Title: Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB-83-I).

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: N/A.

Type of Request: New collection of information.

Abstract: ERS has the responsibility to provide social and economic intelligence on consumer, food marketing, and rural issues, including: domestic food assistance programs; low-income assistance programs; food security status of the poor; food consumption determinants and trends; consumer demand for food quality, safety, and nutrition; food market competition and coordination; and food safety regulations.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the nutrition assistance programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the cornerstone of the Nation's nutrition safety net for low-income Americans. The program's intent is to eliminate hunger and enable eligible low-income persons to obtain a more nutritionally adequate diet by providing food stamp coupons (or other forms of payment) redeemable at many retail food stores. Benefits provided under the FSP come solely from Federal dollars, but the program is administered jointly by Federal, State, and local governments who also share the costs of program administration. The program is in operation in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 1998, the program distributed more than $16.6 billion to 19.8 million people living in 7.8 million households.

USDA is concerned about the declines in FSP participation that have occurred since 1994 and whether or not the FSP is reaching all those in need. National food stamp rolls declined by one-third between 1994, when 28.8 million persons received food stamps in an average month, and 1999, when an average of 18.8 persons received benefits each month. According to some analysts, factors like the strong economy, changes in the size and composition of the potential eligibility pool, and Federal changes in the food stamp eligibility rules legislated under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) do not fully explain the decline. Little is known about the possible influences of other program factors on FSP participation, in particular, the effects of post-PRWORA changes on how States and local offices administer and operate the FSP in respect to other programs, especially the TANF program. Information also is lacking about the extent to which the levels of awareness and motivations of potentially eligible households affect their decisions to seek and to continue food stamp participation. The data collected in this study are designed to provide information about the role of policies and local administrative practices in the FSP and in related programs in affecting participation.

A sample of FSP caseworker supervisors and caseworkers will be asked questions to identify specific policies and practices in local FSP administration that may affect eligible households' access to and participation in the FSP. Questions will concern policies and practices affecting: contacting the FSP office; filing the FSP application and completing the process; ongoing requirements for FSP recipients; and FSP/TANF benefit reductions or TANF termination. Respondents also will be asked questions concerning their perspectives on post-PRWORA changes in policies and practices. A sample of FSP applicants will be asked questions concerning: trigger events that led to their food stamp application; their understanding of the application process and requirements; expected benefits and costs; and household characteristics and circumstances. A sample of presumptively FSP-eligible households who are not participating in the Program will be asked questions concerning: reasons for not applying to the FSP, perceived eligibility; previous experience with FSP, TANF, and Medicaid programs; perceived costs of participation; and household characteristics and circumstances.

The sampling design for the study is a two-stage national probability sample of new and recertifying food stamps applicants. The first stage of the sampling is the selection of local sites. The study will be conducted in a nationally representative sample of 120 local food stamp offices. The sample will include at least one office in nearly all of the forty-eight contiguous states and the District of Columbia, yet still use a probabilistic sampling approach that yields good statistical precision in overall estimates. The second stage of the sampling involves selecting, within each of the 120 sampled local offices, a representative sample of new and recertifying food stamp applicants. Within each of the sampled local offices, food stamp caseworker supervisors and food stamp caseworkers will be sampled. In addition, a random-digit-dial telephone survey also will be conducted with a sample of presumptively FSP-eligible households, living in the areas served by the 120 sampled local food stamp offices, who are not participating in the FSP.

ERS, working with Abt Associates and Health Systems Research, will conduct the telephone surveys of FSP supervisors and caseworkers, FSP applicant households, and FSP-eligible nonparticipating households. FSP applicant households without telephones will be interviewed in-person. The household telephone interviews will be conducted using Computer-Assisted-Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Responses are voluntary and confidential. To minimize the burden on applicant households, a substantial portion of needed data will be collected by abstraction from local offices' case file records. Survey data will be used with other data for statistical purposes and reported only in aggregate or statistical form.

No existing data sources, including FNS administrative data, can provide all the information needed to complete the Study of Program Access and Declining Food Stamp Participation. These data and the research they will support are vital to the USDA's ability to understand reasons for recent declines in FSP participation.

Estimate of Burden: Public burden for this data collection is estimated, on average, as 60 minutes for caseworker supervisors and caseworkers; 30 minutes for food stamp applicants; 5 minutes for screening households to determine presumptive FSP eligibility; and 30 minutes for FSP-eligible nonparticipants. The estimates include time for listening to instructions, gathering data needed, and responding to questionnaire items.

Respondents: FSP caseworker supervisors, FSP caseworkers, FSP applicants, households with residential telephone numbers, and presumptively FSP-eligible households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 240 FSP caseworker supervisors, 480 FSP caseworkers, 1,425 FSP applicants, 33,333 households with residential telephone numbers, and 1800 presumptively FSP-eligible households.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 5111 hours.

Copies of the information to be collected can be obtained from Peggy J. Cook, Food Assistance and Rural Economy Branch, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1800 M. Street, NW, Room S-2078, Washington, DC 20036-5831, 202-694-5419.

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 collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques. Comments should be sent to the address stated in the preamble. 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.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

On November 29, 1999, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (64 FR 66611) of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the service.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is hereby added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

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 refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Imports covered by these orders are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.

Excluded from the scope are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione (IMC), by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia or by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici.

The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) . Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is dispositive.

The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:

(1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland, dated August 25, 1997, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce Building, Room B-099.

(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See letter from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Barbara P. Sidari, Vice President, Joseph A. Sidari Company, Inc., dated July 30, 1998, on file in the CRU.

(3) On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed a request that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation against Barilla, an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. On October 5, 1998, the Department issued a final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act, Barilla was circumventing the antidumping duty order by exporting bulk pasta from Italy which it subsequently repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the United States. See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order , 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998) ( Barilla Circumvention Inquiry ).

(4) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances may be within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999 we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing up to (and including) five pounds four ounces, and so labeled, is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland, dated May 24, 1999, on file in the CRU.

On August 30, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. (Pagani) for the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order, covering the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999. In its October 1, 1999 questionnaire response, Pagani stated that it “exported sacks of nonsubject bulk pasta for repackaging after importation.” Based on a supplemental questionnaire issued to Pagani on January 24, 2000, Pagani provided more detail regarding its repackaging operation.

The product subject to this anti-circumvention inquiry is certain pasta produced in Italy, by Pagani, and exported to the United States in packages of greater than five pounds (2.27 kilograms) that meets all the requirements for the merchandise subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, with the exception of packaging size, and which is repackaged into packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less after entry into the United States.

In accordance with section 781(a) of the Act, the Department may include merchandise completed or assembled in the United States within the scope of an existing order when the following four conditions are met: (A) The merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise that is the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order; (B) such merchandise sold in the United States is completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which such order applies; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant; and (D) the value of the parts or components produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping and countervailing duty order apply is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise sold in the United States.

In determining whether to include parts or components in an order, the Act states at section 781(a)(3) that the Department must take into account: (1) The pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns; (2) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the parts or components is affiliated with the person who assembles or completes the merchandise sold in the United States; and (3) whether imports into the United States of the parts or components produced in such foreign country have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.

Based upon our review of the information submitted in the context of the third administrative review with respect to the preceding criteria, we find that the all of the elements that warrant an anti-circumvention inquiry are present ( see Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to Troy H. Cribb, “Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy,” dated April 21, 2000, on file in the CRU. This information indicates that there is reason to believe that Pagani's repackaging operation in the United States has allowed it to evade antidumping and countervailing duties on its sales of subject pasta in the United States. Therefore, we are self-initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pagani's importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States constitutes circumvention, with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b).

We intend to notify the International Trade Commission in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination of circumvention, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(7).

The Department will not order the suspension of liquidation at this time. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination of circumvention. Although interested parties may comment prior to the preliminary determination, the Department will establish a formal schedule for submission of final comments after the preliminary determination.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 781 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677j) and 19 CFR 351.225.

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 661-666, to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries habitat restoration.

This Program is described in the “Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance,” under program number 11.463, Habitat Conservation.

The CRP, a competitive Federal assistance program, promotes strong partnerships to fund grass-roots, community-based activities that restore habitat and develop stewardship and a conservation ethic for NOAA's trust resources. NOAA's trust resources are living marine resources that include: commercial and recreational fishery resources; anadromous species (fish, such as salmon and striped bass, that spawn in freshwater and then migrate to the sea); endangered and threatened marine species and their habitats; marine mammals; marshes, mangroves, sea grass beds, coral reefs, and other coastal habitats; and all resources associated with National Marine Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves.

The Program's objective is to bring together citizen groups, public and nonprofit organizations, industry, corporations and businesses, youth conservation corps, students, landowners, and local government, state, and Federal agencies to implement habitat restoration projects to benefit NOAA trust resources. Partnerships are developed at the national and local level to contribute funding, land, technical assistance, workforce support or other in-kind services to promote citizen participation in the improvement of locally important living marine resources.

The Program recognizes the significant role that communities play in habitat restoration and protection and acknowledges that habitat restoration is often best supported and implemented at a community level. Projects are successful because they have significant community support and depend upon citizens' hands-on involvement. The role of NOAA in the Program is to strengthen the development and implementation of sound restoration projects.

For more information on the Program, see Electronic Access.

This solicitation announces that funding of approximately $500,000 will be available in FY 2000. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all approved projects. Publication of this notice does not obligate NOAA to award any specific project or obligate all or any parts of the available funds.

The focus of the Program is to provide seed money to leverage funds and other contributions from a broad public and private sector to implement locally important habitat restoration to benefit living marine resources. To this end, applicants are expected to demonstrate a minimum 1:1 non-Federal match for CRP funds requested to complete the proposed project. In unusual circumstances, the NOAA Restoration Center may waive the expectation of 1:1 matching funds before funding decisions are made if the project meets the following three requirements: (1) The project is judged to be an outstanding match with NOAA and NMFS Restoration Center objectives (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section under Eligible Restoration Activities); (2) the need to carry out the project in a timely fashion to benefit NOAA trust resources is critical; and (3) the project sponsor has attempted to obtain matching funds but was unable to come up with the full 1:1 minimum match expected, and can provide satisfactory supporting documentation. NOAA strongly encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible. The degree to which cost-sharing exceeds the minimum level may be taken into account in the final selection of projects to be funded (see Evaluation Criteria section).

The match can come from a variety of public and private sources and can include in-kind goods and services. Federal funds may not be considered matching funds. Applicants are permitted to combine contributions from additional project partners in order to meet the 1:1 expected match for the project. Applicants whose proposals are selected for funding will be bound by the percentage of cost sharing reflected in the award document signed by the Grants Officer.

The Restoration Center envisions funding projects in this solicitation through cooperative agreements and grants. In most cases, the cooperative agreement is likely to be the preferred and most appropriate funding instrument. A cooperative agreement is a legal instrument reflecting a relationship between NOAA and a recipient whenever (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to provide financial assistance to the recipient and (2) substantial involvement in the project by NOAA is anticipated during performance of the contemplated activity. NOAA is substantially involved in developing locally driven habitat restoration projects, conducting cooperative activities with recipients, and evaluating the performance of projects for their effectiveness in meeting stated restoration goals for improving fisheries habitat. A grant is similar to a cooperative agreement, except that, in the case of grants, substantial involvement by NOAA is not anticipated during the performance of the contemplated activity.

Any state, local or tribal government, regional governmental body, public or private agency or organization may sponsor a project for funding consideration. Federal agencies are not eligible to apply for funding; however, they are encouraged to work in partnership with state agencies, municipalities, and community groups. Successful applicants will be those whose projects demonstrate that significant, direct benefits are expected to living marine resources as a result of activities by supportive, involved communities. The Program operates under statutory authority that precludes individuals from applying.

Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, the Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal financial assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs.

Generally, the Program will make awards only to those projects where requested funding will be used to complete proposed restoration activities, with the exception of post-construction monitoring, within a period of 18 months from the time awards are distributed. If an application is selected for funding, NMFS has no obligation to provide any additional prospective funding in connection with that award in subsequent years. Any subsequent proposal to continue work on an existing project must be submitted to the competitive process for consideration and will not receive preferential treatment. Renewal of an award to increase funding or to extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the Restoration Center Director.

Information on the Program, including partnerships and projects that have been funded to date, can be found on the world wide web at http://www.nmfs.gov/habitat/restoration. Application forms are available over the world wide web at http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/ grants/index.html. Application forms can also be obtained from the NOAA Restoration Center (see ADDRESSES ).

Applications for project funding under this program must be complete and in accordance with instructions in the standard NOAA Grants Application Package. Each application must include all specified sections as listed in the Application Package, including, but not limited to, the following: cover sheet (an applicant must use OMB Standard Form 424 and 424B as the cover sheet for each project); budget (SF 424A and budget justification), and narrative project description (statement of work). Budgets must include a detailed breakdown by category of cost estimates as they relate to specific aspects of the project, with appropriate justification for both the Federal and non-Federal shares.

The narrative project description should be limited to five pages in length and should give a clear presentation of the proposed work. It should identify the problems the project will address and describe short-term and long-term objectives and goals, the methods for carrying out and monitoring the project, and its relevance to enhancing habitat to benefit living marine resources. The need for assistance should be demonstrated, and participants (project partners) other than the applicant should be identified. The project narrative should also provide an overview of the organization to establish the qualifications of the applicant seeking funds and identify proposed project staff, and identify the geographic location where the project will occur. Applicants should not assume prior knowledge on the part of NOAA as to the relative merits of the project described in the application.

