corrected to read as set forth above.
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
Notice of Request for Proposals and Request for Input
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests proposals for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program (IFAFS) for fiscal year (FY) 2000 to support competitively awarded research, extension and education grants addressing key issues of national and regional importance to agriculture, forestry, and related topics. The amount available for support of this program in FY 2000 is approximately $113,400,000.
This notice sets out the objectives for these projects, the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, the application procedures, and the set of instructions needed to apply for an IFAFS grant under this authority.
By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from any interested party regarding the FY 2000 IFAFS for use in development of any future requests for proposals for this program.
Proposals must be transmitted by May 8, 2000, as indicated by postmark or date on courier bill of lading. Proposals transmitted after this date will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this request for proposals are requested within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.
Written user comments should be submitted by first-class mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal year of the RFP to which you are responding.
Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact the Program Director listed in the program areas found in the Program Area Description section below; or Dr. Rodney Foil, Director IFAFS, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2242; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-2242; telephone: (202) 401-5022; email: rfoil@reeusda.gov; or Dr. Cynthia Huebner, Assistant Director IFAFS, at the same address; telephone: (202) 401-4114; email: chuebner@reeusda.gov.
CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this solicitation of applications from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the development of any future RFP for the program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or his designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on a current RFP from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating future RFPs for competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as provided for in the
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.302, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7621) established in the Treasury of the United States an IFAFS account and authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a research, extension, and education competitive grants program to address critical emerging agricultural issues related to (1) future food production, (2) environmental quality and natural resource management, or (3) farm income. Grants are to be awarded that shall address priority mission areas related (a) Agricultural genome, (b) Food safety, food technology and human nutrition, (c) New and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and products, (d) Agricultural biotechnology, (e) Natural resource management, including precision agriculture, and (f) Farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability and competitiveness of small- and medium-sized dairy, livestock, crop, and other commodity operations. Priority is to be given to projects that are multistate, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary or projects that integrate agricultural research, extension and education.
Subject to the availability of funds to carry out this program, the Secretary may award grants to Federal research agencies, national laboratories, colleges and universities or research foundations maintained by a college or university, or a private research organization with an established and demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology transfer. Grants also may be awarded to ensure that faculty of small and mid-sized institutions that have not
The purpose of the IFAFS is to support research, education and extension grants that address critical emerging agricultural issues related to (1) future food production, (2) environmental quality and natural resource management, or (3) farm income.
In awarding IFAFS grants, priority will be given to projects that are multistate, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary or projects that integrate agricultural research, extension and education. Integrated projects hold the greatest potential to produce and transfer knowledge directly to end users, while providing for educational opportunities to assure agricultural expertise in future generations. The IFAFS also holds great opportunity to bring the agricultural knowledge system to bear on issues impacting small and mid-sized producers and land managers, thus enabling improvements in quality of life and community. In support of the agency's goal to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, consideration will also be given to projects (with U.S. institutions as the lead) that incorporate an international dimension with demonstrable domestic benefits.
IFAFS is distinct from other CSREES programs because of its priority on integration of research, extension, and education; its consideration of the concerns of small and mid-sized operations; its emphasis of agricultural production issues; and its goal to support relatively large projects that provide more intensive support to the research, extension, and education system.
There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards. Approximately $113,400,000 is available in FY 2000 for programs within the IFAFS for the following priority areas: Agriculture Genome and Agricultural Biotechnology ($32,800,000); Food Safety, Food Technology, and Human Nutrition ($23,600,000); New and Alternative Uses and Production of Agricultural Commodities and Products ($9,400,000); Natural Resource Management, including Precision Agriculture ($28,400,000); and Farm Efficiency and Profitability, Including the Viability and Competitiveness of Small-and Medium-sized Dairy, Livestock, Crop, and Other Commodity Operations ($18,900,000). Funds available for each priority area are targets. The number and quality of applications, as well as the need to reach programmatic goals, may necessitate the movement of funds between priority areas.
Funds will be made available to small or mid-sized academic institutions that have not been previously successful in obtaining competitive grants under the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Research Program.
The program areas described herein were developed within the context of the authorized purposes of both USDA research, extension, and education (7 U.S.C. 3101) and IFAFS (7 U.S.C. 401), within the framework of the CSREES Strategic Plan (Available at www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/ree.pdf) and based on stakeholder input.
For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the following definitions are applicable:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
Proposals may be submitted by Federal research agencies, national laboratories, colleges or universities or research foundations maintained by a college or university, or private research organization with an established and demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology transfer. Eligible applicants may subcontract to organizations not eligible under these requirements.
If a grant provides for applied research that is commodity specific and not of national scope, the grant recipient is required to provide funds or in-kind support to match the amount of Federal grant funds provided.
IFAFS funds may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
In accordance with the President's Memorandum of March 4, 1997, regarding the use of Federal funds for the cloning of human beings (33 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 278), IFAFS funds shall not be used to support, fund, or undertake any cloning activity that could lead to the creation of a new human being with genetic material identical to that of another human being, including research related directly thereto. The prohibition on use of grant funds to “support” human cloning activity includes using, or making available for use, grant-funded equipment for use in connection with human cloning. This ban does not restrict research into the cloning of plants, animals, or individual human cells that cannot develop into a new human being.
Dependent on the merits of proposals received, no less than thirty percent of the total available IFAFS funds will be used for support of consortia. Consortia are entities that may involve multiple states and/or institutions that conduct research; synthesize previous, ongoing and future research; develop curricula and build educational and research capacity; and transfer information to producers, end users, and the public. All IFAFS consortia will be expected to address the needs of agricultural research, extension and education that cannot be addressed through the funding of separate efforts. It is the intent of CSREES to promote collaboration, open communication, exchange of information and resources, and integration of activities among individuals, institutions, states or regions. Consortia should minimize isolation and over-competitiveness, reduce duplication of efforts, and provide an accessible source of expert information, technology, and education upon which the public can draw.
Consortia may be organized around a particular topic or they can be geographically based. Geographically-defined consortia applicants must address the interaction of the problems most relevant to a particular region using a systems-oriented, landscape-scale approach. In contrast, topic-based consortia should focus on a single issue (e.g., minority land ownership or functional foods) that may be of nationwide or regional interest. For either consortium type, an explanation also must be provided for why such an entity has more potential for success than several smaller grants. Requested funds for individual consortia proposals can range between $1-5 million for the total duration of four years. CSREES expects that relatively few grants will be supported at the higher end of this range. The amount requested must be commensurate with the activities proposed.
A designated lead institution of each consortium will administer funds and be responsible for overall management of activities. The proposal must include how the administration of the grant within the consortium will be achieved and monitored. Plans for how each consortium will be maintained and monitored for progress during and beyond the duration of the grant should also be included in the proposal. Consortia proposals will be evaluated on both administrative and monitoring procedures as well as on the merit and likelihood of success of the overall project.
Dependent on the merits of proposals received, no less than thirty percent of the total available funds will be used for standard grants. Standard projects are expected to address research, extension and education in a focused project. Requested funds for individual standard proposals cannot exceed a total request of $1 million for a duration of four years. The amount requested must be commensurate with the activities proposed; support for very large requests of funds will be highly competitive. Standard projects will be encouraged to coordinate with IFAFS-funded consortia pertinent to their project focus.
Dependent on the merits of proposals received, CSREES will ensure that a portion of either consortia or standard grants will be awarded to proposals in which the lead institution (recipient of the Federal funds) is a small- or mid-sized institution (as defined in Part I., C. Definitions). Other institutions or organizations involved in small- and mid-sized institution eligible projects need not meet the criteria described in the definition of a small and mid-sized institution.
