When the Bridger-Teton National Forest and Resource Management Plan was approved in 1990, it identified, at a programmatic level, the lands available for oil and gas leasing. The next step in the leasing process is for the Forest Service to perform a site-specific leasing analysis tiered to the Forest Plan. The purpose of this analysis is to implement the authority granted to the Forest Service by the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and the implementing regulations (36 CFR 228 E), and to make the leasing decision for the specific lands for which interest in leasing has been expressed.

Conducting this analysis and making the necessary determinations will include the following steps or determinations:

(a) Verify that the leasing of these lands is consistent with the Forest Plan.

(b) Determine that the leasing has been adequately addressed in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.

(c) Determine if further analysis is needed resulting from new circumstances or new information.

(d) Determine which specific lands and under what conditions the Forest Service will consent to authorize the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to offer for lease.

Conducting an environmental analysis on a proposed leasing action is triggered when the BLM receives an Expression of Interest in leasing a specific area. This Expression of Interest means an entity has identified a block of land that it wants to be offered for leasing. In cases where no site-specific analysis has been completed, this action requires the Forest Service to complete an analysis of the area to determine which of the nominated lands it will consent to be leased and to identify under what conditions the oil and gas activities will be permitted. The Bridger-Teton National Forest will analyze the entire management area for each of the 3 management areas where the nominated lands are located (MAs 21, 45, and 72), plus one additional, contiguous management area (MA 71).

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 commodities and 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 commodities and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and 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 commodities and 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 commodities and services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

On March 31, June 9 and July 7, 2000, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 17255, 36663, 41941 and 41942) of proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List:

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the commodities and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the commodities and services 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 commodities and services to the Government.

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

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and services 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 commodities and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following commodities and services are 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.

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 may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on future contractors for the commodities.

3. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities 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 commodities deleted from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the commodities listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

Accordingly, the following commodities are hereby deleted from the Procurement List:

The Working Group's goals will include: (1) Providing the users with further opportunities under the Biometric Consortium to interact with private industry on issues related to the development of the required performance metrics and standards that would reflect their needs; (2) Developing guidelines and tests to accomplish effective-enhancing and technically compatible technologies on a non-discriminatory, voluntary, multi-vendors basis; (3) Conducting appropriate research, including research prototype activities among its members, and informational activities as required; (4) Developing functional specifications, measurements, test sequences, demonstrations, corresponding publications and other activities as required; (5) Biometrics integration with other technologies (e.g., smart cards and PKI) may impose additional performance metrics and technical specifications (they will also be addressed as required); (6) in the absence of required formal standards, developing submissions to appropriate industry forums and standards bodies that facilitate the evolution of standards; and, (7) Task Forces to address specific issues will be formed as required.

The BC Working Group will seek strong coordination of its activities with other organizations to improve efficiency of operations and to avoid duplication of their efforts. It intends to establish liaisons with other organizations that are involved with biometric technology developments including industrial organizations and Government efforts.

More details on the planned activities are provided in the BC Working Group membership agreement. A preliminary list of topics that will be addressed in this forum include: (1) User requirements on interoperability, performance and standards; (2) Interoperability tests; (3) Performance metrology; (4) biometric data interchange; (5) Quality; and, (6) Biometrics Assurance.

The US Biometric Consortium (BC) serves as the Government's focal point for research, development, testing, evaluation, and application of biometric-based personal identification and verification technology. It currently has over seven hundred members from private industry, Federal/State/local government, and academia. Sixty different federal agencies are represented in the Consortium. The BC, NIST and NSA sponsor research and other industry and user activities, as needed. The Biometric Consortium is co-chaired by Jeffrey S. Dunn and Fernando L. Podio.

As defined by the US Biometric Consortium, biometrics are automated methods of recognizing a person based on a physiological or behavioral characteristic. In the context of this Working Group, biometrics may be used for personal verification (one to one matching) applications and personal identification (one to many) applications.