Applications should not be bound in any manner and should be printed on one side only. All incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant. Three copies (one signed original and two signed copies) of each application are required and must be submitted to the NOAA Restoration Center (see ADDRESSES ). Applicants may opt to submit additional copies (seven are needed for reviewing purposes) if it doesn't cause a financial hardship.

The budget may include an amount for indirect costs if the applicant has an established indirect cost rate with the Federal government. The total dollar amount of indirect costs proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award. However, the Federal share of the indirect costs may not exceed 25 percent of the proposed request for Federal support. Applicants with indirect cost rates above 25 percent may use the amount above the 25-percent level as part of the non-Federal share. A copy of the approved, currently negotiated Indirect Cost Agreement with the Federal Government must be included in the application. If the applicant does not have a current negotiated rate, and plans to seek reimbursement for indirect costs, documentation necessary to establish a rate must be submitted within 90 days of the award.

NOAA is interested in funding projects that will result in on-the-ground restoration of habitat to benefit living marine resources, including anadromous fish species. Habitat restoration is defined here as activities that directly result in the reestablishment of formerly existing or re-creation of functional and productive, marine, estuarine, or coastal river biological systems. Restoration may include, but is not limited to, the improvement of coastal wetland tidal exchange or reestablishment of historic hydrology; dam or berm removal; improvement or reestablishment of fish passageway; natural or artificial reef/substrate/habitat creation; the establishment of riparian buffer zones and improvement of freshwater habitat features that support anadromous fishes; the planting of native coastal wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation; and the improvement of feeding, spawning and growth areas essential to marine or anadromous fish.

In general, proposed projects should clearly demonstrate anticipated benefits to habitats, such as salt marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs, mangrove forests and riparian habitat near rivers, streams and creeks used or formerly used by anadromous fish. To protect the Federal investment, projects on private lands need to provide assurance that the project will be maintained for its intended purpose for the life of the project. Projects on permanently protected lands may be given priority consideration.

Projects must involve significant community support through an educational and/or volunteer component tied to the restoration activities. Implementation of on-the-ground habitat restoration projects must involve community outreach and monitoring to assess project success, and may involve limited pre-implementation activities, such as engineering and design and short-term baseline studies. Proposals emphasizing a singular component, such as only outreach, monitoring, or program coordination are discouraged, as are requests primarily for administration, salaries, overhead and travel.

Although NOAA recognizes that water quality issues may impact habitat restoration efforts, this initiative is intended to fund physical habitat restoration projects rather than direct water quality improvement measures, such as wastewater treatment plant upgrades or combined sewer outfall corrections. Similarly, the following restoration projects will not be eligible for funding: (1) Activities that constitute legally required mitigation for the adverse effects of an activity regulated or otherwise governed by state or Federal law; (2) activities that constitute restoration for natural resource damages under Federal or state law, and (3) activities that are required by a separate consent decree, court order, statute or regulation. Funds from this program may be sought to enhance restoration activities beyond the scope legally required by these activities.

The following examples are community-based restoration projects that have been funded with assistance from the Restoration Center. These examples are only illustrative and are not intended to limit the scope of future proposals in any way.

Funding was provided to evaluate the feasibility of using volunteer divers to restore seagrass. A protocol was developed to train volunteers in water quality monitoring and seagrass transplantation techniques.

An impediment to fish passage was corrected through the design and construction of a step-pool fish ladder, which now allows native steelhead trout to reach their historical spawning grounds.

Funding was provided to a coalition of volunteer groups called “Pepperbusters” who worked to remove exotic Brazilian pepper plants and replant native shoreline vegetation.

Tidal flushing was restored to 20 acres of salt marsh by replacing an undersized culvert to increase the mean high water level in the restricted portion of the marsh.

Funding was provided to increase oyster reef habitat by reconstructing historical reefs and seeding them with hatchery-produced seed oysters grown in floating cages by students.

Funding was provided to train community dive groups in kelp reforestation activities, including the preparation, planting and maintenance of kelp sites, documentation of growth patterns and changes in marine life attracted to the newly planted kelp areas.

Funding was provided to start an innovative wetland nursery program in local high schools, where science and ecology classes build wetland nurseries on-campus to grow salt marsh grasses for local restoration efforts.

Funding was provided to train youth corps in the use of biorestoration and stabilization techniques to restore eroding riverbanks and improve habitat for salmon smolt and other fish species.

Highly functional salmonid and wildlife habitat was restored with the cooperation of private landowners by opening silted enclosures along a slough to provide refuge for juvenile salmonids during the winter flood flows.

Applications will be screened to determine if applicants meet the minimum Program requirements as described in this notice. Eligible restoration projects will undergo a technical review, ranking, and selection process. As appropriate during this process, the NOAA Restoration Center will solicit individual technical evaluations of each project and may consult with other NOAA offices, the NOAA Grants Management Division, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Regional Fishery Management Councils, other Federal and state agencies, such as state coastal management agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies, and private and public sector subject experts or such other interested parties as potential partners who have knowledge of a specific project or its subject matter.

Projects will be ranked by individual reviewers according to the criteria and weights described in this solicitation. The individual evaluation comments, and composite project ranks of reviewers will be presented to the Director of the NOAA Restoration Center. The Director, in consultation with Program staff, may take into account the following program priorities: (a) geographic location and habitat type to be restored, (b) diversity of applicants, (c) degree of duplication of proposed activities with other projects that are currently funded or approved for funding by NOAA and other Federal agencies; and (d) availability of remaining funds. As a result, awards may not necessarily be made to the highest scored proposals. In addition, the Director, in consultation with Program staff, will select the proposals to be funded, determine which components of the selected projects will be funded, and determine the amount of funds available for each proposal.

Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to final approval of an award. The exact amount of funds awarded, the final scope of activities, the project duration, and specific NOAA cooperative involvement with the activities of each project will be determined in pre-award negotiations among the applicant, the NOAA Grants Office, and the NOAA Program staff. Projects should not be initiated in expectation of Federal funding until a notice of award document is received from the NOAA Grants Office.

Successful applicants generally will be selected approximately 90 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice. The earliest date for awards will be approximately 150 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice, when all NOAA/applicant negotiations of cooperative activities have been completed. Applicants should consider this selection and processing time in developing requested start dates for their applications.

Reviewers will assign scores to proposals ranging from 0 (unacceptable) to 100 (excellent) points based on the following four evaluation criteria and respective weights:

(1) Benefit to living marine resources (25 percent)

NOAA is interested in funding projects where benefits to living marine resources can be realized. Therefore, NOAA will evaluate proposals based on the potential of the restoration project to restore, protect, conserve, and create habitats and ecosystems vital to self-sustaining populations of living marine resources under NOAA Fisheries stewardship. Locations where restoration projects may have high potential to benefit NOAA trust resources include areas identified as essential fish habitat (EFH) and areas within EFH identified as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern; areas identified as critical habitat for listed marine and anadromous species; areas identified as important habitat for marine mammals; areas located within National Marine Sanctuaries or National Estuarine Research Reserves; watersheds or such other areas under conservation management as special management areas under state coastal management programs; and other important commercial or recreational marine fish habitat, including degraded areas that formerly were important habitat for living marine resources.

(2) Technical Merit and Adequacy of Implementation Plan (25 percent)

Proposals will be evaluated on the technical feasibility of the project from both biological and engineering perspectives, and on the qualifications and past experience of the project leaders and/or partners in designing, implementing and effectively managing and overseeing projects. Communities and/or organizations developing their first locally driven restoration project may not be able to document past experience and, therefore, will be evaluated on the basis of their potential to effectively manage and oversee all project phases and on the availability of NOAA or other technical expertise to guide the project to a successful completion. Proposals will also be evaluated on their ability to (a) deliver the restoration objective stated in the proposal; (b) provide educational benefits; (c) demonstrate that the restoration activity will be sustainable and long-lasting; and (d) provide assurance that implementation of the project will meet all Federal and state environmental laws by obtaining or proceeding to obtain applicable permits and consultations.

(3) Community Commitment and Partnership Development (25 percent)

Proposals will be evaluated on the depth and breadth of the community's support. Projects must incorporate significant community involvement, which may include: (a) hands-on training and restoration activities undertaken by volunteer students, qualified youth conservation or service corps, or other citizens; (b) input from local entities, such as businesses, conservation organizations, Minority Serving Institutions, and others, either through in-kind goods and services (earth moving, technical expertise, easements) or cash contributions; (c) visibility within the community and demonstrated potential for public outreach; (d) cooperation with private landowners who set an example within the community for natural resource conservation; (e) support by state and local governments; (f) representation of those within the community who have an interest in or are affected by the project and seek the benefits of the restoration; (g) ability to achieve long-term stewardship for restored resources and to generate a community conservation ethic; and/or (h) demonstration by the applicant that the project is incorporated into a regional or community planning process or otherwise assure that all residents or citizens affected by the project are provided an opportunity to participate.

(4) Cost-effectiveness and Budget Justification (25 percent)

Projects will be evaluated on (a) their ability to demonstrate that a significant benefit will be generated for reasonable cost; (b) the extent of habitat and degree to which it will be restored; (c) NOAA's ability to act as a catalyst to implement the project, i.e. whether the proposed activity is more likely to occur or will occur more quickly or efficiently with NOAA involvement; (d) the percentage of funds that will be used for physical, on-the-ground restoration versus salaries, administration and overhead; and (e) the demonstration of partnership and collaboration as reflected in the budget detail. NOAA will expect cost-sharing to leverage funding and to encourage partnerships among government, industry, and academia, to address the needs of communities and to restore important fisheries habitat.

The NOAA Restoration Center anticipates that typical project awards will range from $25,000 to $75,000; NOAA will not accept proposals under $10,000 or proposals over $120,000 in this solicitation. The number of awards to be made in FY 2000 will depend on the number of eligible applications received, the amount of funds requested by applicants, and the rating and ranking of the proposals. The exact amount of funds awarded to a project will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Funds awarded cannot necessarily pay for all the costs that the recipient might incur in the course of carrying out the project. Allowable costs are determined by reference to the Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations”; A-21, “Cost Principles for Education Institutions”; and A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments.” Generally, costs that are allowable include salaries, equipment, supplies, and training, as long as these are “necessary and reasonable.” However, in order to encourage on-the-ground restoration, if funding for salaries is requested, at least 75 percent of the total salary request must be used to support staff accomplishing the restoration work.

Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and DOC policies, regulations, and procedures application to Federal financial assistance awards.

Any first-time applicant for Federal grant funds under this announcement is subject to a pre-award accounting survey prior to execution of the award. Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.

If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that they may have received, there is no obligation on the part of NOAA to cover pre-award costs.

If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with the award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the Restoration Center Director.

No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant or to its subrecipients who have any outstanding delinquent Federal debt or fine until-

1. The delinquent account is paid in full;

2. A negotiated repayment schedule is established, and, at least, one payment is received; or

3. Other arrangements satisfactory to Commerce are made.

All non-profit and for-profit applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal whether key individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of, or are presently facing, such criminal charges as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters that significantly reflect on the applicant's management, honesty, or financial integrity. Potential non-profit and for-profit recipients may also be subject to reviews of Dun and Bradstreet data or other similar credit checks.

All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD 511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying,” and the following explanations are hereby provided:

1. Nonprocurement debarment and suspension. Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR 26.105) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, “Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension,” and the related section of the certification form prescribed earlier applies;

2. Drug-free workplace. Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR 26.605) are subject to 15 CFR 26, subpart F, “Government-side Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants),” and the related section of the certification form prescribed earlier applies; also please enter the Principal Place of Performance, that is, where the work will be done.

3. Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as defined at 15 CFR 28.105) are subject to the lobbying provision of 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions,” and the lobbying section of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants, cooperative agreements, contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000.

4. Anti-Lobbying Disclosures . Any applicant who has paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit a Form SF-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” as required under 15 CFR part 28, appendix B.

Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD 512, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure Form SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to DOC in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.

A false statement on the application is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Applications under this program are subject to the provisions of E.O. 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Applicants are hereby notified that they are encouraged, to the extent feasible, to purchase American-made equipment and products with funding provided under this program.

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts. Furthermore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This action has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This notice contains collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which have been approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0348-0040, 0348-0043, 0348-0044, and 0348-0046.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted, variously, for carryover, carryforward, swing, special shift and the recrediting of unused carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 62659, published on November 17, 1999.

The USDX is a geometric index of six foreign currencies with fixed percentage weights. The six currencies and their percentage weights are as follows: euro (57.6%); Japanese yen (13.6%); British pound (11.9%); Canadian dollar (9.1%); Swedish krona (4.2%); and Swiss franc (3.6%). The index formula is:

Under current rules, the USDX futures contract is cash settled at expiration based on a survey of banks for indicative bids and offers. The survey is conducted by Reuters USA during the last half hour of trading on the last trading day. The Exchange stated that “over time, there has been a deterioration of the quality of the indications and a decline in the number of bank contributors.”

The Exchange proposes replacing the cash settlement procedure with a physical delivery procedure. Under this procedure, a long position holder in the subject contract would receive delivery of U.S. dollars and make payment in a basket of the six foreign currencies that are components of the USDX. Under the proposal, the contract size would remain $1,000 times the Index. Thus, at an Index level at delivery time of 100, the long would receive U.S. $100,000 and pay an amount of foreign currency valued at $100,000. Similarly, the short position holder would deliver U.S. $100,000 and receive payment in the basket of foreign currencies.