The IFAFS seeks to sponsor integrated research, education and extension programs in plant, animal and microbe genomics and the development of bioinformatic tools with specific applications to agricultural challenges.
A more complete understanding of the entire complement of genes in agriculturally relevant plants, animals and microbes is imperative. More knowledge in this area will have a major impact on the ability of the United States to produce nutritious and safe food, while preserving the environment and sustaining the economic stability of the agricultural enterprise. Greater efforts aimed at identifying, mapping and understanding the function and control of genes responsible for economically important traits in agriculturally important species of plants, animals and microbes are needed. Such efforts will lead to the development of new genetic technologies for improvements in yield, pest and pathogen resistance, and the composition, quality, and safety of U.S. agricultural products.
New bioinformatic and computational biology tools are needed to analyze, interpret and utilize the vast amounts of data that will be generated by genomic research in agriculturally important species. CSREES expects that bioinformatics will be an integral component of any project funded under this Agricultural Genomics program. CSREES is also interested in funding integrated projects primarily dedicated to the research and development of bioinformatics tools and education programs, hence a separate sub-area in bioinformatics. Prospective applicants who are primarily interested in working on a particular plant, animal or microbial system should address their projects to the relevant section. Those primarily interested in developing bioinformatics tools, software, and training programs should address their proposal to the sub-area on Bioinformatics.
All agricultural genomics grant recipients are strongly encouraged to attend or present at an annual grantee workshop that will occur at a date and time to be determined.
Investigators are expected to explain clearly how the ownership of information and research materials and their public release will be handled. Rapid and unrestricted sharing of genomic sequence data is essential for advancing research on agriculturally important species. Early release of unfinished sequence has already proven useful in accelerating the pace of experimental discovery in non-agricultural fields, such as human health, energy production and bioremediation. At the same time, CSREES recognizes that it also is necessary to allow investigators time to verify the accuracy of their data and to accomplish the goals proposed in their application, which often includes the assembly and annotation of the sequence data.
In addition to the general data release procedures above, applications for support of genome sequencing projects must include a detailed description of the data release plan. Timely release is strongly encouraged in recognition of the benefits to the broader research community. Release should be accompanied by appropriate information on the reliability of the data (e.g., level of coverage and extent of assembly, extent of contamination with vector and other sequences, statistical measures of accuracy). At a minimum, it is anticipated that sequence data will be released within one month after 3X coverage of the genome (or chromosome for eukaryotic organisms) is achieved. The released data should be provided as assemblies of equal to, or greater than, one kilobase contigs. Subsequent releases of assembled sequences should be provided at least on a monthly basis.
In the view of some, raw genomic sequences, in the absence of additional demonstrated biological information, lack demonstrated utility and therefore are inappropriate for patent filing. Patent applications on large blocks of primary genomic sequence could stifle future research and the development of future inventions of useful products. However, according to the Bayh-Dole Act, the grantees have the right to elect to retain title to subject inventions and are free to choose to apply for patents should additional biological experiments reveal convincing evidence of utility. CSREES grantees are reminded that the grantee institution is required to disclose each subject invention to CSREES within two months after the inventor discloses it in writing to grantee institution personnel responsible for patent matters.
Research in plant genomics has advanced rapidly in the past few years, and the entire genomic sequences of Arabidopsis and rice will be determined and annotated in the near future. Knowledge of these sequences will provide basic information on the genes in a flowering plant species. While genomic tools and resources are currently available for plant research, they will need to be improved and expanded. Additionally, genomic resources will need to be developed for other economically important plant species. Furthermore, if genomic information is to be applied to plant improvement, more research is needed to determine the function of gene sequences.
The IFAFS Plant Genome Program sub-area will support projects that advance our knowledge of the structure, organization and function of agriculturally important plant genomes. The investment in plant genomics will expand the efforts of the National Plant Genome Initiative (NPGI) coordinated under the National Science and Technology Committee (NSTC) Plant Genome Program. Participating research agencies of the NSTC effort include USDA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Examples of education and extension components pertinent to this sub-area include training of graduate and undergraduate students, postdoctoral associates, and/or colleagues (through classes, seminars, workshops, sabbaticals) in the use of genomic resources or outreach to the community through informational seminars and classes on the benefits and methods of genomic research. Wherever appropriate, investigators are encouraged to develop national and international collaborations with research groups already working on the species of interest to maximize the use of structural and functional genomic resources. Collaborations with private industry that have made a significant investment in the species are also encouraged to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
Proposals must address one of the two specific topic areas below:
(a)
(b)
To build on the sequencing effort now underway, this program area will support rice functional genomic studies that seek to uncover the function of all genes by relating a mutant phenotype with sequence information. Examples of approaches include gene tagging, proteomics, microarrays, and development of knockout lines. Projects are encouraged to be multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary and include collaborations with researchers who can recognize gene mutations affecting the plant life cycle, such as molecular biologists, bioinformaticians, geneticists, pathologists, and physiologists. Collaborations with international programs is appropriate but the lead institution must be from the US. In addition, this program will also support projects in rice to produce and make publicly available, informative strains and sequences of rice to the international research community; and to develop a public database to consolidate information on mutagenized populations and phenotypic information about mutants characterized.
There have been substantial efforts in gene mapping of agriculturally important animal species during the past few years. This effort, coupled with recent advances in gene discovery, defining molecular sites on the chromosomes (such as microsatellites), and the development of more sophisticated bioinformatics, has resulted in gene maps with varying density for animal species. Generally, the gene maps have advanced sufficiently that they can begin to be used for marker-assisted selection of progeny and to begin the process of defining genes that control complex traits of economic importance, such as milk production, growth, litter size and disease resistance; however, map densities for some species are far below what is considered optimal for practical application.
This program will emphasize: defining and mapping functional genes through analysis of ESTs, the development of high density comparative gene maps across animal species, identification and mapping of genes affecting traits of economic importance, and development of strategies to effectively use genomic information to enhance genetic improvement of agriculturally important animal species. A considerable degree of linearity in gene order and chromosomal synteny occurs across species. Consequently, the soon-to-be-completed sequencing of the human and mouse genomes will allow reasonable predictions about gene location and relative order without sequencing entire genomes of agricultural animal species. By emphasizing the functional genomics of agriculturally important traits, this program will use information already obtained from other genomic efforts to advance U.S. agriculture in the most cost-effective and expedient manner. Education programs are also needed, not only to apply genomic information effectively, but also to promote understanding of the genomic technologies to all sections of the population, including producers and agricultural professionals.
Proposals are solicited that address one or more of the following areas in animal genomics: (a) develop high density comparative gene maps, which include human and mouse, across agricultural animal species (cattle, sheep, swine, horses, poultry species and aquaculture species); (b) develop high throughput methods for monitoring gene expression in response to environmental stimuli; (c) conduct quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis and marker assisted selection on large populations of agricultural animals, which may include detailed mapping and sequencing of those loci controlling or having a major effect on economically important traits; (d) develop bioinformatic software to facilitate comparative gene mapping; and (e) develop education programs on new developments in agricultural animal genome research for outreach to producers and students.
Microorganisms dominate the planet in terms of total mass, species diversity, and metabolic range. They include not only pathogens, but also microbes that are beneficial to higher organisms. Many are of enormous present and future economic value. Although genomic information in itself is only a sequence of bases, it provides a framework for understanding how the organism functions and lives. This knowledge can be used to understand why an organism may be pathogenic or beneficial to a plant or animal, or how its properties might be exploited in metabolic engineering, bioremediation, development of sensitive and specific diagnostic tools, improved treatments and preventatives, or more effective vaccines. Knowledge of the genomes of microorganisms is expected to be the driving force for research in the life sciences, including agriculture, forestry, and food safety, over the next quarter century.