The Biometric Consortium, NIST (through the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL)), and NSA (through the Research and Advance Development Group) collaborate in fostering and conducting research in biometrics technologies and small cards to assist users and these industries in developing new technology capabilities, testing methodologies and standards. These efforts are in support of information security, electronic commerce, and other identification and authentication applications.

NIST ITL's Biometrics and Smart Cards program is supporting the biometric and smart card industries and users by expanding ITL's role to new and challenging research and development (R&D), testing, standards and implementation efforts. These efforts include biometrics R&D, metrology and standards, biometrics and smart card integration, and the development of biometrics and smart cards experimental applications. NIST has a role in measurements and standards for Electronic Commerce. Through ITL's Biometrics and Smart Cards program, NIST is developing a biometric interface for electronic commerce. NIST is working with the biometrics industry on the development of the required biometric standards that will assure biometrics application developers, service providers, and users that the required interoperable biometric solutions will be available.

NSA conducts one of the U.S. Government's leading research and development programs. Some of the Agency's R&D projects have significantly advanced the state of the art in the scientific and business words. NSA's early interest in cryptanalytic research led to the first large-scale computer and the first solid-state computer, predecessors to the modern computer. NSA pioneered efforts in flexible storage capabilities, which led to the development of the tape cassette. NSA also made ground-breaking developments in semiconductor technology and remains a world leader in many technological fields. As part of the INFOSEC mission, NSA conducts research on new technologies that may be used to protect information technology systems. For several years, NSA has been researching biometric technologies that may be useful to prevent unauthorized access to critical systems.

The BC, NIST/ITL and NSA (INFOSEC) co-sponsor, organize, and participate in technical research and other industry/user's technical activities as required. Some of year 2000 efforts include:

• The development of a Common Biometric Exchange File Format (CBEFF)

• Co-sponsorship of a Bio API Users and Developers Seminar

• Co-sponsorship of a DoD PKI Target Class 4 Token Security Requirements Workshop

• Co-sponsorship of BioAPI Consortium meetings

The BC, NIST/ITL, and NSA (INFOSEC) are also supporting other government organizations and the entire community. They are currently advisors and working in collaboration with the Biometrics Management Office (operated by the U.S. Department of the Army), the GSA's Office of Smart Card Initiatives and UK's Biometrics Working Group. The BC co-chairs have recently provided testimony on biometrics to the Commission on Child Online Protection (COPA).

NOAA believes that the Climate and Global Change Program will benefit significantly from a strong partnership with outside investigators. Current Program plans assume that over 50% of the total resources provided through this announcement will support extramural efforts, particularly those involving the broad academic community. However, please be advised that actual funding levels will depend upon the final FY 2001 budget appropriations. This Program Announcement is for projects to be conducted by investigators both inside and outside of NOAA, primarily over a one, two or three year period. The NOAA Climate and Global Change Program has been approved for multi-year funding up to a three year duration. The funding instrument for extramural awards will be a grant unless it is anticipated that NOAA will be substantially involved in the implementation of the project, in which case the funding instrument should be a cooperative agreement. Examples of substantial involvement may include but are not limited to proposals for collaboration between NOAA or NOAA scientists and recipient scientist or technician and/or contemplation by NOAA of detailing Federal personnel to work on proposed projects. NOAA will make decisions regarding the use of a cooperative agreement on a case-by-case basis. Funding for contractual arrangements for services and products for delivery to NOAA is not available under this announcement. Matching share is not required by this program.

49 U.S.C. 44720(b); 33 U.S.C. 883d; 15 U.S.C. 2904; 15 U.S.C. 2931 et seq.; (CFDA No. 11.431)—Climate and Atmospheric Research.