As part of the delivery procedure, the Exchange would determine a final settlement price. The final settlement price would be based, to the extent possible, on futures prices of NYCE currency futures contracts that expire at the same time as the subject USDX futures contract. If necessary, the rate for any currency that does not have an NYCE futures contract expiring at the same time as the USDX contract would be “determined by the [NYCE's] Settlement Committee taking into account cash and futures prices of the underlying currency component and any other information that the Committee may deem appropriate.”

The final settlement price would be used to determine both the amount of U.S. dollars that the short delivers and the long receives and the amount of foreign currency that the long pays and the short receives. For example, suppose the final USDX settlement price is 100.00 and one euro is worth exactly $1.00. As noted, the weighting of the euro is 57.6%. In this instance, the short would deliver $100,000 ($1,000 times 100.00). The long would pay a basket of foreign currency worth $100,000. That basket would contain $57,600 (57.6% of $100,000) worth of euros and $42.400 worth of the other five currencies distributed according to their respective weights. Since the euro in this example is worth exactly $1.00, the long would pay 57,600 euros. The amount that the long would pay of each in the other five foreign currencies would be calculated similarly, based on their percentage weights and currency exchange rates.

Now, suppose the final settlement price is $110.00 and the euro is valued at 90.00 cents. In this instance, the short would deliver and the long would receive $110,000 ($1,000 times 110.00). The long would pay and the short would receive a basket of foreign currency worth $110,000. That basket would contain $63,360 (57.6% of $110.000) worth of the euros and $46,640 worth of the other five currencies distributed according to their respective weights. Since the euro in this example is worth $0.90, the long would pay 70,400 euros ($63,360 divided by 0.90), compared to the 57,600 euros that the long would pay if the USDX were 100.00 and the euro were valued at $1.00 under the preceding example.

As shown in these examples, under the proposed physical delivery procedure, neither the number of U.S. dollars delivered nor the size of the basket of currencies is fixed. 1 Rather, both amounts vary in the same direction as the futures price (or index level) changes. Specifically, if the Index rises, the long receives more dollars, but is also obligated to pay more foreign currency units. Conversely, if the Index declines, the long receives fewer dollars, but is obligated to pay fewer foreign currency units.

The Division requests comment on the above-noted delivery provision. How does this novel delivery provision affect the hedging or price discovery functions of the futures contract? Also, under this delivery procedure, can market participant who make or take delivery realize profits or losses in the contract?

For most physical delivery futures contracts, it is not possible to benefit from manipulating the daily settlement price used in delivery invoices, since any benefit to a futures margin account would be offset by losses associated with that invoice price at delivery. In the revised USDX contract, the final settlement price would be used to determine both the invoice price and the amount of currency delivered. The Division requests comment regarding whether, given the unusual terms of the revised USDX futures contract, it is possible to benefit from manipulating the proposed final settlement price and, if so, whether the final settlement price is readily susceptible to manipulation.

The proposal was submitted to the Commission under the Commission's 45-day Fast Track procedures of Commission Regulation 1.41(b)(2). Under these procedures, absent Commission action to the contrary, the proposal would be deemed approved at the close of business on May 30, 2000. In view of the limited review period under the Fast Track procedures, the Division has determined to publish for public comment notice of the proposal for 15 days, rather than 30 days as provided for proposals submitted under the regular review procedures.

Copies of the proposed amendments will be available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20581. Copies of the proposed amendments can be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address or by phone at (202) 418-5100.

Other materials submitted by the NYCE may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's regulations thereunder (17 CFR Part 145 (1997)), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR 145.5 and 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff of the Office of the Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR 145.7 and 145.8.

Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments on the proposed amendments, or with respect to other materials submitted by the NYCE, should send such comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The Application for Outreach to Individuals with a Disability provides the background, requirements, and instructions that potential applicants need to complete an application to the Corporation for funds to provide outreach and help increase the participation of individuals with a disability in national service.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application guidelines. This is a new application form.

Type of Review: New Collection. Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Application for Outreach to Individuals with a Disability.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Corporation-approved state commissions on national and community service, state education agencies, national nonprofit organizations with expertise in disability issues, tribal or territorial governments, and public or private nonprofit organizations.

Total Respondents: 25.

Frequency: Once.

Average Time Per Response: Ten (10) hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 250 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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

In a notice published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2000 (65 FR 24920) we announced the availability of approximately $12,500,000 to award grants under the Learn and Serve America K-12 School-based and AmeriCorps State Competitive and National Direct funding streams to support efforts to help overcome the digital divide. For a copy of this notice and related materials and to access additional information about Learn and Serve America and AmeriCorps, visit our web site: http://www.nationalservice.org.

We have scheduled three conference calls regarding the application processes for these grants. The conference calls will assist participants in understanding the application processes and the requirements for grants made under the notice of funding availability.

To register for one of the conference calls contact Rosa Harrison, (202) 606-5000, ext. 433, TDD (202) 565-2799.

Respondents are individuals representing foreign governments or foreign businesses visiting Department of Defense facilities. DoD personnel process the information into an automated system. The information collected is used to positively identify the individual. This centralized information system is necessary to confirm that approved visits have occurred.

A block of rooms has been reserved at the Best Western Radford Inn for the nights of 13-14 June 2000. The Radford Inn is located at 1501 Tyler Avenue, Radford, Virginia 24141, Local Phone (540) 639-3000. Please make your reservations by calling 800-628-1955. Be sure to mention that you are attending the ARMS PPTF. Reserve your room prior to May 30th to get the Government Rate of $53.25 a night. Also notify this office of your attendance by notifying either Susan Alten, susan.alten@hqda.army.mil 703-617-4246 (DSN 767-4246) or Elwood Weber, eweber@hqamc.army.mil, 703-617-9788 (DSN 767-9788). To insure adequate arrangements (transportation, conference facilities, etc. ) for all attendees, we request your attendance notification with this office by May 30, 2000. Corporate casual is meeting attire.

This study is authorized through Resolutions of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate Committees on Public Works, 19 October 1967 and 19 April 1967. Representatives and Senate Committees on Public Works, 19 October 1967 and 19 April 1967.

a. The proposed action is one of three separate actions to be initially considered under the LCA, Louisiana—Ecosystem Restoration Louisiana—Ecosystem Restoration, Barrier Island Restoration, Marsh Creation, and River Diversion, Barataria Basin Feasibility Study. The USACE, NOD proposes to investigate the feasibility of restoring and/or creating wetlands in the southwestern portion of the Barataria Basin, Louisiana.

The purpose of the proposed action, wetland restoration/creation strategies R2-16 and R2-17 of the Coast 2050 Plan for the Barataria Basin, is to restore and create wetlands in the southwestern portions of the Barataria Basin so as to protect and sustain the ecological functions, the natural distributary ridges, and the local human infrastructure of the area.

b. The study area is located within the Barataria Basin of southeastern Louisiana in Lafourche Parish. The study area is bounded on the north by the West Fork Bayou L'Ours, on the west by Bayou Lafourche, on the south by Louisiana State Highway 1, and on the east by the Lafourche Parish and Jefferson Parish boundary. The study area is experiencing wetland loss at the rate of approximately 11 square miles per year.

Wetland loss within the Barataria Basin is attributed to the combination of natural erosional processes of sea-level rise, subsidence, herbivory, and the human activities of levee construction, channelization, and development. Freshwater and sediment input into the Barataria Basin was virtually eliminated by the flood protection levees constructed along the Mississippi River and the closure of Bayou Lafourche at Donaldsonville. The only significant source of fresh water in the basin is rainfall. There is some freshwater input into the basin by the siphons located at Naomi and at West Pointe a la Hache (each siphon has a maximum output of about 2,000 cubic feet per second).

When Davis Pond becomes operational in April 2001, it could potentially divert up to 10,650 cubic feet per second dependent upon the salinity conditions in the basin. However, it is predicted that the sediment-laden waters will collect in the ponding area about two miles from the Davis Pond structure located at U.S. Highway 90 and Lake Catouatche. Little, if any, of this would likely directly impact the proposed action area.

c. The Coast 2050 Plan serves as the joint coastal restoration plan of the Breaux Act Task Force and the State Wetlands Authority. The Coast 2050 Plan was completed in December 1998 through a joint effort of the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Louisiana Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority. Coast 2050 is a planning effort inspired by the severity of the problems facing south Louisiana, as well as an increased level of confidence in our ability to understand the ecosystem and to implement effective restoration projects.

The Coast 2050 Plan combines elements of all previous efforts, along with new initiatives from private citizens, local governments, State and Federal agency personnel, and the scientific community. For the first time, as explicitly called for by the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana in 1997, diverse groups have come together to develop one shared vision for the coast expressed in this overarching goal: To sustain a coastal ecosystem that supports and protects the environment, economy and culture of southern Louisiana, and that contributes greatly to the economy and well-being of the nation.

d. Need for the Study. —The Coast 2050 Reconnaissance Report recommended that the study proceed to the feasibility phase, contingent upon the execution of a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) with a non-Federal Sponsor. An FCSA was executed with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LADNR) on February 18, 2000. The proposed action focuses on wetland restoration/creation in the Barataria Basin ecosystem due to the very high rate of wetland loss, estimated at about 11 square miles per year, throughout the basin.

The proposed action also provides additional advantages: (1) This proposed action potentially provides a low risk and quickly implementable plan to address wetland loss in the Barataria Basin; (2) the proposed action study area is strategically placed and could potentially yield benefits to other coastal resources within the unique Barataria Basin ecosystem, geologic framework, and the human environment infrastructure associated with transportation, oil and gas extraction, utilities, etc.; (3) the proposed action could also provide additional benefits in terms of protection of important landscape structural features that function as important hydrological features within the Barataria Basin; and (4) the proposed action could be implemented independently of the remaining Coast 2050 Plan strategies for the Barataria Basin.

a. During the Coast 2050 public meetings conducted in 1998, two marsh creation strategies, Strategy R2-17—Dedicated Dredging near Caminada Bay and Strategy R2-16—Dedicated Dredging Along Louisiana Highway 1, were considered as viable ecosystem restoration strategies. Hence, these strategies will be developed into alternatives for the proposed action. Other alternatives that will be considered include: The No Action Alternative, filling, marsh replenishing, terracing, and the beneficial use of dredged material from maintenance dredging of navigation channels. In addition, alternatives developed during the scoping process will also be developed and considered.

b. Wetland restoration/creation design features will be evaluated to ensure compliance with current Federal and State laws and regulations. Any adverse effects of the alternative plans will be identified and appropriate mitigation measures will be included in the plans. However, because the proposed action is ecosystem restoration, it is not the intent to generate alternative plans that would require mitigation. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared during the feasibility phase because of the potential for significant direct and indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the human and natural environment.

An intensive public involvement program will be initiated and maintained throughout the study to solicit input from affected Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and interested private organizations and individuals. Scoping is a critical component of the overall public involvement program. The scoping process is designed to provide an early and open means of determining the scope of issues (problems, needs, and opportunities) to be identified and addressed in the DEIS.

The Corps of Engineers and the LADNR invite NEPA input in writing or in person concerning the scope of the EIS, resources to be evaluated, and alternatives to be considered. Individuals, groups, agencies and other interested parties can write comments to the Corps of Engineers using Dr. Klein's mailing address shown above. In the early summer of 2000, the Corps of Engineers will hold at least one public meeting in the study area to receive oral and written comments on the proposed action. Notices will be mailed to the affected and interested public once the date of the public scoping meeting has been established. Comments received as a result of the scoping meeting will be compiled and analyzed; and a Scoping Document, summarizing the results, will be made available to all participants.

The Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will provide a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Coordination will be maintained with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding threatened and endangered species under their respective jurisdictional responsibilities. Coordination will be maintained with the Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding prime and unique farmlands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will be consulted regarding the “Swampbuster” provisions of the Food Security Act. We will prepare a section 404(b)(1) evaluation. Coordination will be maintained with the Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources will be consulted regarding consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries will be contacted concerning potential impacts to Natural and Scenic Streams. Application will be made to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for a Water Quality Certificate.

It is anticipated that the Draft EIS will be available for public review during the spring of 2001. A 45-day review period will be allowed so that all interested agencies, groups, and individuals will have an opportunity to comment on the draft report and EIS. In addition, a public meeting will be held during the review period to receive comments and address questions concerning the draft EIS.

1. Alternatives that will be evaluated include: addition of 4 new bridges, relocating the road (either to the north or south) with sufficient culverts and bridges, installation of an underground piping system, and installation of a new pump and “getaway” channel. The bridge and underground piping system alternatives would include alternative upgrades of the existing roadbed ranging from no upgrades, to raising approximately 10 miles of roadbed up to about 2 feet in elevation, or to an elevation of 12 feet NGVD.

2. A scoping letter and public Scoping Meeting will be used to invite comments on alternatives and issues from Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private organizations and individuals.

3. The Draft EIS will analyze potential impacts to local businesses and residents, Everglades National Park, endangered species, wetlands, biological resources, water quality, and recreational fishing. Impact analysis will be limited to issues associated with the construction of the improvements, only. All general Mod Waters issues were addressed in the original Environmental Impact Statement.

4. The alternative plans will be reviewed under provisions of appropriate laws and regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Clean Water Act.