This program is designed primarily to encourage competitive research grant applications in support of high-throughput sequencing of genomes of microorganisms (including bacteria, fungi, mollicutes, and protozoa) that are important to the productivity and sustainability of agriculture and forestry, and to the safety and quality of the nation's food supply. This integrated program will provide whole genome sequence data and mapping information on microorganisms that have an impact on agriculture, and extension and education programs to apply this
It is recognized that complete genome coverage with no gaps is the most desirable end-point for whole genome sequencing. However, agriculturally relevant microbes encompass a sizable number of microorganisms relevant to animals, plants, and natural resources. To date, very few agricultural microbes have been, or are in the process of being, sequenced. Consequently, agriculture lags far behind other fields, such as human health and energy production, with respect to microbial genomics. For this reason, this program encourages investigators to attempt lower level (
As a longer term goal, the program will likely request full genome coverage of several (or all) of these organisms. Therefore, to the extent consistent with the Bayh-Dole Act, investigators must plan to make available to the scientific community, upon request, the strains or isolates used, high quality genomic DNA from the organism, and an appropriate set of verified clones developed during the course of the sequencing project. Either a cost-recovery system or use of a commercial repository is permissible, provided that the plan is outlined in the proposal, with an appropriate budget. These reagents should be made available for a minimum of five years.
Note, however, that for smaller genomes, or genomes that may already be sequenced with low coverage, it is acceptable to propose sequencing with high level coverage (
Choices of organism will be open to those whose sequences are not already being made publicly available. Examples might include high priority pathogens of animals (
Clearly, a large number of microorganisms fit this broad criterion of relevance, and in this solicitation it is not the intention of CSREES to dictate which organisms should be sequenced. Rather, the choice of organism(s) will be left to the applicant(s) who must justify selection(s) and address all of the following criteria:
(a) Economic importance and relevance to U.S. agriculture;
(b) Avoidance of organism strains whose sequences are already being targeted by others, unless this information will not be in the public domain. To help assess the current sequencing status for particular microorganisms, applicants are strongly encouraged to visit websites that summarize completed and on-going sequencing projects. For example, the following URL sites may prove useful:
(c) Unique biological or environmental features;
(d) Broad interest to a significantly sized community of scientists or agriculturalists;
(e) Genetic tractability,
Two additional criteria (position in the taxonomic tree and evolutionary significance) might also be addressed if these are considered relevant to the choice of organism. Also, it is realized that some organisms may be of profound agricultural importance but not easily cultured or subjected to genetic analysis, and therefore are strong candidates for sequencing.
Protozoa, fungi and some bacteria have relatively large genomes, not easily completed under the support of a single grant. Therefore, requests for partial funding of a genome are allowable as long as future plans for completing the work are outlined. In these instances, investigators are encouraged to seek partners, in either the form of consortia or support from other sources, so that the sequence can be completed in a reasonable time-frame. As long as the goals and limits of the individual projects are clearly addressed and relevant to agriculture, such cooperative projects are encouraged, as are international collaborations. The expected outcome of the project will be a high quality sequence, much or all of it contiguous, with annotation of open reading frames and deposit in a publicly accessible data base. Additionally, for eukaryotic organisms, applications may propose large-scale EST projects. For these larger genomes, applicants should indicate the status of efforts supported by other funding agencies and how these efforts would be coordinated with a USDA-funded activity.
Investigators are to provide detailed information on the organism(s) chosen, the method of library preparation and all other pertinent methodological information. Mechanisms to assess validity and accuracy of the data must be described in the proposal. All cloning and sequencing technologies/strategies, particularly ones that are novel, should be described and must be applicable to future efforts to expand coverage. In judging the merits of a proposal, the speed, level of accuracy, and cost effectiveness of the proposed work will be important issues and considered one of the evaluation criteria under this program. The number of bases to be sequenced per unit time and an estimate of the dollars required to produce a specific amount of base sequence must be calculated. The latter value should include the costs of generating clones, assembly of sequence and annotation, as well as true sequencing costs.
The vast amounts of data being generated by genomic research only will be of use to plant, animal and microbial improvement and protection if technologies are developed to efficiently utilize genomic sequence, gene maps and gene function information. In addition, new cadres of scientists must be trained in the use of these technologies. The science of bioinformatics and computational biology, which includes the methods by which genomic data can be sorted,
This sub-area will help to develop new bioinformatic tools with specific application to agricultural systems and to train scientists in the theory, computational implementation and biological application of the information sciences (including computer science, statistics and mathematics) for the improvement of animal, plant and microbial species of agricultural importance.
Successful applicants to this program will develop an interdisciplinary program which combines research and education or extension activities. Projects may involve experts in computer science, software engineering, genomics, genetics, plant, animal, or microbial improvement, or related sciences as well as individuals with an interest in the development of education and training programs in bioinformatics and computational biology.
Applicants to this program should address technological and knowledge gaps in the development of bioinformatics tools specifically related to plant, animal or microbial genomic data. Research should include but is not limited to the development of: (a) software, algorithms, and database management techniques for the rapid cataloging and access of genomic data, including improved content and utility, improved communication among databases and greater linkages between genomic and phenotypic data; (b) analytical computation tools for the analysis of genomic sequence data for predicted gene function, modeling of biochemical pathways in plant and animal systems, map generation, and statistical techniques for the identification of genes of traits needed to improve the productivity of agriculturally important plant and animal species; and (c) computational applications for capturing, displaying and analyzing information about sequence variation, which will allow for greater accessibility of plant, animal and microbial genomic data for improvement and protection.
Successful proposals will also include a strong focus on bioinformatics training. Training programs should address the current gap in the availability of professionals trained in both plant, animal, and microbe improvement and bioinformatics. Evidence of infrastructure which encourages or enables the interaction of biologists and computational scientists must be evident in the proposal. Approaches to training may include, but are not limited to: (a) the development of courses at the undergraduate and graduate level in bioinformatics/computational biology; (b) programs which include summer institutes, short courses, sabbaticals or training centers designed to educate and train faculty and or graduate students in bioinformatics; (c) development of training modules for agricultural professionals, such as certified crop advisors, farm managers, etc., in the use of genomic data in plant and animal improvement; or (d) development of secondary education science teaching modules to introduce young students to the bioinformatic/computational biological sciences.
The application of biotechnology to agriculture has great potential for supplying the world with food and fiber in a sustainable manner. This technology is expected to increase productivity of existing farmlands while reducing the negative environmental effects of traditional production methods by reducing the need for antibiotics, fertilizers, herbicides, hormones, and pesticides. Biotechnology may also facilitate development of products with improved nutritional and economic benefits, or products with novel food, agricultural, or industrial uses.
Successful application of this technology to food and agriculture requires a sufficient level of consumer acceptance of biotechnology-derived products to provide economic incentive to product developers. Consumer acceptance is currently affected by doubts about biotechnology in food and agriculture. Research and education focusing on reducing present and predicted risks associated with agricultural biotechnology will aid in alleviating public concerns. Mechanisms for increasing public awareness of the benefits, as well as the risks, of biotechnology-derived products are needed to provide consumers and policymakers with the facts they need to make informed decisions about production and trade of biotechnology-derived foods and products.
This program area will support research, extension, and education activities that address public questions and concerns about agricultural biotechnology. High priority will be given to projects that integrate these three activities. Supported activities will advance this goal by assessing and reducing present and anticipated risks associated with products derived through biotechnology, and by maximizing knowledge and understanding of both risks and benefits accrued to the public by these products.