The long term objective of the Climate and Global Change Program is to provide reliable predictions of climate variability and change with associated regional implications on time scales ranging from seasons to a century or more. NOAA believes that climate variability across these time scales can be modeled with an acceptable probability of success and are the most relevant for fundamental social concerns. Predicting the behavior of the coupled ocean-atmosphere-land surface system will be NOAA's primary contribution to a successful national effort to deal with observed or anticipated changes in the global environment. NOAA has a range of unique facilities and capabilities that can be applied to Climate and Global Change investigations. Proposals that seek to exploit these resources in collaborative efforts between NOAA and extramural investigators are encouraged.

In FY 2001, NOAA will give priority attention to individual proposals in the Main Program Elements listed below. The names, affiliations and phone numbers of relevant Climate and Global Change Program Managers are provided. Funding for some programs may be limited to ongoing projects or may be used to fund projects proposed in FY 2000 that were unable to be funded due to budgetary circumstances. Prospective applicants should communicate with Program Managers for information on priorities within program elements and prospects for funding.

(A) Aerosols: This program element focuses on field measurements and modeling of aerosol properties and distributions, with an emphasis on improving the predictive understanding of the role of aerosols in climate forcing. Due to budgetary limitations, funding may not be available for new grants in FY 2001; prospective investigators are urged to check the Climate & Global Change Program web page for current funding status and priorities prior to submitting letters or proposals. For further information please contact Joel M. Levy, NOAA/Office of Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 111, Internet: joel.levy@noaa.gov.

(B) Atmospheric Chemistry: The Atmospheric Chemistry Project focuses on global monitoring, process-oriented laboratory and field studies, and theoretical modeling to improve the predictive understanding of the atmospheric trace species that influence the earth's chemical and radiative balance and the variation of the concentration of these trace species regionally and seasonally. For an information sheet containing further details and current priorities, please contact: Joel M. Levy, NOAA/Office of Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 111, Internet: joel.levy@noaa.gov; or Fred C. Fehsenfeld, NOAA/Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, CO, 303-497-5819, Internet: fcf@al.noaa.gov.

(C) Climate and Societal Interactions (CSI): Research on Vulnerability, Opportunities, and Response Options. Variability, change, and surprise results from a wide variety of climatological, social, economic and ecological circumstances and interactions. The purpose of this program is to increase understanding of the impacts of climate variability and change as conditioned by ongoing processes of decision-making and socio-economic transformation. The suite of efforts is intended to further research-based integration between studies of the whole of the climate system, including human components, such as health, and evolving informational and educational needs of decision-makers in climate sensitive sectors around the world. The goal is to provide the basis for more effective application of climate information, including climate forecasts, for purposes of adaptation. The intent of this program is to encourage overlapping research approaches to integrate knowledge for problem solving. The CSI is a chapeau for a suite of activities; prospective applicants must apply to one of the following program elements:

Human Dimensions of Global Change Research (HDGCR): The Human Dimensions of Global Change Research program is aimed at understanding how social and economic systems are currently influenced by fluctuations in climate, and how human behavior can be (or why it may not be) affected based on information about variability in the climate system. Because of expected budget constraints, this program will not accept new applications for projects; only renewal and continuation applications will be considered. For more information and an information sheet on general program objectives, contact: Caitlin Simpson, NOAA/Office of Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 152, Internet: simpson@ogp.noaa.gov.

A joint interagency announcement is anticipated on Climate and Health. (For more information on this future announcement contact Juli Trtanj, NOAA/Office of Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 134, Internet: trtanj@ogp.noaa.gov.)

Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments: This Program Element was formerly titled Regional Assessments. NOAA's present program of Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments possesses three distinct qualities: (1) Interdisciplinarity, integration and synthesis; (2) Bridging the gap between climatic, environmental and societal interactions on different temporal and spatial scales; and (3) Decision support and services. It requires innovative partnerships among a spectrum of interests (Federal, State, local and private) to enable regional organizational capacity to develop accurate ( i.e., identifying risks, uncertainties, and/or indeterminacies), balanced syntheses and services on an ongoing basis. As such, the program relies heavily on consolidating the results and data from ongoing NOAA-OGP disciplinary program elements, already funded in a region, into an integrated framework. This program will not accept applications to initiate new activities, but will accept renewal applications for ongoing efforts or as part of ongoing negotiations. For more information and a detailed information sheet, contact: Roger Pulwarty, NOAA/Office of Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 103, Internet: pulwarty@ogp.noaa.gov.