5. The Draft SEIS is expected to be available for public review during the 4th quarter of calendar year 2000.

1. Proposed Action. —The Corps in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsors (The Reclamation Board of the State of California and the City of Woodland) is conducting a cost-shared feasibility study on alternative flood damage reduction measures to the city of Woodland, Yolo County, California, adjacent unincorporated areas, and agricultural lands. The study is authorized by section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874). A reconnaissance study of flooding problems in the westside tributaries, including Putah and Cache Creeks, and the Yolo Bypass was conducted in 1993-1994 under the authorization of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1993. Information resulting from this reconnaissance report is providing some data for the present feasibility study.

2. Alternatives. —The feasibility study's draft EIS/EIR will address a combination of one or more flood control measures including setback levees along Cache Creek, stream channel improvements, a north Woodland floodway, and a no-action alternative. Mitigation measures for any significant adverse effects on environmental resources will be identified and incorporated into the alternatives in compliance with various Federal and State statutes.

3. Scoping Process. —a. The study plan provides for public scoping, meetings, and comment. The Corps has initiated a process of involving concerned Federal, State, and local agencies and individuals. The City of Woodland Task Force has held periodic public meetings to discuss issues and solicit public comment.

b. Public involvement during the reconnissance phase of the study included the “Notice of Initiation of a Reconnaissance Study, Westside Tributaries to Yolo Bypass, Flood Control Investigation, California,” that was sent to Federal, State, county, and city agencies and other interested groups and individuals in May 1993. The Corps participated in a number of meetings with the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and the Yolo-Solano Flood Control Task Force to brief participants including other public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals on the proposed alternatives. Comments received focused on flooding along Cache Creek, land subsidence, gravel mining, and effects of the alternatives on the Cache Creek Settling Basin. On April 15 and May 6, 1996, the Corps held public workshops in Woodland to present the study result and discuss the procedures to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate the feasibility phase of the study.

c. Issues that will be analyzed in depth in the draft EIS/EIR include effects on vegetation and wildlife, special-status species, water quality, air quality, socio-economic conditions, and cultural resources. Other issues may include geology, soils, topography, noise, esthetics, climate and recreation.

d. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will provide the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report.

e. A 45-day review period will be allowed for all interested agencies and individuals to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR. All interested persons are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be contacted about the draft EIS/EIR.

4. A public scoping meeting will be held on May 30, 2000, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Heidrick Ag History Center at 1962 Hays Lane in Woodland, Yolo County, California.

5. Availability. The draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be available for public review in August 2001.

Title II of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), provides that no new baseload electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. In order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify, pursuant to FUA section 201(d), to the Secretary of Energy prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with section 201(a) as of the date filed with the Department of Energy. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register that a certification has been filed. The following owners/operators of the proposed new baseload powerplants have filed a self-certification in acccordance with section 201(d).

Owner: Gateway Power Project, L.P. (C&E 00-06).

Operator: Gateway Power Project, L.P.

Location: Gilmer, TX.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 800 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Utilities and power marketers in Texas and surrounding states.

In-Service Date: September 1, 2002

Owner: Rio Nogales Power Project, L.P. (C&E 00-07).

Operator: Rio Nogales Power Project, L.P.

Location: Seguin, TX.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 800 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Utilities and power marketers in Texas.

In-Service Date: June 1, 2002.

Owner: Conectiv Energy, Inc. (C&E 00-08).

Operator: Conectiv Energy, Inc.

Location: Wilmington, DE.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 550 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Various entities interconnected in the PJM Power Pool, including Conectiv Power Delivery.

In-Service Date: May 2001.

Owner: AES Londonderry, L.L.C. (C&E 00-09).

Operator: AES Londonderry, L.L.C.

Location: Town of Londonderry, County of Rockingham, NH.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 724 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Wholesale power purchasers and into the spot markets administered by ISO New England.

In-Service Date: June 2002.

Owner: Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P. (C&E 00-10).

Operator: Calpine/GenTex Lost Pines Operations, L.P.

Location: Bastrop County, Texas.

Plant Configuration: Combined-cycle.

Capacity: 500 MW.

Fuel: Natural gas.

Purchasing Entities: Electric output sold on a “merchant” basis under power purchase agreements to be negotiated.

In-Service Date: June 1, 2001.

The energy information collection submitted to OMB for review was:

1. EIA-902, “Annual Geothermal Heat Pump Manufacturers Survey.”

2. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; OMB Number 1901-0303; Three-Year Extension; Mandatory.

3. EIA-902 is designed to collect information on the emerging domestic geothermal heat pump industry. The economics of geothermal heat pumps have improved in recent years and the pumps are more competitive with conventional heating, cooling, and water heating systems. Data collected will be from U.S. geothermal heat pump manufacturers. The data will be used by DOE, the heat pump industry, and the public. The data will also be published.

4. Business or other for-profit.

5. 160 hours (4 hours × 1 response per year × 40 respondents).

Statutory Authority: Sections 3507(h)(1) and 3506(c) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13).

Affected entities : Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

Title : Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types, EPA ICR Number 1572.04, OMB Control Number 2050-0050, expiration date June 30, 2000.

Abstract : Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended, requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), as may be necessary, to protect human health and the environment. Section 3004, Subsections (1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) specify that these standards include, but not be limited to, the following requirements:

(1) Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under this title which are treated, stored, or disposed of, *** and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;

(3) Treatment, storage, or disposal of all such waste received by the unit pursuant to such operating methods, techniques, and practices as may be satisfactory to the Administrator;

(4) The location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;

(5) Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and

(6) The maintenance or operation of such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable.

All of the collection requirements covered in this ICR have been published in 40 CFR parts 261, 264 and 265, subparts J through DD, and 40 CFR part 266, subpart F. With each collection covered in this ICR, EPA is aiding the goal of complying with its statutory mandate under RCRA to develop standards for hazardous waste TSDFs, as may be necessary, to protect human health and the environment.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) 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;

(ii) 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;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement : EPA estimates that the total annual respondent cost for all activities covered in this ICR is $11,934,785. This cost includes annual labor, capital, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to be incurred by respondents affected by the information collection requirements covered in this ICR. EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost (including overhead) of $90.00 for legal staff, $69.30 for managerial staff, $54.33 for technical staff, and $24.29 for clerical staff. As shown in the table, EPA estimates that, each year, a total of 3,187 units will be subject to the information collection requirements covered in this ICR. Of these 3,187 units, 375 units are existing interim status units that will remain in the interim status universe, 100 units are interim status units that will enter the permitted universe, 2,688 units are existing permitted units, and 24 units are new permitted units. The number of respondents varies depending upon the category of each unit and the required activity.

This ICR is an exhaustive description of the total respondent burden for all activities related to specific unit requirements and special waste processes and types. From 1996 to 2000, total respondent hourly burden decreased by 42 percent and total respondent financial burden decreased by 37 percent. The burden decreased for a number of reasons. First, in revising this ICR, EPA significantly improved its estimated number of specific units in the interim status and permitted universes. In addition, labor rates were adjusted in this ICR. In the 1996 ICR, EPA had overestimated the overhead factor and thus, the labor rates of the respondents conducting the activities covered in this ICR. In addition, EPA removed all federally owned or operated units from the respondent universe. Thus, EPA's estimates of the overall total respondent burden and cost has decreased. EPA believes that the burden and cost reflects a more comprehensive and, therefore, a more accurate portrait of the existing hourly and financial burden on the regulated community.

For tank systems, the public reporting burden is estimated to average six hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 155 hours per respondent per year.

For surface impoundments, the public reporting burden is estimated to average two hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 152 hours per respondent per year.

For waste piles, there is no public reporting burden associated with the requirements covered in this ICR. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 20 hours per respondent per year.

For land treatment units, the public reporting burden is estimated to average one hour per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average one hour per respondent per year.

For landfills, the public reporting burden is estimated to average seven hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 80 hours per respondent per year.

For incinerators, the public reporting burden is estimated to average two hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average three hours per respondent per year.

For thermal treatment units, there is no public reporting or record keeping burden associated with the requirements covered in this ICR.

For chemical, physical, and biological treatment units, there is no public reporting or record keeping burden associated with the requirements covered in this ICR.

For drip pads, there is no public reporting or record keeping burden associated with the requirements covered in this ICR.

For miscellaneous units, there is no public reporting or record keeping burden associated with the requirements covered in this ICR.

For process vents, the public reporting burden is estimated to average ten hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 1,072 hours per respondent per year.

For equipment leaks, the public reporting burden is estimated to average seven hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 83 hours per respondent per year.

For containment buildings, the public reporting burden is estimated to average six hours per respondent per year. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 56 hours per respondent per year.

For specific hazardous waste recovery and recycling units, there is no public reporting burden associated with these requirements. The record keeping burden is estimated to average four hours per respondent per year.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

On April 5, 2000, UCU filed, with the EAB, a petition for review (Appeal No. CAA-004) of a decision by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Clean Air Markets Division, dated March 6, 2000, disapproving UCU's petition for approval of methods for apportionment of the NO X emissions from a common stack at UCU's facility located at Sibley, Missouri. The appeal raises issues regarding the requirements of 40 CFR 75.17(a)(2)(iii). The appeals was filed under 40 CFR part 78 of the Acid Rain regulations and requested an evidentiary hearing. Motions for leave to intervene in Appeal No. CAA-004 under 40 CFR 78.11 must be filed by May 22, 2000 with the EAB.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup is composed of a participants from the following sectors: environmental/public interest and consumer groups; industry and pesticide users; Federal, State and local governments; the general public; academia and public health organizations.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup, will advise the United States Environmental Protection Agency, through the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), on potential measures to increase the availability to the public of information about inert ingredients (also called “other ingredients”) under FIFRA. Among the factors the workgroup has been asked to consider in preparing its recommendations are: existing law regarding inert ingredients and CBI; current Agency processes and policies for disseminating inert ingredient information to the public, including procedures for the protection of CBI; informational needs for a variety of stakeholders; and business reasons for limiting the disclosure of inert ingredient information.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup meeting is open to the public. Written public statements are welcome and should be submitted to the OPP administrative docket OPP-00439B. Any person who wishes to file a written statement can do so before or after the conference call. These statements will become part of the permanent file and will be provided to the Workgroup members for their information.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00439B in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments and/or data electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov,” or you can submit a computer disk as described in Units B.1. and 2. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00439B. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-30494. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-30494 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e- mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov,” or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-30494. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity.

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

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

EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. These applications had previously been reported as seed increase registration applications on November 26, 1999 (64 FR 66474) (FRL-6390-3). The applicants have subsequently modified their application to request full commercial use. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.

1. File Symbol: 68467-E. Applicant: Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. Product name: Mycogen Brand Bt Cry1F Corn. Active ingredient: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (plasmid insert PHI8999) in corn plants. Proposed classification/Use: None. For full commercial use.

2. File Symbol: 29964-G. Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 7250 NW 62nd Avenue, P.O. Box 552, Johnston, Iowa 50131-0552. Product name: Pioneer Brand Bt Cry1F Corn. Active ingredient: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (plasmid insert PHI8999) in corn plants. Proposed classification/Use: None. For full commercial use.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0307.

Title: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of FMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, individuals or households, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 12,195.

Estimated Time Per Response: .5 hours to 5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 23,073 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $7,591,000.

Needs and Uses: This collection will promote Congress' goal of regulatory parity for all commercial mobile radio services, and encourage the participation of a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, in the SMR industry. In addition, this collection will establish rules for the SMR services in order to streamline the licensing process and provide a flexible operating environment for licensees, foster competition, and promote the delivery of service to all areas of the country, including rural areas.

The Commission submitted this information collection to OMB under the emergency processing provisions on 4/10/00. We received OMB approval on 4/21/00 for approximately six months. This submission is being made to extend the current OMB approval for the full three-year cycle.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0370.

Title: Part 32—Uniform System of Accounts for Telecommunications Companies.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 239.

Estimated Time Per Response: 105 hours to 44,511 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, on occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 2,280,080 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Uniform System of Accounts is a historical financial accounting system which reports the results of operational and financial events in a manner which enables both management and regulators to assess these results with a specified accounting period. Subject respondents are telecommunications companies. Entities having annual revenues from regulatory telecommunications operations of less than $100 million are designated as Class B and are subject to a less detailed accounting system than those designated as Class A companies. Part 32 imposes essentially recordkeeping requirements. The reporting requirements contained in the rulepart are sporadic or initiated by the carriers. The information contained in the various reports submitted to the Commission by the carriers provides necessary detail to enable the Commission to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

This is a summary of the text of the Public Notice, DA 00-912, released April 27, 2000. The document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036.

1. On August 25, 1997, the Commission adopted the second of two Orders finalizing its rules regarding compliance with safety limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions, 62 FR 47960, September 12, 1997. The effective dates for implementation of the revised rules were August 1, 1996, for devices subject to equipment authorization, such as cellular and PCS telephones, and October 15, 1997, for other transmitting facilities and operations (except the Amateur Radio Service for which the effective date was January 1, 1998). For devices, facilities and operations authorized or licensed by the Commission prior to the appropriate effective date, the following provision was adopted in reference to 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(1) through 1.1307(b)(3): “All existing transmitting facilities, operations and devices regulated by the Commission must be in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section by September 1, 2000, or, if not in compliance, file an Environmental Assessment as specified in § § 1.1307(b)(5) and 1.1311.” If such an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) is required, the obligation to file it would fall upon the licensee presently holding the permit or license to transmit, or the party presently holding the grant of equipment authorization.