Research, extension, and education activities regarding the effects of genetically modified (GM) food on human, animal, and plant health, include but are not limited to: (a) approaches for anticipating, detecting, and managing allergenicity in new GM products; (b) the role of GM products in the development of antibiotic resistance; (c) secondary metabolite formation and how this may affect food and feed; (d) changes in bioavailability of essential nutrients; (e) development of new and enhanced testing and evaluation methods of biologically modified products that ensure human and animal safety; (f) techniques to minimize movement of transgenes to non-target organisms or to prevent expression of transgenes in non-target organisms; (g) management systems to slow the evolution of resistance to transgenic protection against pests and diseases; (h) development of experiential learning opportunities for students, academics, and agricultural professionals to study the effects of GM food and feed on humans and animals; (i) development of outreach programs to explain the risks and benefits of GM food and feed on human and animal health.
Proposals involving genetically modified functional foods should direct their proposals to section 12.2 (Nutritional Impact of Functional Foods).
Agricultural biotechnology has sparked debate on a variety of topics, including: food safety; the environment; trade, business, and economics; industry structure and consolidation; regulatory sufficiency; product labeling; and diverse value systems. Proposals should draw on these debates.
Projects/programs that address the objective and perceived benefits and risks associated with biotechnology faced by producers, distributors, consumers, and the general public are encouraged. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: (a) effects of biotechnology on market structure and concentration; (b) social and economic consequences of limited germplasm access; (c) consumer acceptance of biologically modified food and feed; and (d) family, community and other contextual effects on biotechnology-related practices of producers, distributors, and consumers.
Proposals in these areas may include research, extension, and education efforts for producers, consumers, opinion leaders, and others on the full range of challenges and opportunities associated with modern agricultural biotechnology. Such efforts should be designed and conducted through collaboration with partners such as government, industry, universities, public interest and consumer groups. In addition, proposals appropriate to this section may include education programs for students on the history and development of biotechnology in agriculture, including crop breeding to modern gene insertion techniques. These programs should include curricula that cover the ethics(social and environmental) behind biotechnology as well as the potential benefits and costs of genetically modified organisms and any social and institutional safeguards that exist or are needed to protect the public interest.
This program area concentrates resources on two critical areas in nutrition: factors affecting food and nutrition behavior of consumers; and the nutritional impact of functional and designer foods. A third program area will fund research, extension and education programs to help producers implement good agricultural practices for reducing microbial contamination on raw agricultural commodities. A key anticipated benefit of this initiative will be to strengthen campus-based educational programs and to promote the internationalization of research, teaching, and extension/outreach activities related to nutrition and food safety.
The most fundamental knowledge gap in nutrition research is in understanding why people choose what they choose to eat. Although USDA has issued dietary guidance for consumers for over a century and, together with the Department of Health and Human Services, has formulated Federal nutrition policy in the form of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for 20 years, we know that many consumers are not following this guidance. According to the Department's 1996 Healthy Eating Index, a measure of how Americans' diets fare in meeting the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines, only 12 percent of Americans have diets that can be classified as “good;” 71 percent have diets that are considered to “need improvement” and 17 percent are classified as having “poor” diets. Additionally, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 12 percent in 1991 to 18 percent in 1998. USDA researchers have found that in children the risk of becoming obese increases as family income decreases. Community-based research on food systems has demonstrated limited food choices in low-income communities as insufficient resources limit grocery retail establishments in economically deprived areas. Food intake of low-income individuals is dramatically affected by environmental availability of food, especially fruits and vegetables. Food stamp recipients sometimes have difficulty stretching food dollars through the month, creating an atmosphere of food insecurity late in the month, affecting food choices.
Food choice behavior is influenced by a variety of factors ranging from available income to physiologic need to societal standards. Knowledge of how these factors interact to affect food choices is limited. Nutrition experts agree that for nutrition interventions to be successful, they should be behaviorally-based, but the gaps in knowledge of consumer dietary behavior limits development of such interventions. When behaviorally-based nutrition interventions have been implemented, evaluation of the outcomes of such interventions has been limited, primarily due to lack of funds.
The goal of this program is to fund projects that produce models of food and nutrition behavior, especially in at-risk populations such as older adults, low income individuals and overweight individuals, and to use such models to produce behaviorally-based nutrition intervention programs.
This program invites innovative projects on consumer food and nutrition behavior, including: (a) Research on factors influencing dietary behaviors of at-risk populations, including children and adolescents (at home, in school, and in child care and after-school settings), ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, overweight individuals, and older adults; (b) research on behavioral factors that may contribute to the development of obesity; (c) exploration and analysis of the impact of insecure food systems in low-income communities and prevalence of obesity, unhealthy food choices, and related food behaviors; (d) longitudinal studies and studies that use non-self-report methods to measure changes in dietary behavior; (e) multi-disciplinary studies to examine current theory-based models of behavior change; (f) development of intervention(s) at either the individual or community level based on one or a combination of these models; (g) use of a social marketing approach to target nutrition and health messages that lead to behavior changes; and (h) development of innovative cross-training programs in nutrition and the social sciences.
Functional foods are fresh or processed foods containing significant levels of biologically active components that might provide health benefits or desirable physiological effects beyond basic nutrition. Functional food markets are growing markedly, reaching the billions of dollars level and consumers are increasingly willing to include functional foods in their diets. Considerable scientific information demonstrates that some food components have the potential health
The goal of this program is to foster research and outreach to improve functional foods from agriculturally important materials. Collaborative international activities, which may lead to the discovery and development of new functional foods, or which improve the prospects for such foods through enhanced production or commercialization, thus improving the prospects for U.S. agricultural products, are encouraged. Activities that fully integrate and encompass the design of commercially feasible functional foods, characterization of bioactive components, measurement of health benefits, and consumer outreach programs will be given priority. Integration should include a holistic approach to developing functional foods, including an analysis of impact on the food system and on health. Applicants are strongly encouraged to seek industry collaboration.
Examples of potential research, extension and education activities include, but are not limited to: (a) creation of foods that have increased amounts of the beneficial components found in fruits, vegetables, grains and animal products; (b) interactive effects of the bioactive components as consumed in the food; (c) improved processes to enhance stability and bioavailability of bioactive components; (d) the design of foods with acceptable sensory attributes; (e) the development of methods to monitor the effectiveness of functional foods on improving health and preventing diseases; (f) analysis to support the issuance of regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of functional food products; and (g) provide information usable by and readily available to health professionals and consumers.
Under the President's “Initiative to Ensure the Safety of Imported and Domestic Foods,” October 1997, guidelines were developed to aid in the reduction of microbial food safety hazards through good agricultural practices, including growing, harvesting, washing, sorting, packing, and transporting of fruit and vegetables that are generally consumed raw. A “Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables” was issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, October 1998. In order to help the growers and producers implement these good agriculture practices, specific areas for research, education and extension programs are needed for on-farm food safety for reducing microbial contamination of raw agricultural commodities.
The goal of this program is to support projects that address minimizing microbial hazards during all aspects of pre-harvest production. Activities that integrate research, extension, and education activities that will eventually aid the grower/producer by providing management strategies for microbial hazards in raw or minimally processed fruits and vegetables will be given priority. The research needs are necessary for the development of education programs, materials, and resources for education and outreach to growers and producers of raw or minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Information and practical skills related to the appropriate management strategies must be transferred to growers and producers through effective food safety education and outreach for the implementation of good agricultural practices.