(D) Climate Change Data and Detection: The scientific goals of this element include efforts to: (1) Provide data and information management support activities needed to assure the availability of critical data sets from a variety of national and international programs of primary interest to NOAA's Climate and Global Change Program, e.g., the CLIVAR (Climate Variability and Predictability) Program, GEWEX (Global Energy & Water Cycle Experiment), GCOS (Global Climate Observing System), National and International Assessments, etc.; (2) provide data and information management support related to cross cutting science efforts necessary to assess seasonal, interannual, decadal, and longer climate variations and changes; (3) document the quantitative character of observed climate variations and changes; and (4) attribute changes in the observed climate record to specific climate forcings.

NOAA/NASA Jointly Sponsored Project: A number of new starts are anticipated within the NOAA/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) co-sponsored project that supports research in the areas of data fusion and enhancement of climate data sets through the use of space and/or ground based observations. Preference will be given to those proposals that use more than one observing system to develop a blended data set.

“NOAA/DOE Jointly Sponsored Project: The NOAAA/Department of Energy (DOE) co-sponsored project addresses all aspects of Climate Change Detection and Attribution. One- and two-year proposals are specifically encouraged.”

Additional details on the jointly sponsored projects are provided on the supplementary fact sheet included in the Program Announcement mailing (additional copies of the supplementary fact sheet can be obtained from Irma duPree at the Office of Global Programs). For further information contact: Bill Murray, NOAA/Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 133, Internet: murray@noaa.gov; Chris Miller, NOAA/Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 143, Internet: miller@noaa.gov; Martha Maiden, NASA/Headquarters, 202/358-1078, Internet: maiden@hq.nasa.gov; or Rick Petty, DOE/Environmental Sciences Division, Germantown, MD; 301-903-5548, Internet: Rick.Petty@oer.doe.gov.

(E) Climate Dynamics and Experimental Prediction: Climate Dynamics and Experimental Prediction—This program will not accept applications to initiate centers at new institutions, but will accept renewal applications for ongoing efforts or as part of ongoing negotiations. Qualified applications for this program may be submitted throughout the year. For further information, contact Phil Arkin, NOAA/Global Programs, Silver spring, MD; telephone: 301-427-2089 ext. 116, Internet: arkin@ogp.noaa.gov.

(F) Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR): CLIVAR focuses on the role of the coupled ocean and atmosphere within the overall climate system, with emphasis on variability, especially within the oceans, on seasonal to centennial time scales. CLIVAR intends to explore predictability and how to improve predictions of climate variability and climate change using existing, reanalyzed, and new global observations, enhanced coupled ocean-atmosphere-land-ice models and paleoclimate records. A separate program announcement for CLIVAR will be issued later this year inviting proposals for CLIVAR Atlantic, CLIVAR Pacific (formerly GOALS), and CLIVAR PACS. Investigators interested in these program areas are encouraged to respond to this later announcement. For further information on the Atlantic, please contact James Todd, NOAA/Global Programs, 301/427-2089 ext. 139, Internet: todd@ogp.noaa.gov. For the Pacific and PACS efforts, please contact, Michael Patterson, NOAA/Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 102, Internet: patterson@ogp.noaa.gov.

(G) Economics and Human Dimensions of Climate Fluctuations: Please see Climate and Societal Interactions (CSI) above.