2. An EA is a formal document required by the National Environmental Policy Act whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact. Section 1.1311 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1311, explains what information must be included in an EA. The Commission's rules require that EAs accompany applications for licenses, renewals or other Commission actions when there is evidence of environmental impact for a variety of categories. An EA would be considered by the Commission to determine whether the environmental impact described is significant and whether further action is needed to minimize or eliminate the environmental effect. Filing procedures for EAs may vary depending on the specific authorizing bureau or office. Information on specific filing procedures can be obtained at the appropriate Web site address or phone number found at the end of this notice. With respect to antennas located on fixed structures, filers of EAs should be aware that non-RF environmental issues must be addressed in any EA filed with the Commission in accordance with the requirements of § 1.1311 and the Commission's environmental rules in § § 1.1301 thorugh 1.1319.

3. The purpose of this Public Notice is to remind all of the Commission's licensees and grantees of the impending September 1 deadline for ensuring compliance with these provisions of its rules. Therefore, if an existing facility, operation or device of a licensee or grantee is not in compliance with the provisions of 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(1) through (b)(3), it is the responsibility of the licensee or grantee to either take action to bring the facility, operation or device into compliance or file an EA with the Commission no later than September 1, 2000. After September 1, 2000, if any facility, operation or device is found not to be in compliance with the Commission's RF exposure guidelines, and if the required EA has not been filed, the Commission will consider this to be a violation of its rules resulting in possible fines, forfeiture or other actions deemed appropriate by the Commission. With respect to antennas located on fixed structures, it is the responsibility of the respective licensees, not tower owners, to undertake an environmental evaluation and file EAs, if required, due to non-compliance with our RF rules.

4. It is important to note that the Commission's RF exposure rules apply to all facilities, operations and devices regulated by the Commission. While a given facility, operation or device might be categorically excluded from routine evaluation for RF exposure by § 1.1307(b)(1) of our rules, it must still comply with the FCC's exposure guidelines.

5. Consumers should be aware that hand-held cellular and PCS telephones that were authorized by the FCC after the August 1, 1996, effective date have been evaluated for compliance with FCC guidelines for safe exposure. Furthermore, PCS devices subject to equipment authorization have been required to comply with our RF guidelines since 1994. This means that a large number, if not the majority, of cellular and PCS telephones now in use in the United States have already been evaluated for compliance with the FCC's RF exposure limits. To the extent that a wireless handset received an FCC authorization prior to the August 1, 1996, effective date, and is still being produced and marketed, manufacturers of such handsets will be required to file EAs if the handset in question is not in compliance with the FCC's RF guidelines.

6. Further information on the Commission's RF exposure rules and on evaluating compliance with FCC RF guidelines may be found at the Commission's RF Safety Web page: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. In particular, the Office of Engineering and Technology's OET Bulletin 65 and supplements to this bulletin (all available at the Web Site for viewing and downloading) offer detailed guidance on evaluating compliance. Requests for information or copies of these documents can also be directed to the FCC's RF Safety Program in the Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2464 or by e-mail to: rfsafety@fcc.gov.

7. For information on specific filing procedures for EAs, licensees and grantees should consult the following Web Sites or contact the appropriate FCC office or bureau:

• Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: www.fcc.gov/wtb; Irene Griffith: (202) 418-1315.

• Mass Media Bureau: www.fcc.gov/mmb; FM (Brian Butler): (202) 418-2700;

• AM (Joseph Szczesny): (202) 418-2700; TV (John Morgan): (202) 418-1600.

• International Bureau: www.fcc.gov/ib; (202) 418-2222.

• Office of Engineering and Technology: www.fcc.gov/oet; (202) 418-2464.

This is a summary of the Order on Reconsideration released April 27, 2000 (FCC 00-140). The full text of the Order on Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Commission's website at <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000>.

1. In the document summarized here, the Federal Communications Commission affirms in part and clarifies in part its original Report and Order implementing section 259 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”). In the 1996 Act, Congress moved to restructure the local telecommunications market by removing legal, regulatory, and economic impediments to competition that sustain a monopoly environment. As part of this restructuring, Congress adopted section 259, which requires incumbent LECs to make available, under certain conditions, public switched network infrastructure and other capabilities to a carrier requesting access, or a “qualifying carrier,” that is providing telephone exchange service outside the incumbent LEC's area. On February 7, 1997, the Commission promulgated general rules and guidelines to define the obligations imposed by section 259. Implementation of Infrastructure Sharing Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 62 FR 9704 (Mar. 4, 1997) (“Infrastructure Sharing Order”). Recognizing that a qualifying carrier may not use the facilities or functions of the incumbent LEC to compete in the incumbent's telephone exchange area, as is the case in other market opening provisions of the 1996 Act such as sections 251 and 252, the Infrastructure Sharing Order adopted an approach that depends in large part on negotiations among the interested parties.

2. Specifically in this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission affirms its decision to implement section 259 through a negotiation-driven approach that relies on parties to reach mutually-satisfactory terms for infrastructure sharing. It further affirms its decision to not rely on definitions that are restrictively based on perceptions of present network requirements, and therefore, affirms that things which might be characterized as “services” by the incumbent LEC are not per se excluded from section 259 arrangements.

3. The Commission modifies, however, the Infrastructure Sharing Order in the following manner. First, the Commission clarifies that because 259(b)(6) prevents qualifying carriers from using section 259-requested infrastructure to compete with the providing incumbent LEC in its telephone exchange area, “resale,” as that term is used in conjunction with section 251 of the 1996 Act, is not permitted under section 259 arrangements. Second, the Commission clarifies that nothing in its rules would require an incumbent LEC to make available the intellectual property of third parties without necessary licensing or in violation of existing licensing agreements. Third, the Commission modifies the Infrastructure Sharing Order by placing the primary burden to obtain third-party intellectual property and licensing rights on the carrier requesting access to the incumbent LECs infrastructure. However, the Commission requires that incumbent LECs engage in good faith efforts, whenever requested, to help resolve intellectual property and licensing disputes between qualifying carriers and third-party vendors.

4. Finally, the Commission rejects a petition by MCI requesting the Commission exercise pricing authority and mandate particular prices for shared infrastructure obtained by qualifying carriers pursuant to section 259.

The notice of a major disaster for the State of Maryland is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 10, 2000: Emergency protective measures (Category B) under Public Assistance for Dorchester County.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 27, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Alternative Cigarettes, Inc., and its President, Joseph Pandolfino (hereinafter“Alternative Cigarettes”). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter involves alleged misleading representations for Alternative Cigarettes' Pure and Glory tobacco cigarettes, and the company's Herbal Gold and Magic herbal cigarettes. Alternative Cigarettes advertised that Pure and Glory cigarettes contains no additives. According to the FTC complaint, through these advertisements respondents represented that because Pure and Glory cigarettes contain no additives, smoking them is less hazardous to a smoker's health than smoking otherwise comparable cigarettes that contain additives. The complaint alleges that respondent did not have a reasonable basis for the representation at the time it was made. Among other reasons, according to the complaint, the smoke from Pure and Glory cigarettes, like the smoke from all cigarettes, contains numerous carcinogens and toxins, including tar and carbon monoxide.

The FTC complaint further alleges that Alternative Cigarettes represented that smoking Herbal Gold and Magic herbal cigarettes does not pose the health risks associated with smoking tobacco cigarettes. According to the complaint, this claim is false, as Herbal Gold and Magic cigarette smoke, like the smoke from tobacco cigarettes, contains numerous carcinogens and toxins, including tar and carbon monoxide.

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Alternative Cigarettes from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the order requires Alternative Cigarettes to include the following disclosure, clearly and prominently, in certain advertising for its tobacco cigarettes: “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” (The order requires a similar disclosure in advertising for other tobacco products Alternative Cigarettes advertises as having no additives.) The disclosure must be included in all tobacco advertising that represents (through such phrases as “no additives” or “100% tobacco”) that the product has no additives. Part I exempts Alternative Cigarettes from the disclosure requirement: (1) For cigarette advertisements not required to bear the Surgeon General's health warning; and (2) if Alternative Cigarettes possesses scientific evidence demonstrating that its “no additives” cigarette poses materially lower health risks than other cigarettes of the same type. In general, the disclosure required by Part I must be in the same type size and style as the Surgeon General's warning and must appear within a rectangular box that is no less than 40% of the size of the box containing the Surgeon General's warning.

Part II of the order requires Alternative Cigarettes to include the following disclosure, clearly and prominently, in advertising and on packaging for herbal cigarettes: “Herbal cigarettes are dangerous to your health. They produce tar and carbon monoxide.” (The order requires a similar disclosure for other herbal smoking products.) The disclosure must be included in all advertising and on packaging for herbal smoking products that represent (through such phrases as “no tobacco,” “tobacco-free,” or “herbal”) that the product has no tobacco. Part II also contains an exemption from the disclosure requirement if Alternative Cigarettes possesses scientific evidence demonstrating that such herbal smoking products do not pose any material health risks. In general, the disclosure required by Part II must be in the same type size and style as the Surgeon General's warning and for advertisements must appear within a rectangular box that is the same size as the box containing the Surgeon General's warning.

Part III of the order requires Alternative Cigarettes to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence prior to: (1) Claiming that any herbal smoking product does not present the health risks associated with smoking tobacco cigarettes; of (2) making any claim about the health risks associated with the use of any herbal smoking product.

Part IV requires Alternative Cigarettes to send a letter to its purchasers for resale notifying them that they should discontinue the use of certain existing Alternative Cigarettes advertisements and promotional materials and that Alternative Cigarettes is required to stop doing business with purchasers for resale that do not comply with this request.

Parts V-VIII of the order contain requirements that Alternative Cigarettes keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements; provide copies of the order to certain of its current and future personnel; notify the Commission of changes in the composition or formula of its tobacco products or herbal smoking products that may affect compliance with the order; and notify the Commission of any changes in the corporate structure that might affect compliance with the order. Part IX requires that the individual respondent notify the Commission of changes in his employment status for a period of ten years. Part X requires Alternative Cigarettes to file one or more reports detailing compliance with the order. Part XI provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreements containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, have been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreements, and the allegations in the complaints. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreements package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 27, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted separate agreements, subject to final approval, to proposed consent orders from respondents: (1) R.N. Motors, Inc., Red Noland Cadillac, Inc., and Nelson B. Noland (“Red Noland”); and (2) Simmons Rockwell Ford Mercury, Inc., Simmons Rockwell Autoplaza, Inc., Don Simmons, Inc., and Donald M. Simmons, II and Richard L. Rockwell (“Simmons Rockwell”). The persons named in these actions are named individually and as officers of their respective corporations.

The proposed consent orders have been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreements and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreements or make final the agreements' proposed orders.

The Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell complaints allege that these respondents disseminated automobile lease advertisements that violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”), and Regulation M. The Simmons Rockwell complaint also alleges that it disseminated automobile credit advertisements that violate the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z.

Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive representations or omissions of material information in advertisements. In addition, Congress established statutory disclosure requirements for lease and credit advertisements under the CLA and the TILA, respectively, and directed the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate regulations implementing such statutes—Regulations M and Z respectively. See 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq; 12 CFR 213; 12 CFR 226.

The Red Noland complaint alleges that, based on the terms prominently stated in their lease advertisements, including but not necessarily limited to the monthly payment amount, the downpayment, and the security deposit, respondent failed to disclose, and failed to disclose adequately, additional terms pertaining to the lease offer, such as the total amount due at lease inception, including but not limited to whether third-party fees such as taxes, licenses, and registration fees are required as part of the total amount due at lease inception. The Simmons Rockwell complaint alleges that, based on the terms prominently stated in their lease advertisements, including but not necessarily limited to the monthly payment amount, respondent failed to disclose, and/or failed to disclose adequately, additional terms pertaining to the lease offer, such as the total amount due at lease inception, including but not limited to whether third-party fees, such as taxes, licenses, and registration fees, are required as part of the total amount due at lease inception. The Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell complaints allege that the required information does not appear at all or appears in fine print and/or is illegible in the advertisements and that this information would be material to consumers in deciding whether to visit respondents' dealerships and/or whether to lease an automobile from respondents. These practices, according to both complaints, constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

The Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell complaints also allege that respondents' lease advertisements have violated the CLA and Regulation M. The Red Noland complaint alleges that respondent's ads state the monthly payment amount, the downpayment, and the security deposit; the Simmons Rockwell complaint alleges that respondent's ads state the monthly payment amount—all “triggering” terms under these laws. The Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell complaints allege that respondents failed to disclose, and/or fail to disclose clearly and conspicuously, certain additional “triggered” terms, as applicable and as follows: The total amount due prior to or at consummation, or by delivery, if delivery occurs after consummation, and that such amount: (1) Excludes third-party fees, such as taxes, licenses and registration fees; and discloses that fact; or (2) includes third-party fees based on a particular state or locality and discloses that fact and the fact that such fees may vary by state or locality; whether or not a security deposit is required; and the number, amounts, and timing of scheduled payments.

According to the complaints, Red Noland's lease disclosures are omitted altogether and are not clear and conspicuous. Simmons Rockwell's lease disclosures, if provided, are not clear and conspicuous because they appear in fine print and/or are illegible.

The Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell complaints, therefore, allege that these practices violate section 184 of the CLA, 15 U.S.C. 1667c, as amended, and section 213.7 of Regulation M, 12 CFR 213.7, as amended.

In addition, the Red Noland complaint alleges that respondent's lease advertisements state specific lease rates for each of certain advertised vehicles, but fail to disclose, and fail to disclose clearly and conspicuously, the following notice concerning lease rates required by Regulation M: “This percentage may not measure the overall cost of financing this lease.”