Examples of potential research, extension, and education activities include but are not limited to: (a) Research on the macro and micro environments that microbes inhabit, such as biofilm formation and pathogen attachment; (b) breeding of resistant cultivars that would reduce the likelihood of contamination by pathogens by changing surface conditions; (c) understanding the competitiveness, antagonistic, and symbiotic interactions between pathogens and natural flora on produce; (d) investigation of efficacy of rinse and wash procedures to reduce pathogens in surface treatments; (e) determination of bacterial stress responses to stimuli, such as cold, heat, pH and disinfectants; (f) reduction or elimination of pathogens from compost, prevention of re-contamination of properly treated compost; (g) defining physiological or genetic mechanisms that microbes utilize to become resistant to traditional food safety barriers, including development, amplification, and maintenance of resistance; (h) understanding mechanisms to reduce or prevent pathogen contamination during transport such as the use of controlled atmospheres and temperature control; (i) development of a higher education program that would provide the knowledge needed by crop consultants and other professionals in recognizing potential microbial hazards in grower/production fields, developing mitigation strategies for reduction of microbial hazards in field and processing, and designing handling and processing technologies to prevent contaminants in raw or minimally processed agriculture commodities; (j) educational research focusing on the development of education methodologies that promote on-farm adoption and use of safe management strategies for minimizing microbial hazards associated with raw or minimally processed agricultural commodities; (k) educational research focusing on the development and implementation of education and outreach programs incorporating safe management strategies for domestic and international growers and producers of raw or minimally processed agricultural commodities.
(For clarification of this program area, contact the Program Director, Carmella Bailey, at (202)-401-6443; e-mail: cbailey@reeusda.gov.)
The goal of this program area is to provide for research, extension, and education activities that enhance the competitive value, find new uses for, or establish entirely new non-food agricultural and forestry products, primarily biomass fuel sources and biobased industrial products that can replace petroleum-based fuels and products. Renewable carbon from plants to replace limited fossil-based carbon from petroleum has the potential to
A systems-based approach is required to accomplish the goals of this program area, which encompasses: (a) the development of crop varieties for biomass fuel uses and for raw materials for industrial products; (b) management techniques for incorporating industrial crops into existing cropping systems; (c) processing biomass; (d) product development; (e) test and evaluation; (f) demonstration of final product(s); (g) life cycle cost evaluation of final product(s); and (h) establishing marketing networks. Accordingly, integration of these activities to the maximum extent practicable, are strongly encouraged. A systems-based approach is expected to accelerate research and development and to result in measurable outcomes, i.e. increased production and use of biofuels and biobased products.
In addition, this initiative strongly encourages research, extension and education activities that explicitly recognize, account for, and enhance the interaction among growers, processors, manufacturers, markets and the community. To increase profitability at the farm gate, applicants are encouraged to develop proposals which include post-harvest processing and manufacturing activities at the local level. To facilitate technology transfer and marketing of products, the product demonstration phase should be of sufficient size to generate data for the proposer to conduct a life cycle cost evaluation that includes product performance data, environmental attributes, as described in EPA's Guidelines for Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, and social impacts as appropriate (
To the extent possible, proposers are encouraged to incorporate instruction or other classroom-associated activities which strengthen students' knowledge and skill in the discovery, production and/or commercialization phases of new and alternative use systems. Similarly, proposers are encouraged to incorporate collaborative international activities which may lead to the discovery of new or alternative uses, or which improve the prospects for those uses through enhanced production or commercialization, thus improving the prospects for U.S. farmers in the global market.
Successful management of natural resources in an agricultural landscape should address environmental integrity, quality of life, and economic viability. Unfortunately, the interaction of these three conflicting concepts often does not result in an overall sustainable system. The purpose of this program area is to address how best to integrate the needs of production agriculture, the environment, and society, such that an acceptable sustainable system results.
This program area will focus on key environmental problems that are best addressed using a holistic systems approach. Priority will be given to proposals that explicitly address the interaction among production, the environment, and the well-being of producers and the general public. Preference will also be given to multi-state, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary projects. The emerging agricultural and natural resource issues to be addressed include: system-wide management of natural resources, particulary involving small and mid-sized tracts of privately owned land within a defined geographic area (watershed or eco-region); encroachment and subsequent environmental impact of invasive native and non-native species (all taxa); conservation of biodiversity; animal waste management; and development and evaluation of precision technologies for efficient and sustainable production and harvesting of agricultural and natural resources.
As the world's population increases, the demands for delivery of natural resource goods and services will also increase. In addition, there is an increasing demand for diversity in the commodities being produced and an increased recognition that such production changes must be accomplished without adversely impacting our capacity to ensure the delivery of goods, services and a healthy environment to future generations.
This program will support integrated projects on the development of natural resource management systems (including forest, range, aquatic and wildlife) that improve our capacity to support natural resources. Proposals should present a scientific framework that qualitatively and quantitatively links production practices, societal preferences, demographics, and economic needs to the impacts on natural resources. Preference will be given to proposals that demonstrate the active participation of the user community that is expected to benefit. Proposals should include a plan for coordination among scientists, state and federal agencies, commodity organizations, environmental groups, and producers to deal with the integrated ecological, technological, economic, social and environmental issues in a specified geographic region.
This sub-area of the initiative is intended to provide the research, extension and education information needed to support the management needs of the small and mid-sized aquatic, range, wildlife, and forest systems owners and managers. Projects should address management practices and technologies that will increase the opportunities for the small to mid-sized manager to operate profitable enterprises that respond to the demands for: (a) Alternative natural resources production, (b) sustainable forestry certification, (c) agroforestry, (d) invasive species management across multiple ownerships, (e) wildlife control and management, (f) nutrient management, (g) maintaining or enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including restoration of species and ecosystems, (h) coping with the demands imposed by environmental and regulatory requirements within the increasingly mixed distribution of urban, rural, and wildlands management systems, (i) development and enhancement of decision support tools linking regional databases with remote sensing technologies (with suitable resolution for use by the targeted user communities) and management options; and (j) training programs to enhance success and adoption of regionally-appropriate practices.
Proposals submitted to this sub-area will enhance our capacity to integrate regionally appropriate data and information to increase long-term, site-specific, and whole system efficiencies and profitability while both minimizing unintended impacts on natural
Proposals should contain a clear plan for technology transfer and adoption. Proposals should clearly describe the type (size and distribution) of the system being evaluated and should include provisions that demonstrate an interdisciplinary problem-solving approach to maintain natural resources sustainability and profitability.
Proposals focusing on the financial security and quality of life of small to mid-sized family-owned pastures should be submitted to Program Area 15.0 (Farm Efficiency and Profitability).
The spread of invasive non-native pest species is one of the greatest threats to the long-term health and biological diversity of rural and urban areas. For this program, invasive species are defined as alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm. The invasion of plant, animal, and microbial pests is an issue of critical importance to the nation's land and water resources. No land or water regime is immune and the nation is both losing income and incurring expenses to address these problems. Invasive species have reached the level of national concern because of adverse economic impacts and long-term threats to ecosystem sustainability. In addition, invasive species threaten the effectiveness of established pest management systems.
The invasive species sub-area is in part a response to the President's Executive Order (EO 13 112) on Invasive Species of February 3, 1999. The goal of the Executive Order is to increase coordination of Federal agencies to prevent introductions, provide for control, monitoring and study, and to restore native species and habitats in areas degraded by invasive species. A goal of this program is to coordinate and integrate research, education, and outreach aspects of invasive species problems.
This sub-area will emphasize application of fundamental knowledge to reduce societal losses due to invasive species. It is critical that proposals take a problem-solving approach to management of invasive species. This program will consider projects that address aspects of invasive species from discovery of novel means to detect, monitor, and manage invasive species to outreach and education activities that promote public awareness of invasive species. Proposals may address the prevention of introductions, as well as, the detection, monitoring, or management of existing invasive species. Proposals that develop mitigation plans to restore the biodiversity of native species and habitats negatively affected by invasive species are also encouraged. A high priority will be placed on proposals that include (a) multiple states, multiple disciplines and multiple institutions, (b) research, extension, or education components, or (c) both. Proposals will be considered that include partnerships with state and local organizations to address extension and educational needs for regional invasive species problems. One of the key elements of the proposal should consider how the approaches taken address the problem of a specific invasive species or group of species.