The Red Noland complaint, therefore, alleges that this practice violates section 213.4(s) of Regulation M, 12 CFR 213.4(s).

The Simmons Rockwell complaint alleges that respondent's credit advertisements have violated the TILA and Regulation Z. It alleges that respondent's credit ads state the number of payments required to finance the transaction and an annual percentage rate (expressed as an “APR”), but failed to disclose, and/or failed to disclose clearly and conspicuously, certain additional terms required by Regulation Z, including the amount of the downpayment and the full terms of repayment, such as the amount of the monthly payment.

According to the complaint, Simmons Rockwell's credit disclosures, if provided, are not clear and conspicuous because they appear in blurred print.

The Simmons Rockwell complaint, therefore, alleges that these practices violate section 144 of the TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1664, as amended, and section 226.24(c) of Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226.24(c), as amended.

The Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell proposed consent orders contain provisions designed to remedy the violations charged and to prevent the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Specifically, Paragraph I.A. of the Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell proposed orders prohibit respondents, in any lease advertisement, from misrepresenting, in any manner, directly or by implication, the costs or terms of leasing a vehicle, including but not limited to the total amount due at lease signing or delivery.

Paragraph I.B. of the Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell proposed orders prohibit respondents, in any lease advertisement, from making any reference to any charge that is part of the total amount due at lease signing or delivery or that no such charge is required, not including a statement of the periodic payment, unless the advertisement also states with “equal prominence” the total amount due at lease signing or delivery. The “prominence” requirement prohibits respondents from running deceptive advertisements that highlight low amounts due at lease inception with inadequate disclosure of the actual total lease inception fees. This “prominence” requirement for lease inception fees is also found in Regulation M.

Paragraph I.C. of the Red Noland and Simmons Rockwell proposed orders prohibit respondents, in any lease, from stating the amount of any payment or that any or no initial payment is required at lease signing or delivery, unless the advertisement also states, clearly and conspicuously, all of the terms required by Regulation M, as amended and as follows: (1) That the transaction advertised is a lease; (2) the total amount due at lease signing or delivery; (3) whether or not a security deposit is required; (4) the number, amounts, and timing of scheduled payments; and (5) that an extra charge may be imposed at the end of the lease term in a lease in which the liability of the consumer at the end of the lease term is based on the anticipated residual value of the vehicle.

Furthermore, Paragraph I.D. of the Red Noland proposed order prohibits this respondent from stating a percentage rate in an advertisement or in documents evidencing the lease transaction, unless respondent also states the notice required by Regulation M that “this percentage may not measure the overall cost of financing this lease.”

Paragraph I.D. of the Simmons Rockwell proposed order, and paragraph I.E. of the Red Noland proposed order, prohibit respondents from engaging in any other violation of Regulation M, as amended.

In addition, Paragraph II. A. of the Simmons Rockwell proposed order enjoins respondent, in any credit advertisement, from stating the amount or percentage of any downpayment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, or the amount of any finance charge, without disclosing, clearly and conspicuously, all of the terms required by Regulation Z, as follows: (1) The amount or percentage of the downpayment; (2) the terms of repayment; and (3) annual percentage rate, using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” If the annual percentage rate may be increased after consummation of the credit transaction, that fact must also be disclosed. Paragraph II.B. of this proposed order also prohibits Simmons Rockwell from stating a rate of finance charge unless respondents state the rate as an “annual percentage rate” or the abbreviation “APR,” using that term. Paragraph III.C. of this proposed order also enjoins Simmons Rockwell from engaging in any other violation of Regulation Z, as amended.

The information required by Paragraph I of the Red Noland proposed order (lease advertisements), and Paragraphs I and II of the Simmons Rockwell proposed order (lease and credit advertisements), must be disclosed “clearly and conspicuously.” Both proposed orders define the term “clearly and conspicuously” for Red Noland's and Simmons Rockwell's advertisements in all media. In a television, video, radio or Internet or other electronic advertisement, the required disclosures made in the audio portion of the advertisement must be delivered in a volume, cadence, and location sufficient for an ordinary consumer to hear and comprehend. The required disclosures in the video portion of the advertisement must be of a size and shade, and must appear on the screen for a duration and in a location, sufficient for an ordinary consumer to read and comprehend. In a print advertisement, the required disclosures must be in a type size and location sufficient for an ordinary consumer to read and comprehend, in print that contrasts with the background against which it appears. Additionally, the required disclosures must be in understandable language and syntax. Further, nothing contrary to, inconsistent with, or in mitigation of the required disclosures shall be used in any advertisement.

The purpose of this analysis is a facilitate public comment on the proposed orders. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreements and proposed orders or to modify in any way their terms.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 27, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rule of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (“Santa Fe”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt for comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter involves an alleged misleading representation for Natural American Spirit cigarettes, which Santa Fe has advertised as containing no additives. According to the FTC complaint, through these advertisements, Santa Fe represented that because Natural American Spirit cigarettes contain no additives, smoking them is less hazardous to a smoker's health than smoking otherwise comparable cigarettes that contain additives. The complaint alleges that Santa Fe did not have a reasonable basis for the representation at the time it was made. Among other reasons, according to the complaint, the smoke from Natural American Spirit cigarettes, like the smoke from all cigarettes, contains numerous carcinogens and toxins, including tar and carbon monoxide. 1

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Santa Fe engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.

Part I of the order requires Santa Fe to include the following disclosure, clearly and prominently, in certain advertising for its tobacco cigarettes: “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” (The order requires a similar disclosure in advertising for other tobacco products Santa Fe advertises as having no additives.) The disclosure must be included in all tobacco advertising that represents (through such phrases as “no additives” or “100% tobacco”) that the product has no additives. This Part exempts Santa Fe from the disclosure requirement: (1) For cigarette advertisements not required to bear the Surgeon General's health warning; and (2) if Santa Fe possesses scientific evidence demonstrating that its “no additives” cigarette poses materially lower health risks than other cigarettes of the same type. In general, the disclosure required by Part I must be in the same type size and style as the Surgeon General's warning and must appear within a rectangular box that is no less than 40% of the size of the box containing the Surgeon General's warning.

Part II of the order requires Santa Fe to include the following disclosure, clearly and prominently, in advertising and on packaging for herbal cigarettes: “Herbal cigarettes are dangerous to your health. They produce tar and carbon monoxide.” (The order requires a similar disclosure for other herbal smoking products.) The disclosure must be included in all advertising and on packaging for herbal smoking products that represent (through such phrases as “no tobacco,” “tobacco-free,” or “herbal”) that the product has no tobacco. This Part also contains an exemption from the disclosure requirement if Santa Fe possesses scientific evidence demonstrating that such herbal smoking products do not pose any material health risks. In general, the disclosure required by Part II must be in the same type size and style as the Surgeon General's warning and for advertisements must appear within a rectangular box that is the same size as the box containing the Surgeon General's warning.

Part III requires Santa Fe to send a letter to its purchasers for resale notifying them that they should discontinue the use of certain existing Natural American Spirit cigarette advertisements and promotional materials and that Santa Fe is required to stop doing business with purchasers for resale that do not comply with this request.

Parts IV-VIII of the order require Santa Fe to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements; to provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel; to notify the Commission of changes in the composition or formula of Natural American Spirit cigarettes that may affect the order; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure; and to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part IX provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.

The Office of Premarket Approval (OPA) in CFSAN manages the following programs: Petitions for new uses of food and color additives, consultations on foods developed using new methods of biotechnology, generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notices, threshold of regulation (TOR) exemption requests, and premarket notifications for food contact substances (PMN). In addition to these programs, OPA is the lead technical authority for food additives for the U.S. Government. OPA provides expertise and leadership in the international forums of the Joint Food Agricultural Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission to define international standards, promote harmonization, and evaluate equivalency agreements for food additives and other food ingredients. OPA also has laboratory research and sample analysis components that provide technical support for the enforcement of the food additive regulations.

The current process of reviewing food and color additive petitions has evolved over 40 years since the passage of the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). Approvals of food and color additives have been based on a critical scientific evaluation of safety information submitted by petitioners. The primary components of this evaluation are the review of chemical, toxicological, and environmental scientific data and information and an estimation of the probable human dietary exposure to additives. During its review of safety of new food additive uses, OPA develops an administrative record that relies on scientific data and information to support the agency's safety conclusions. Although this framework has a high level of scientific credibility, CFSAN recognizes that improvements could be made to ensure that the process is more efficient while maintaining the current high scientific standards. With this notice, CFSAN is soliciting comments on ways to improve the timeliness, transparency, and predictability of its review of food and color additive petitions, and its monitoring of the safety of food and color additives over time.

To help focus comments, FDA requests that comments regarding food and color additive review address the following:

1. The act requires that the agency base its safety decisions for the premarket review of additives on “a fair evaluation of the data” and requires that new uses of food additives be consistent with the agency safety standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” What specific changes can be made to the current review process to make that process more efficient, i.e., transparent, timely, responsive, and predictable, while preserving these high standards of data review and of safety?

2. On January 5, 1999 (64 FR 517), CFSAN made available a guidance describing a policy to expedite the review of petitions for food additives that are intended to significantly decrease human pathogens or their toxins in/on food. Should the Center consider broadening the criteria for eligibility for such expedited petition review? If so, petitions for what types of uses should be added?

3. How should the increased appropriation to CFSAN that is targeted for the safety review of food and color additives be allocated? For example, to what extent should new resources be allocated to: (1) Performing prefiling consultations with prospective applicants for new uses of food ingredients, (2) adding personnel resources to the review process, (3) enhancing electronic data management systems such as automated workflow management or data warehousing, and (4) acquiring or monitoring new safety information on already approved additives?

4. What specific program enhancements should be given the highest priority?

Interested persons may, on or before July 19, 2000, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this document. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Oxytetracycline used for the treatment of bacterial infections in shrimp is a new animal drug under section 201(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321(v)). As a new animal drug, oxytetracycline is subject to section 512 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b), requiring that its use in shrimp be the subject of an approved NADA or supplemental NADA. Shrimp are a minor species under 21 CFR 514.1(d)(1)(ii).

The OR and a researcher from the University of Arizona have provided human food safety data for the use of oxytetracycline in shrimp. The OR provided analytical support to complete a tissue residue depletion study conducted by the researcher from the University of Arizona for oxytetracycline in shrimp. The University of Arizona researcher directed the in-life portion of the study. Juvenile Pacific shrimp, Penaeus vannamei , were fed 3.4 grams oxytetracycline/kilogram feed for 14 days and then sampled at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 hours after treatment.

Feed and tissue samples were sent to the OR laboratory for analysis. The OR analyzed the feed samples by the regulatory high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method entitled “Determination of Oxytetracycline in Milk Replacer (FDA/CVM, Revision 1.2, April 1, 1998).” The tissue samples were analyzed by a 1997 version of the regulatory HPLC method for determining oxytetracycline residues in shrimp. While validating the method prior to analyzing the test samples, the OR found that the 1997 method should be revised to emphasize complete collection of the aqueous phase during extraction. The revised regulatory method for analysis of oxytetracycline in shrimp is entitled “Method for the Determination of Oxytetracycline Residues in Uncooked Shrimp Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography,” by Steven W. Hadley, Susan K. Braun, and Marleen M. Wekell, FDA, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Division of Field Science, Seafood Products Research Center, December 23, 1999.

At 0 hours withdrawal, oxytetracycline tissue levels ranged from 3.2 to 5.6 parts per million (ppm); at 12 hours, 1.5 to 4.1 ppm; at 24 hours, 1.5 to 2.1 ppm; at 36 hours, 1.2 to 2.0 ppm; at 48 hours, 0.31 to 0.64 ppm; and at 72 hours, <0.25 ppm. The 96-hour samples were not analyzed because residues were below the lowest point on the standard curve by 72 hours withdrawal.

Data and information on human food safety are contained in PMF 5662. Sponsors of NADA's or supplemental NADA's may, without further authorization, reference the PMF to support approval of an application filed under 21 CFR 514.1(d). An NADA or supplemental NADA must include, in addition to reference to the PMF: Effectiveness data, target animal safety data, animal drug labeling, and other information needed for approval. Other information needed for approval may include data supporting extrapolation from a major species in which the drug is currently approved or authorized reference to such data; data concerning manufacturing methods, facilities, and control; and information addressing potential environmental impacts of the manufacturing process. Persons desiring more information concerning the PMF or requirements for approval of an NADA or supplement may contact Julia A. Oriani (address above).

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information provided in this PMF to support approval of an application may, upon approval of such application, be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FDA is seeking public comment on the pediatric exclusivity program. Section 111 of the Modernization Act (Public Law 105-115), signed into law by President Clinton on November 21, 1997, created section 505A of the act (21 U.S.C. 355a). Section 505A of the act permits certain new drug applications to obtain an additional 6 months of marketing exclusivity if, in accordance with the requirements of the statute, the sponsor submits information relating to the use of the drug in the pediatric population.

Under section 505A(k) of the act, FDA must submit a report to Congress on the pediatric exclusivity program.

Under section 505A(k) of the act, FDA must conduct a study and report to Congress not later than January 1, 2001, on the experience under the pediatric exclusivity provisions of the act. The study and report must examine all relevant issues, including:

1. The effectiveness of the program in improving information about important pediatric uses for approved drugs;

2. The adequacy of the pediatric exclusivity incentive;

3. The economic impact of the pediatric exclusivity program on taxpayers and consumers and the impact of the lack of lower cost generic drugs on patients, including on lower income patients; and

4. Any suggestions for modification.

FDA invites all interested parties to address the specific topics that will be included in the report or any other general issue appropriate for this report relevant to the pediatric exclusivity provision of the act. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the pediatric exclusivity program by June 5, 2000. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

This program announcement consists of four parts:

Part I: Background, legislative authority, funding availability, CFDA Number, applicant eligibility, project and budget periods, and for each of the two priority areas—program purpose and scope, allowable activities, and review criteria.

Part II: The Review Process—Intergovernmental review, initial ACF screening, and competitive review.

Part III: The Application—application forms, application submission and deadlines, certifications, general instructions for preparing a full project description, and length of application.

Part IV: Post-award—regulations, treatment of program income, and reporting.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13): Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. The following information collections are included in the program announcement: OMB Approval No. 0970-0139, ACF UNIFORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPD) which expires 10/31/2000 and OMB Approval No. 0970-0036, ORR Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This announcement is the fifth iteration of the Community and Family Strengthening and Integration (CFSI) program. In FY 1994, ORR first announced the Refugee Community and Family Strengthening (CFS) Program as Program Area One of the Omnibus Discretionary Social Services Announcement (59 FR 26070 (05/18/94).

The announcement distinguished program areas by activities directed at strengthening refugee communities and those directed at refugee families, and further between large urban areas and smaller urban or rural areas. “Many American communities with high concentrations of refugees have increased need for better communication and cooperation among agencies in order to increase program effectiveness, to provide services that are in touch with the needs of the refugee population, and to avoid duplication or fragmentation of services. Some of these communities have experienced a range of social and economic problems among refugee populations, particularly with regard to refugee women, youth, elderly, and in those sectors characterized by a high incidence of crime, violence, and neighborhood deterioration.”

This announcement continues to encourage service planners and providers to consider the unmet needs of refugee families and communities in the context of existing services. Through the CFSI program ORR intends to promote a local planning process where service providers and community members come together to assess how the existing services are serving refugees and what additional activities might be funded with cost-sharing support. By placing importance on communities reaching consensus with regard to projects, ORR seeks to strengthen cooperation among local service providers, community leaders, Mutual Assistance Associations, voluntary agencies, churches, and other public and private organizations involved in refugee resettlement, family, youth, and child welfare, and community mental health services. ORR intends that this process will build strategic partnerships among these groups to expand their capacity to serve the social and economic needs of refugees and to give support and direction to ethnic community participation.

The trauma refugee families may experience as a result of persecution or flight may be destabilizing to family life. Single-parent refugee families are likely to face the same stresses as U.S. single-parent families. Finally, they may live in low-income neighborhoods with higher crime rates than expected and without the benefit of an ethnic community to provide information, guidance, protection and support.

Through the CFSI program and other experience, ORR has come to recognize that refugee families residing in U.S. communities encounter significant differences in child rearing practices compared to the ethnic or national customs of their country of origin. Traditional cultures with a strong authoritarian parental role may frequently be at odds with American child rearing practices. These basic differences frequently create conflict within refugee families on how best to raise children. Further, as a result of these factors, a small number of refugee families encounter and may require the assistance of child protective services and other services of the judicial system. These experiences may not be easily understood by the refugee family and the larger refugee community leading to confusion and fear of U.S. child welfare and child protective systems. Children may also confront conflicts in fitting in with their peers or finding a sense of belonging in the schools and social groups, at the same time meeting the expectations of their parents.

Many U.S. community public services do not have the cultural expertise or language capability to work effectively with refugee families. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates equal access to public services, frequently public resources are limited, and cultural and linguistic capacity is seldom available for refugee families.

In recent years, ORR has funded initiatives for recreation for refugee youth, crime prevention among refugee youth, parenting classes, and intergenerational activities. It has become clear over time that a productive relationship with child welfare services, child protective services, childcare services, youth shelters and other youth programs such as Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA, YWCA, after school programs, is also needed to promote the refugee families' capacity to care for their children and youth safely in their new communities.

The goal in all CFSI projects should be to build and strengthen the community's capacity to serve its members regardless of language, cultural, or ethnic differences, and to improve the quality of life and standard of living for refugee families.

This program is authorized by Section 412(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)(8 U.S.C. 1522(a)(1)(A), as amended, which authorizes the Director “to make grants to, and enter into contracts with, public or private nonprofit agencies for projects (such as) (i) * * * professional refresher training, and other recertification services; (ii) to provide training in English where necessary (regardless of whether the refugees are employed or receiving cash or other assistance); and (iii) to provide where specific needs have been shown and recognized by the Director, health (including mental health) services, social services, educational and other services.” The FY 2000 Appropriation Act for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L. 106-113) appropriates funds for refugee and entrant assistance activities authorized by these provisions of the INA.

As with all programs funded by appropriations pursuant to the Refugee Act, eligibility for these services is limited to persons who meet all requirements of 45 CFR 400.43 (as amended by 65 FR 15409 (03/22/00)) and 45 CFR 401.2 (Cuban and Haitian entrants), referred to collectively as “refugees”. Further, the intent of this announcement is to target primarily refugees who have arrived within the last five years and to give special consideration to the needs of refugee children and youth within those families.

ORR expects to award $5.8 million in FY 2000 discretionary social service funds through this announcement. Approximately 18 projects will be awarded under Priority Area One: Community and Family Strengthening and Integration in amounts ranging from $150,000-$400,000, in three program areas—(1) Integration into U.S. Communities, (2) Family Strengthening, (3) Community Strengthening. ORR will award one cooperative agreement of approximately $800,000 under Priority Area Two: Integration Technical Assistance.

The Director reserves the right to award less, or more, than the funds described, in the absence of worthy applications, or under such other circumstances as may be deemed to be in the best interest of the government.

Public and private nonprofit organizations, including current CFS grantees whose projects end on September 30, 2000, are eligible to apply for ORR grants. An applicant may submit only one application per priority area, under this announcement. However, they may be involved in providing services under this announcement as a member of a coalition in which another agency is the applicant.

Any private nonprofit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its nonprofit status at the time of submission. A nonprofit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.

This announcement invites applications for project periods up to three years. Awards, on a competitive basis, will be for a one-year budget period although project periods may be for three years. Applications for continuation grants funded under these awards, beyond the one-year budget period but within the three-year project period, will be entertained in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government.

Purpose and Scope —This program announcement governs the availability of, and award procedures, for the FY 2000 Community and Family Strengthening and Integration Program and provides an opportunity for States and nonprofit organizations to request funding for activities which supplement and complement employment-related services by strengthening refugee families and communities and by enhancing their integration into mainstream society. ORR is interested in funding Priority Area One, CFSI projects, in three program areas:

Applications may include activities in more than one program area. Applicants will designate the area under which they wish to be considered. ORR is particularly interested in projects which are planned and implemented through coalitions, address refugee needs for cultural and linguistic access to services, and provide cost-sharing support.

Refugee programs and local organizations, which have not already done so, are encouraged to build coalitions for the purpose of providing services funded under this Program Area. ORR strongly encourages single applications from partnerships or consortia of three or more eligible organizations. Partners may be in the refugee services provider community of organizations and institutions, or in mainstream services organizations, e.g., public or private child welfare and child protective services, child care coalitions, community mental health services, women's shelters, or adult basic and continuing education providers. Collaboration may also include the Mayor's office, school parent-teacher groups, school counselors, local police departments, and other mainstream community service organizations.

All applicants should demonstrate existing refugee community support for their agency and their proposed project. If the applicant is located in an area where no other organizations work with refugees, and a coalition with other organizations is not possible, the applicant should demonstrate how the proposed services will be effectively provided by a single agency.

In this context, ORR is defining partnership as a negotiated arrangement among organizations that provides for a substantive, collaborative role for each of the partners in the planning and conduct of the project. Applications which represent a coalition of providers should include a signed partnership agreement stating a commitment or an intent to commit or receive resources from the prospective partner(s) contingent upon receipt of ORR funds, and for the lead agency, which is to be the fiscal agent, a copy of the most recent audit report. The agreement should state how the partnership arrangement relates to the objectives of the project. The applicant should also include: supporting documentation identifying the resources, experience, and expertise of the partner(s); evidence that the partner(s) has been involved in the planning of the project; and a discussion of the role of the partner(s) in the implementation and conduct of the project.

In all cases, regardless of the nature of the organization proposed to provide services or conduct activities funded under this announcement, the services/activities should be conducted in a manner linguistically and culturally compatible with the refugee families or communities to be served. In addition, the applicant must describe how proposed providers will have access to the families and to the community to be served.

In planning the project, applicants must include representatives of the target population and relevant public and private agencies active in service delivery in the proposed activity areas. As examples, a project being designed for refugee youth must include both refugee youth and public and private youth service providers among the planners; an applicant proposing English language and literacy for homebound refugee women must involve them along with ELT and literacy practitioners in the planning.

Furthermore, if interpreters are proposed in the first budget period, applicant must demonstrate how these staff will be used in subsequent years of the project, and whether they will be trained to assume an integral role in the project, such as to become service providers.

Applicants and any proposed partners should provide evidence that their governing bodies, boards of directors, or advisory bodies are representative of the refugee communities being served and have both male and female representation.

Long-range viability for CFSI services may depend on: linkages to activities funded by other sources, the availability of expertise in the community, the likelihood of tangible results, the willingness of the community to participate actively including volunteer commitment in assuring the success of the project, and ultimately the community's capacity to continue the activity without additional ORR resources beyond the three-year project period.

Cost-sharing” is used here to refer to any situation in which the grantee shares in the costs of a project. The term “recipient contributions” refers to costs borne by the grantee, either through cash outlay or the provision of services. “In-kind contributions” means the value of goods and/or services donated by third parties. Grantees are not considered as providing “in-kind contributions.” The cost-sharing or in-kind contribution costs are subject to the rules governing allowability in 45 CFR 74.23 or 92.24, including allowability under the applicable cost principles and conformance with other terms and conditions of the award that govern the expenditure of Federal funds.

Grantees must provide at least ten percent of the total approved cost of the project for the first year, 25% for the second year, and 40 percent for the third year. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the ACF share and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. Therefore, a project requesting $675,000 in Federal funds (based on an award of $225,000 per budget period) must provide cost-sharing of at least $22,500, ten percent in the first 12-month budget period. In subsequent continuation applications, the grantee will be asked to document receipt of non-ORR funds from other sources. If the second year request is for a Federal share of $225,000, the grantee would be required to provide, at a minimum, cost-sharing of $75,000, or 25 percent of the full budget. In the third year, the grantee might propose to cost-share 50% of the project (must be at least 40%), and the Federal share would be an equal amount.

Grantees will be held accountable for commitments of non-Federal resources even if over the amount of the required cost-sharing. Failure to provide the amount will result in disallowance of Federal share.

Income generated from activities funded under this program shall be “used to finance the nonfederal share of” (ref.: 45 CFR 74.24 and 92.25) the project.

Applicants are urged to plan for the use of these funds in a manner that complements other Federal, State, and private funds available to assist the target populations and to carry out similar programs and activities.

ORR will consider applications for services which an applicant justifies, based on an analysis of service needs and available resources to address the social and economic problems and integration needs of refugee families and of the refugee community. It should be clear what is the goal or expected outcome of the activity, how it responds to the particular needs of families in that community or to a broader need of the community of families, who is committed to do what in order to accomplish this goal, and how the proposed activity fits into the existing network of services. An application may include activities in more than one program area. In selecting the program area against which the application will compete, applicants should consider the nature of outcomes for which they will be accountable. In instances where an applicant proposes activities which cut across program areas, the choice of program area should correspond to the proposed results or outcomes.

The specific services proposed may be as diverse as the refugee populations and the resettlement communities themselves. Proposed activities and services should be planned in conjunction with existing service providers and should supplement and complement these services.

Refugee families face many challenges when resettling in U.S. communities: family relationships may undergo stress and change; strong authoritarian and sometimes patriarchal family structures may provoke conflicts; schools and parents have different relationships; the range of freedom American youths are afforded may concern refugee parents; and discipline practices and spousal relations may differ from what is preferred or legal in the U.S. Typically income levels of refugee households dictate that they are often located in neighborhoods with high crime rates. Special attention should be placed on enhancing refugee access to services available to all citizens, including those community institutions which serve youth, women, or special needs populations.

Listed below are some examples of allowable activities organized by program area:

Activities designed to inform and orient the refugee community regarding issues essential to effective participation in the new society.

Assistance to parents in connecting with the school system and other local community organizations.

Training and assistance for refugee women to enhance their integration and afford them full opportunities to participate in community development.

Continuing education programs for U.S.-recognized re-certification or skill-building.

Specialized English Training for groups outside the regular classes, e.g., mothers of small children, homebound refugees with particular attention to accessibility of site and time.

Activities designed to facilitate adjustment of status, family reunification, and naturalization.

Activities designed to improve relations among refugees and the law enforcement communities such as drop-in centers or neighborhood storefronts.

Neighborhood watch programs.

Cross cultural training for the law enforcement community i.e., police departments, court system, mediation or dispute management centers. (Please note: Law enforcement activities such as hiring sworn police officers (except those who are public service officers or community liaison officers whose job it is to work with the refugee community), fingerprinting, incarceration, etc., are outside the scope of allowable services under the Refugee Act and will not be considered for funding. (Activities principally focused on parole counseling or court advocacy will not be funded.)