Taxa of invasive species that are considered in this program include animal, plant, and microbial species that affect the biodiversity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, in agricultural, urban, or forest systems. Proposals submitted to this program could include, but are not limited to, projects that: (a) develop planning and communication strategies to encourage action on invasive species (these activities could be at several levels ranging from local to national scales); (b) evaluate and communicate the risks associated with invasive species introductions; (c) formulate strategies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; (d) develop and implement management systems to facilitate the early detection, monitoring, eradication, containment, or control of invasive species (particularly those cropping systems impacted by implementation of the Food Quality and Protection Act); or (e) provide and implement strategies to restore biodiversity of native species and habitat condition.
Proposals addressing restoration of specific habitats, communities, and ecosystems associated with privately-owned small-midsized forests, grasslands, wetlands, or riparian areas should submit to Program Area 14.1 (Alternative Natural Resource Management Practices for Private Lands).
There is a great deal of public pressure to prevent the degradation of air, soil, and water resources by food animal production systems and to protect the ecological integrity of forest, rangeland, cropland, aquatic, estuarine, and marine systems. Proper management of manure resulting from these production systems is one of the most critical issues facing the food animal industry. Animal feeding operations vary by region, species, size and management system, so that each operation is site-specific and must be managed accordingly. Physical, chemical and/or biological treatment techniques may be used to reduce the pollution potential of animal manure. Regulation of animal feeding operations at the local, state and federal level is undergoing rapid change.
Proposals for this section will support integrated research, education and extension on regional systems that will ultimately reduce adverse environmental and human health impacts of animal manure. Proposals will be considered that develop and evaluate manure management practices using soils, wetlands, riparian zones, and treatment systems for the protection of natural resources. Proposals taking a watershed, landscape-scale approach are encouraged and could include the transport and fate of nutrients and/or pathogens from animal manure through air, water and soil. The incorporation of comprehensive nutrient management planning in educational programs is encouraged, as is the development of partnerships with already established waste management centers (e.g., the National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management).
Topic areas that this program sub-area will consider include: (a) Development of rates and methods of land application of manure that are most suitable for a given watershed; (b) determination of the effects of animal nutrition on manure content and quality, and extension of this knowledge to producers who may in turn modify their feed; (c) determination and prediction of odor, gas and particulate matter impacts on the atmosphere and society, and development of management strategies to alleviate such impacts; (d) understanding and predicting source, delivery and fate of pathogens as well as transferring this information to the general public to address concerns or inform them of potential health hazards; (e) resolving community and regulatory
Proposals should address one or more of the following animal groups: swine, dairy, beef, poultry or aquaculture.
Precision technologies can be valuable tools if their applicability to agriculture and natural resource management can be demonstrated and then adopted. Precision technologies range from defining simple field management zones to complex integration of multiple datasets with the goal of making production and harvesting more efficient and sustainable. Field-scale management using precision technologies is needed to address spatial and temporal variability that limits the efficient use of inputs. Farmers, ranchers, and natural resource managers need tools like decision support systems and sensors in their work places that quantify complex interactions between profitability and the natural resource base. Multidisciplinary partnerships with industry, producers, and the research/education community are encouraged because of the lack of understanding in the decision-making process and the high cost of doing field-scale research. Partnerships with other Federal agencies, such as NASA, and partnerships addressing the needs of small and medium-sized farms, are encouraged.
Proposals submitted to this section will enhance the Nation's capacity to integrate site-specific and whole system efficiency and profitability while minimizing deleterious impacts on natural resources and the environment. Proposals are solicited from, but not limited to, the following areas: (a) Site-specific yield prediction and resource management based on an improved understanding of how soils, water, nutrients, climate, landscapes, crops and other natural resources interact to influence productivity; (b) decision support systems for complex soil, crop, pest, landscape, irrigation and natural resource management interactions that integrate spatial and temporal variability; (c) Assessment of user needs and development of scientific capabilities, economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis, and documentation of adoption of precision technologies by the user community; (d) sensing of natural resource properties, using both ground-based and remote technologies, and other precision technology applications based on user needs; and (e) training of competent and skilled professionals to transfer precision technology to the user community.
Each proposal should clearly indicate the scope of the management system for which applications are being developed and evaluated. Decision support proposals should include a clear plan for evaluating the suitability (feasibility, efficacy, profitability, required infrastructure, and adoption strategies) of technologies proposed for operations of specified scope. Proposals should include a plan for the propagation of the databases developed or for the maintenance and training necessary for sensor and decision support tool use.
(For clarification of this program area, contact the Program Director, Don West, at (202) 720-5633; e-mail: dwest@reeusda.gov; or Denis Ebodaghe, at (202) 401-4385; e-mail: debodaghe@reeusda.gov.)
Dramatic changes in the global agricultural environment and in domestic farm programs have created new challenges for U.S. farmers as they strive to maintain the efficiency and profitability of their operations and the financial viability of their families and communities. This program emphasizes the use of existing data and emerging information to synthesize and deliver knowledge that improves profitability for families operating small and medium-sized farms. Proposals that address the concerns of family-owned farms with limited financial resources will be given priority. Proposals should indicate how target audiences will benefit from the proposed programs/projects.
All proposals submitted to this program area will undergo a peer review in which the efficiency and profitability of small and medium-sized farms is the most important criterion. New partnerships and new administrative mechanisms that involve universities, industry, profit/non-profit organizations and/or community colleges are also important criteria. Consideration will be given to system approaches useful in meeting the production, marketing, capital and human resource needs associated with dairy, livestock, crop and other commodity operations. This priority area recognizes linkages with natural resources and environmental issues and the importance of strengthening the financial viability of farm operations, families, and communities. Such proposals should provide information on the connections between the sustainability of small and medium-sized farms and the viability of their communities as well as linkages with natural resources and environmental issues.
Projects that utilize a systems approach and are national or regional in scope are encouraged as are those that incorporate research, extension, and educational functions. Proposals that incorporate farmer input in problem identification and have high scientific merit in project design, methodology and analytical procedures will be given priority. Appropriate innovative methodologies are encouraged, including those that make use of electronic technology in delivery of extension and formal education programs. Applicants with a strong track record of working with owners and managers of small and medium-sized farms are encouraged to apply.
Applicants are encouraged to submit research, extension, or education proposals that address one or more of the following areas: (a) development of management (e.g., pest, crop, animal, nutrient, economic) and marketing systems that improve efficiency and profitability, including the reduction of capital and input costs or the diversification of crop and livestock enterprises; (b) development of effective marketing programs, including the use of farmers' markets, community-supported agriculture, marketing to restaurants and schools, cooperative approaches to use of inputs and marketing, organic production and marketing, Internet marketing, global markets, and agritourism; (c) development of farm-based value-added processing and new high-return production and marketing niches; (d) development of improved methods of managing risks faced by farmers and ranchers, including production risks (enterprise diversification, crop insurance, contract production,
Program application materials are available at our website (www.reeusda.gov/IFAFS). If you do not have access to our web page or have trouble downloading material, you may contact the Proposal Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at (202) 401-5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that you are requesting forms for IFAFS. These materials may also be requested via Internet by sending a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and phone number to psb@reeusda.gov. State that you want a copy of the Program Description and application materials (orange book) for the Fiscal Year 2000 Initiative on Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS).
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic, consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page using standard size (8
(b) Each page of the proposal, including the Project Summary, budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered sequentially.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner. Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in one package, along with 10 copies of the “Project Summary” as a separate attachment.
(d) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations (photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an “Application for Funding”, Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing principal investigator(s)/project director(s)(PI/PD) and the authorized organizational representative who possesses the necessary authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose signature does not appear on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the “Application for Funding” form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately. The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases such as “investigation of,” “research on,” “education for,” or “outreach that” should not be used.
(b) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). “IFAFS”.
(c) Program Area and Number (Block 8). The name of the program component,
(d) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for “new.”
(e) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PD's creates problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-PI/PDs, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing of the proposal.
(f) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted by an 1862 Land-Grant institution but the work will be performed in a department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural experiment station, box “03” should be checked. If portions of the effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
(g) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within USDA and other programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send your application to another organization or agency at a later date, you must inform the identified CSREES Program Director as soon as practicable. Submitting your proposal to other potential sponsors will not prejudice its review by CSREES; however, duplicate support for the same project will not be provided. Complete the “Application for Funding,” Form CSREES-661, in its entirety.
(h) One copy of the “Application for Funding” form must contain the signatures (in ink) of the PI/PDs and authorized organizational representative for the applicant organization.
For consistency and ease in locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents just after the cover page. The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of the proposal. Page numbers should begin with the first page of the Project Description.
The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 250 words or less on a separate page which should be placed immediately after the Table of Contents and should not be numbered. The names and institutions of all PI/PDs and co-PI/PDs should be listed on this form, in addition to the title of the project. The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish the project goal(s); and relevance of the project to IFAFS goals and to U.S. agriculture. The importance of a concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized. If the lead institution is eligible as a small or mid-sized institution as defined in Part I C., Definitions, of this document, include a separate sentence on the Project Summary page indicating that the institution is “eligible for small and mid-sized consideration.”
The written text may not exceed 15 single- or double spaced pages of written text for standard proposals and 20 single- or double-spaced pages for Consortia proposals including figures and tables, but excluding citations.
a. Introduction—A clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and supporting objectives of the proposed activities should be included. Summarize the body of knowledge which substantiates the need for the proposed project. Describe ongoing or recently completed significant activities related to the proposed project including the work of key project personnel. Preliminary data/information pertinent to the proposed project should be included;
b. Relevance and significance—The objectives' specific relationship to the goals of the IFAFS and to the particular program area should be stated. Include a description of the significance of the activity and its value in improving agriculture through research, education and extension. Clearly describe the potential impact of the project.
c. Approach—The activities proposed or problems being addressed must be clearly stated and the approaches being applied clearly described. The following should be included: (1) A description of the activities proposed; (2) methods to be used in carrying out the project, including the feasibility of the methods; (3) expected outcomes; (4) means by which results will be analyzed, assessed, or interpreted; and (5) how results or products will be used.
d. Time Table—Provide an expected time line for completing the project in the requested duration.
e. Evaluation and Monitoring—Provide a plan for assessing and evaluating the accomplishments of the stated proposal objectives during the project and describe ways to determine the effectiveness of the end results during and upon termination of the project.
f. Collaborative Arrangements—Identify collaborations and provide a full explanation of the nature of the collaborations.
a. Substantiate the need for a Consortium as opposed to a single project approach including how the consortia will add value over funding of separate efforts.
b. Management Plan—It is expected that Consortia projects will require more extensive and complicated coordination and collaboration than is typically proposed for Standard Projects. Therefore, explain how the Consortia will be managed to ensure efficient administration of the grant and how activities will be integrated most effectively. Place this description after the Project Description.
c.
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed project and are limited to a total of two of the following: reprints (papers that have been published in peer reviewed journals) and preprints (manuscripts in press for a peer reviewed journal; these must be accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the publishing journal).
All senior personnel who are expected to be involved in the effort should be clearly identified. For each person the following should be included:
a. The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD should be described;
b. An estimate of time commitment for each PI/PD; and
c. Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate and other professional personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages in length, excluding publication lists. A chronological list of all publications in refereed journals during the past four (4) years, including those in press, must be provided for each project member for which a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list those non-refereed technical publications which have relevance to the proposed project. All authors should be listed in the same order as they appear on each paper cited, along with the title and complete reference as these usually appear in journals.
A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals involved in the project (identified as key personnel). Each list should be on a separate page and include alphabetically the full names of the individuals in the following categories: (a) All collaborators on projects within the past four years, including current and planned collaborations; (b) all co-authors on publications within the past four years, including pending publications and submissions; (c) all persons in your field with whom you have had a consulting or financial arrangement within the past four years who stand to gain by seeing the project funded; and (d) all thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors within the past four years (some may wish to call these life-time conflicts). This form is necessary to assist program staff in excluding from proposal review those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest with the personnel in the grant proposal. The Program Director, under the specific area or sub-area, must be informed of any additional conflicts-of-interest that arise after the proposal is submitted.
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified. In addition, evidence should be provided that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services. If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services, a statement of work to be performed, and a resume or curriculum vita for each consultant. For purposes of proposal development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project personnel and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative arrangements and thus do not need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third party must be provided. Agreements between departments or other units of your own institution and minor arrangements with entities outside of your institution (e.g., requests for outside laboratory analyses) are excluded from this requirement.
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3019, USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grant and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to subrecipients. In addition, required clauses from Sections 40—48 (“Procurement Standards”) and Appendix A (“Contract Provisions”) to 7 CFR Part 3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and it is necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to debarment/suspension.
a. Budget Form—Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in accordance with instructions provided. A budget form is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget is required detailing the requested total support for the overall project period. The budget form may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed project. Applicants must also include a Budget Narrative to justify their budgets (see section 11 below.)
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal budget(s):
1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages are allowable charges and may be requested for personnel who will be working on the project in proportion to the time such personnel will devote to the project. If salary funds are requested, the number of Senior and Other Personnel and the number of CSREES-Funded Work Months must be shown in the spaces provided. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or rate of salary of project personnel or to reimburse them for time in addition to a regular full-time salary covering the same general period of employment. Salary funds requested must be consistent with the normal policies of the institution.
2. Fringe Benefits. Funds may be requested for fringe benefit costs if the usual accounting practices of your organization provide that organizational contributions to employee benefits (social security, retirement, etc.) be treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit costs may be included only for those personnel whose salaries are charged as a direct cost to the project.
3. Nonexpendable Equipment. Nonexpendable equipment means tangible nonexpendable personal property including exempt property charged directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower, depending on institutional policy) or more per unit. As such, items of necessary instrumentation or other nonexpendable equipment should be listed individually by description and estimated cost in the Budget Narrative. This applies to revised budgets as well, as the equipment item(s) and amount(s) may change.
4. Materials and Supplies. The types of expendable materials and supplies which are required to carry out the project should be indicated in general terms with estimated costs in the Budget Narrative.
5. Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to project objectives should be described briefly and justified. If foreign travel is proposed, the country to be visited, the specific purpose of the travel, a brief itinerary, inclusive dates of travel, and estimated cost must be provided for each trip. Airfare allowances normally will not exceed round-trip jet economy air accommodations. U.S. flag carriers must be used when available. See 7 CFR Part 3015.205(b)(4) for further guidance.
6. Publication Costs/Page Charges. Include anticipated costs associated with publications in a journal (preparing and publishing results including page charges, necessary illustrations, and the cost of a reasonable number of coverless reprints) and audio-visual materials that will be produced. Photocopying and printing brochure, etc., should be shown in Section I., “All Other Direct Costs” of Form CSREES-55.
7. Computer (ADPE) Costs. Reimbursement for the costs of using specialized facilities (such as a university- or department-controlled computer mainframe or data processing center) may be requested if such services are required for completion of the work.
8. All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated direct project charges not included in other budget categories must be itemized with estimated costs and justified in the Budget Narrative. This also applies to revised budgets, as the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may change. Examples may include space rental at remote locations, subcontractual costs, and charges for consulting services, telephone, facsimile, shipping costs, and fees necessary for laboratory analyses. You are encouraged to consult the “Instructions for Completing Form CSREES-55, Budget,” of the Application Kit for detailed guidance relating to this budget category. Form AD-1048 must be completed by each subcontractor or consultant and retained by the grantee.