Promotion of access to family service agencies that support families.

Classes and activities to support parenting skills, including information about U.S. cultural and legal issues, ( e.g. ), parental interaction with schools, family recreation, discipline practices, practices of corporal punishment, intergenerational conflict, child abuse, child protective services.

Development of refugee families as foster parents for refugee children.

Cross-cultural training for child protective service agencies, courts, county agencies, private businesses, and other organizations that work in this area.

Orientation and information regarding U.S. family structure, roles of men and women, divorce practices, intra-family violence intervention, sexual harassment and coercion, techniques for protection and agencies for refuge and support.

Training for staff and/or bi-lingual staff development for domestic violence or runaway youth shelters, etc.

Operating community centers for the delivery of services to refugee individuals and families. Centers may also be used for information and referral services, childcare, and community gatherings. (Costs related to construction or renovation will not be considered, and costs for food or beverages are not allowable).

Communities might be organized for housing cooperatives, for youth activities, for violence intervention, for volunteer ELT and literacy services, or for crime prevention.

Development of staff in community based organizations working directly with refugees. Such activities may include training and professional consultation to increase knowledge and understanding of refugee flight and distress, and how to work with people under stress, and to increase information and understanding of how refugees are referred to or use mental health services.

Development of training curriculum and materials for relevant staff development.

Orientation and information for refugees to normalize the experience of refugee flight trauma and their reactions to the trauma, and to seek appropriate social adjustment or mental health services.

Orientation and information on refugees and resettlement for mainstream mental health providers and professionals who may have refugees in their care.

The above are only examples of services. They are not intended to limit potential applicants in community planning. They are listed and generically described without regard to the population to be served. It will be necessary in the application to describe more specifically the target population. For example, one activity might be appropriately designed to serve only homebound women. Another might be designed for teenagers and their parents. Another might be for English language training and naturalization classes. Some might be targeted for all members of the family. Applications should correlate a planned activity with specific target audiences and discuss the relationship between the proposed activities and the target population.

Funds will not be awarded to applicants who propose to engage in activities which are designed primarily to promote the preservation of cultural heritage or which have a political objective. ORR encourages refugee community efforts to preserve cultural heritage, but believes communities should support these activities with alternative funding.

All priority area one applications regardless of program area designation will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Results or Benefits Expected—The applicant clearly described the results and benefits to be achieved. The applicant identifies how improvement will be measured on key indicators for refugee family well-being or community strengthening and integration, and provides milestones indicating progress. Proposed outcomes are tangible and achievable within the grant project period, and the proposed monitoring and information collection is adequately planned. (30 points)

Approach—The strategy and plan is likely to achieve the proposed results; the proposed activities and timeframes are reasonable and feasible. The plan describes in detail how the proposed activities will be accomplished as well as the potential for the project to have a positive impact on the quality of life for refugee families and communities (1) by improving refugees' abilities to access services, to provide mutual assistance, and to demand or create services where they are not available; and (2) by instituting changes among service providers to make them more accessible. (25 points)

Organization Profiles—Where coalition partners are proposed, the applicant has described the rationale for the collaboration, each partner agency's respective role, and how the coalition will enhance the accomplishment of the project goals. In all cases, the applicant describes planning consultation efforts undertaken, including consultation with the refugee community. The proposed coalition is appropriate with respective roles and financial responsibilities delineated. Evidence of commitment of coalition partners in implementing the activities is demonstrated, i.e., by letters or the terms of the signed agreement among participants.

The applicant or coalition partners provide documented experience in performing the proposed services as well as adequate gender balance and constituent representation on the proposed project's advisory board.

Assurance is provided that proposed services will be delivered in a manner that is linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target population.

Individual organization staff including volunteers are well-qualified. The administrative and management features of the project, including a plan for fiscal and programmatic management of each activity, is described in detail with proposed start-up times, ongoing timelines, major milestones or benchmarks, a component/project organization chart, and a staffing chart. The applicant has provided a copy of its most recent audit report. (25 points)

Budget and Budget Justification—The budget and narrative justification are reasonable in relation to the proposed activities and anticipated results; the applicant makes provision for cost-sharing ( i.e. leveraging ORR funds with non-Federal funds or in-kind support) to maintain the full budget during the overall project; the plan for the continuation of services with phase-out of ORR grant funding over the multi-year project period is realistic; and the applicant describes the extent to which the award is projected to be augmented or supplemented by other funding during and beyond the grant period ( i.e. in the second and any subsequent year), or can be integrated into other existing service systems. (20 points)

ORR proposes to award one cooperative agreement to provide technical assistance and training to refugees, refugee service agencies, and other community organizations to assist in the integration of refugees into the mainstream of American community life. Through this project, communities and other organizations will be assisted in helping refugees gain access to, participate in, and contribute to, the economic, educational, social and civic life of the community in which they live.

The objectives of this grant are:

1. To analyze the status of refugee integration in six communities and produce a blueprint describing those factors which contribute to refugees being accepted—or not accepted—into the community;

2. To assist selected communities in organizing to develop an action plan for improved community integration;

3. To provide some financial assistance to enable one or more community agencies to carry out the plan; and,

4. To analyze the results of that effort.

As a result of this project, communities and resettlement community organizations will be better able to assist refugees in gaining access, in measurable ways, to local economic opportunities, community health and mental health resources, safe and affordable housing, participation in local school systems, and continuing education and vocational training. The technical assistance project should be designed to promote refugees' contributions to their communities through activities such as neighborhood revitalization and crime watch, small business development, bilingual staffing of local community services, naturalization rates, and participation in the community civic activities.

Under this cooperative agreement, ORR intends to: (1) Assist in developing key indicators of integration; (2) participate in the selection and field reviews of the six selected community sites; (3) review all written materials prior to their release; and (4) review and approve proposed workshops, meetings, and agenda.

The grantee will be required to: (1) Identify community agencies and institutions with the capacity and commitment to engage constructively with refugee communities and to provide them services; (2) analyze refugee community's access to services through field interviews and other assessment strategies, and prepare a blueprint of findings; (3) prepare, in collaboration with the community, an action plan for mobilizing public and private community agencies, businesses, and institutions to increase opportunities for refugees to become self-sufficient and more fully integrated into the mainstream life of the community; (4) provide, through a competitive process, sub-grant funds for implementation of the action plan; and (5) prepare and disseminate reports on refugee community characteristics, achievements, and best practices.

Approximately $800,000 has been allocated for this project. Of this amount, $350,000 has been allocated for the purposes of the technical assistance grant. An additional $450,000 is available to the technical assistance grantee to provide funding for a local agency or consortium of agencies to implement the community action plan in up to three sites at up to $150,000 per site.

Applicants may propose all or a combination of the activities suggested below as well as other activities which support the purposes of this priority area:

Assess the local economic and social conditions, including poverty and isolation, transportation, health and mental health services, local coordination of, or linkage to, resources and services, existing housing stock, labor market opportunities, and the interaction among refugees, immigrant communities, and other local residents.

Assess local organizational strengths and weaknesses, refugee community needs, and the impact of refugees on the local community.

Analyze access to culturally and linguistically appropriate services by generation cohort (elderly, youth, etc. ) and gender.

Facilitate the flow and exchange of community information on resources, services, and opportunities, developing a blueprint for refugee integration.

Engage State and county agencies and community advocates in program planning and community development.

Assist local organizations in developing partnerships and an action plan for local refugee integration.

Priority Area Two applications will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Results or Benefits Expected —The applicant clearly described the results and benefits to be achieved, such as improvement along key indicators for refugee integration, and the production of best practices manuals or training materials. (25 points)

Approach —The technical assistance plan is clearly described and appropriate; the proposed activities and timeframes are reasonable and feasible. The plan describes in detail how the proposed activities will be accomplished. (25 points)

Organization Profiles —The applicant demonstrates the capacity of the organization to achieve the project's objectives. Organizational expertise and experience in community development and in the provision of technical assistance activities are described and are appropriate for this project. (25 points)

Budget and Budget Justification —The budget is accurate, reasonable, clearly presented, and cost-effective. (25 points)

This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and 45 CFR part 100, Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities. Under the Order known as Single Point of Contact or SPOC, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs.

As of November 20, 1998, the following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process: Alabama; Alaska; American Samoa; Colorado; Connecticut; Kansas; Hawaii; Idaho; Louisiana; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Jersey; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Palau; Pennsylvania; South Dakota; Tennessee; Vermont; Virginia; and Washington. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372.

Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit any required materials to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a.

Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards. SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.

When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, 6th Floor, Washington DC, 20447 ATTN: Ms. Daphne Weeden.

A list of the Single Points of Contact for each participating State and Territory can be found on the web at: http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/grantsnet/laws-reg/spoq0695.htm.

Each application submitted under this program announcement will undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received by the closing date and submitted in accordance with the instructions in this announcement and (2) the applicant is eligible for funding.

Applications which pass the initial ACF screening will be evaluated and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of evaluation criteria specified in Part I. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess the quality of a proposed project, and to determine the likelihood of its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications which are responsive to the evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement.

Priority Area One applications will be scored and ranked in three groups corresponding to the three program areas.

In order to be considered for a grant under this program announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied and in the manner prescribed by ACF. Selected elements of the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD) relevant to this program announcement are attached as an appendix.

Applicants for financial assistance under this announcement must file the Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF 424A, Budget Information—Non-construction Programs; SF 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs. The forms may be reproduced for use in submitting applications. Application materials including forms and instructions are also available from the Contact named in the preamble of this announcement.

An application with an original signature and two clearly identified copies is required. Applicants must clearly indicate on the SF424 the Priority Area under which the application is submitted, and if Priority Area One, then also the Program Area under which the project is to be considered.

The closing date for submission of applications is July 5, 2000. Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be classified as late.

Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline date or sent on or before the deadline date and received by ACF in time for the independent review to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Attention: Ms. Daphne Weeden.

Applicants must ensure that a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or a legibly dated, machine produced postmark of a commercial mail service is affixed to the envelope/package containing the application(s). To be acceptable as proof of timely mailing, a postmark from a commercial mail service must include the logo/emblem of the commercial mail service company and must reflect the date the package was received by the commercial mail service company from the applicant. Private Metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing. (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)

Applications hand-carried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by other representatives of the applicant shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 6th Floor, Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, SW, Washington, DC 20447 between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). The address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note “Attention: Ms. Daphne Weeden.” (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)

ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.

Applications which do not meet the criteria above are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late applicant that its application will not be considered in the current competition.

ACF may extend application deadlines when circumstances such as acts of God (floods, hurricanes, etc. ) occur, or when there are widespread disruptions of mail service. Determinations to extend or waive deadline requirements rest with the Chief Grants Management Officer.

For Further Information on Application Deadlines Contact: Ms. Daphne Weeden, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: (202) 401-4577.

Applicants requesting financial assistance for non-construction projects must file the Standard Form 424B, “Assurances: Non-Construction Programs.” Applicants must sign and return the Standard Form 424B with their applications.

Applicants must provide a signed certification regarding lobbying with their applications, when applying for an award in excess of $100,000. Applicants who have used non-Federal funds for lobbying activities in connection with receiving assistance under this announcement shall complete a disclosure form to report lobbying.

Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the applications.

Applicants must make the appropriate certification that they are not presently debarred, suspended or otherwise ineligible for an award. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the applications.

The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. Applicants are encouraged to provide information on their organizational structure, staff, related experience, and other information considered relevant. Awarding offices use this and other information to determine whether the applicant has the capability and resources necessary to carry out the proposed project. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application. However, in the narrative the applicant must distinguish between resources directly related to the proposed project from those that will not be used in support of the specific project for which funds are requested. Please refer to the UPD sections in the appendix.

Each application narrative should not exceed 25 double-spaced pages in a 12-pitch font. Attachments and appendices should not exceed 25 pages and should be used only to provide supporting documentation such as administration charts, position descriptions, resumes, and letters of intent or partnership agreements. Each page should be numbered sequentially, including the attachments or appendices. This limitation of 25 pages per program area should be considered as a maximum, and not necessarily a goal.

Please do not include books or videotapes as they are not easily reproduced and are, therefore, inaccessible to the reviewers.

Applicable Regulations—Applicable DHHS grant administration regulations can be found in 45 CFR part 74 or 92.

Program income from activities funded under this program may be retained by the recipient and added to the funds committed to the project through cost-sharing, and used to further program objectives.

Grantees are required to file the Financial status Report (SF-269) and Program Performance Reports on a semi-annual basis. Funds issued under these awards must be accounted for and reported upon separately from all other grant activities. Although ORR does not expect the proposed projects to include evaluation activities, it does expect grantees to maintain adequate records to track and report on project outcomes and expenditures. The official receipt point for all reports and correspondence is the ORR Grants Officer, Ms. Daphne Weeden, Administration for Children and Families/Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: (202) 401-4577. An original and one copy of each report shall be submitted within 30 days of the end of each reporting period directly to the Grants Officer.

A Final Financial and Program Report shall be due 90 days after the project expiration date or termination of Federal budget support.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Brian Rooney, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of the publication in the Federal Register , the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( i.e. , acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Energy: Mr. Tom Knox, Department of Energy, Office of Contract and Resource Management, MA-53, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-8715; GSA : Mr. Brian K. Polly, Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501-0052; Navy: Mr. Charles C. Cocks, Department of the Navy, Director, Real Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065; (202) 685-9200; (These are not toll-free numbers).