9. Indirect Costs—Section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310) limits indirect costs for this program to 19 percent of total Federal funds provided under each award. Therefore, the recovery of indirect costs under this program may not exceed the lesser of the institution's official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 19 percent of total Federal funds awarded. If no rate has been negotiated, a reasonable dollar amount (equivalent to less than 19 percent of total Federal funds requested) in lieu of indirect costs may be requested, subject to approval by USDA.
b. Budget Narrative—All budget categories, with the exception of Indirect Costs for which support is
c. Matching Funds—If an applicant concludes that matching funds are not required as specified in Part I (e), a justification should be included in the Budget Narrative. CSREES will consider this justification when ascertaining final matching requirements. CSREES retains the right to make final determinations regarding matching requirements.
For those grants requiring matching funds as specified in Part I (e), proposals should include written verification of commitments of matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from third parties. Written verification means:
(a) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) the dollar amount of the cash donation; and (5) a statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
(b) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the third party in-kind contribution; and (5) a statement that the donor will make the contribution during the grant period.
The sources and amount of all matching support from outside the applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following the summary of matching support.
The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, and for for-profit organizations, the cost principles in the Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR Subpart 31.2 (see 7 CFR 3015.194).
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current public or private support (including in-house support) to which key personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for person(s) involved is included in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including other USDA Programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or similar proposals to the possible sponsors will not prejudice proposal review or evaluation by the CSREES for this purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. Note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending section of the form.
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects require special assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, it is expected that some applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the following:
a. Recombinant DNA or RNA Research
As stated in 7 CFR Part 3015.205 (b)(3), all key personnel identified in the proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are required to comply with the guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health entitled, “Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules,” as revised. If your project proposes to use recombinant DNA or RNA techniques, you must so indicate by checking the “yes” box in Block 19 of Form CSREES-661 (the Cover Page) and by completing Section A of Form CSREES-662. For applicable proposals recommended for funding, Institutional Biosafety Committee approval is required before CSREES funds will be released.
b. Animal Care. Responsibility for the humane care and treatment of live vertebrate animals used in any grant project supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. Where a project involves the use of living vertebrate animals for experimental purposes, all key project personnel identified in a proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary in 9 CFR Parts 1,2, 3, and 4 pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of these animals. If your project will involve these animals, you should check “yes” on block 20 of CSREES-661 and complete Section B of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project involving the use of live vertebrate animals results in a grant award, funds will be released only after the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee has approved the project.
c. Protection of Human Subjects—Responsibility for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. Guidance on this issue is contained in the National Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, as amended, and implementing regulations promulgated by the Department under 7 CFR Part 1c. If you propose to use human subjects for experimental purposes in your project, you should check the “yes” box in Block 21 of Form CSREES-661 and complete Section C of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project involving human subjects results in a grant award, funds will be released only after the appropriate Institutional Review Board has approved the project.
Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing certifications required by 7 CFR Part 3017, as amended, regarding Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, and 7 CFR Part 3018, regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the application package for informational purposes only. These forms should not be submitted with the proposal since by signing form CSREES-661 your organization is providing the required certifications. If the project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/consultant should submit a form AD-1048 to the grantee
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES so that CSREES may determine whether any further action is needed. In some cases, however, the preparation of environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary; therefore, Form CSREES-1234, “NEPA Exclusions Form,” must be included in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be identified. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be included as the last page of this proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions, CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
Proposals must be transmitted by May 8, 2000, as indicated by postmark or date of courier bill of lading. Proposals transmitted after this date will not be considered for funding.
An original and 14 copies must be submitted. In addition submit 10 copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies of the proposals and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one package.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.
The receipt of proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's e-mail address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the proposal by letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number, please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission deadline, please contact the Program Director.
All proposals, including standard and consortia projects (as well as small and mid-sized designated projects), will be reviewed together by a panel in the pertinent program area. Prior to technical examination, a preliminary review will be made for responsiveness to the program area. Proposals that do not fall within the guidelines as stated in the Program Area Description will be eliminated from program competition and will be returned to the applicant.
Individual written comments and in-depth discussions will be provided by a peer review panel prior to recommending applications for funding. Peer review panel members will be selected based upon their training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education fields taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of formal scientific, technical education, and extension experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research, education or extension activities; (b) the need to include as peer reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education, and extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers other experts (producers, range or forest managers/operators, consumers, etc.) who can assess relevance of the proposals to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as peer reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations), and geographic locations; (e) the need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups with regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include members that can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each proposal.
Priority will be given to projects that are multistate, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary or projects that integrate agricultural research, education and extension.
The following evaluation factors apply to all proposals.
All proposals will be judged as to their relevance to critical emerging agricultural issues related to future food production; environmental quality, and natural resource management; or farm income. Further factors include:
(a) Documentation that the research, extension and education activities are directed towards current or likely future problems or problems identified in this document;
(b) Evident linkage of research, extension and education functions.
(c) Evidence of involvement of stakeholders and/or communities of interest.
All proposals will be judged on their scientific, extension, or education merit including:
(a) Novelty, innovation, uniqueness, and originality;
(b) Conceptual adequacy of the research, extension and education components;
(c) Clarity and delineation of objectives;
(d) Adequacy of the description of the undertaking and suitability and feasibility of methodology;
(e) Demonstration of feasibility;
(f) Probability of success of the project;
All proposals will be judged on their quality including:
(a) Selection of most appropriate and qualified individuals to address the problem;
(b) Training and demonstrated awareness of previous and alternative approaches to the problem identified in the proposal, and performance record or potential for future accomplishments;
(c) Time allocated for systematic attainment of objectives;
(d) Institutional experience and competence in subject area;
(e) Adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, facilities, and instrumentation;
(f) Adequacy of plans for reporting, assessing and monitoring of results of the project over its duration.
During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts-of-interest that may impact review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts-of-interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution shall be determined by reference to the January 1998 issue of the Codebook for Compatible Statistical Reporting of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, prepared by Quantum Research Corporation for the National Science Foundation.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as proposal content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of reviewers will not be released to applicants. At the end of the fiscal year, names of panelists will be made available in such a way that the panelists cannot be identified with the review of any particular proposal.
Copies of summary reviews, not including the identify of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the review process has been completed.
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this RFP. The date specified by the Administrator as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFP shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations (parts 3015, 3016, and 3019 of 7 CFR).
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the preaward process.
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(a) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the terms of this request for proposals;
(b) Title of project;
(c) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s) chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(d) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(e) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for funds;
(f) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the Administrator during the project period;
(g) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(h) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(i) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular grant.
The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the grantee that is not included in the grant award document.
All grants awarded under this program will be awarded using a funding mechanism whereby CSREES agrees to support a specified level of effort for a predetermined time period without additional support at a future date.
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PI/PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee and/or the PI/PD(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
(c) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the awarding official of CSREES prior to effecting such changes.
(d) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for
(e) Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant, but in no case shall a grant period of performance exceed 5 years.
(f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1.1—USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR Part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.
7 CFR Part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR Part 3015—USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance.
7 CFR Part 3016—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR Part 3017—USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR Part 3018—USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR Part 3019—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3052—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3407—CSREES procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part 15d (USDA implementation of statute)—prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the proposal. The original copy of a proposal that does not result in a grant will be retained by the CSREES for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0022.
*Annotated institutions are not in the list for the most successful Federally funded, but were among the top 50th percentile of those funded by the National Research Initiative (Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) over the past three years (1997-1999).