(H) GEWEX Continental-Scale International Project (GCIP) is transitioning into GAPP (GEWEX America Prediction Project) during this fiscal year. Details about GAPP are available in a GAPP prospectus and draft Science Plan and Implementation Strategy that are available from the GAPP program manager. Initiatives are solicited that will facilitate the implementation of this new program. In addition to continuing its focus on the Mississippi River Basin, GAPP is also interested in initiatives in the semi-arid southwestern US and on the pacific coast. In particular, new initiatives are solicited in the following areas:

(1) land memory processes: GAPP is interested in determining the contributions of the following processes to predictability at seasonal time scales: soil moisture, orography (including its interaction with the Great Plains low level jet), vegetation and snow cover. It is anticipated that these issues will be addressed through a combination of modeling and diagnostic studies.

(2) model transferability studies and enriched data collection activities that support the US contribution to the Coordinated Enhanced Observing Period (CEOP). The target basins for transferability studies include other Continental Scale Experiment areas as well as the Saskatchewan and Rio del Plata River Basins. CEOP-related studies that facilitate the enhanced use of remote sensing data for land surface modeling and precipitation are also welcome.

(3) scientific investigations aimed at overcoming limitations to the use of climate forecasts in the management of water resources (e.g., issues such as downscaling, probabilistic forecasts, etc.)

Projects approved in this call will be funded by both NOAA and NASA. It is anticipated that either in FY2001 or FY2002 another joint PACS/GAPP call dealing with the monsoonal aspects of GAPP will be issued. For more details regarding GAPP, please see the draft Science Plan at http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/mpe/gcip/index.htm. Questions regarding this call should be directed to Rick Lawford at lawford@ogp.noaa.gov or (301)-427-2089 Ext. 146.

(I) Global Carbon Cycle (GCC): GCC focuses on global observations, process-oriented field studies and modeling to improve our ability to predict the fate of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and future atmospheric CO 2 concentrations. Due to budgetary limitations, funding is not expected to be available for new applications in FY 2001; however, prospective investigators should check the Global Carbon Cycle web page (see below) for current funding priorities. For an information sheet containing further details and the current priorities, please contact Lisa Dilling, NOAA/Office of Global Programs, 301-427-2089 ext. 106, Internet: dilling@ogp.noaa.gov or see the web at: http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/mpe/gcc/index.html

(J) Global Ocean—Atmosphere—Land System (GOALS): Please see Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) above.

(K)— Pan-American Climate Studies (PACS): Please see Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) above.

(L) Ocean-Atmosphere Carbon Exchange Study (OACES): Please see Global Carbon Cycle (GCC) above.

(M) Paleoclimatology: The NOAA Paleoclimatology Program will entertain proposals that support the joint WCRP CLIVAR/IGBP PAGES Research Initiative. This initiative is jointly support by NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) through the Earth System History (ESH) Program at NSF. All proposals must be submitted to the NSF/ESH Program by February 14 each year. For more information, please contact Mark Eakin, NOAA/National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, CO; 303-497-6172, Internet: mark.eakin@noaa.gov; Ken Mooney, NOAA/Global Programs, Silver Spring, MD; 301-427-2089 ext. 104, Internet: mooney@ogp.noaa.gov; Richard Poore, NSF Ocean Sciences Division (OCE) Program, Arlington, VA; 703-306-1586, Internet: rpoore@nsf.gov, or Steve Colman, NSF Atmospheric Sciences Division (ATM) Program, Arlington, VA; 703-306-1527, Internet: scolman@nsf.gov. Please visit http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/extramural.html for more information on the program or http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0011/nsf0011.html for the ESH announcement.

Extramural eligibility is not limited and is encouraged with the objective of developing a strong partnership with the academic community. Universities, nonprofit organizations, for-profit organizations, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes, are included among entities eligible for funding under this announcement.

Since non-NOAA Federal agencies will be funded through an interagency transfer, a non-NOAA Federal applicant should state in the application what legal basis exists for them to receive funds in excess of its appropriation from another Federal agency.

The purpose of the LOI process is to provide information to potential applicants on the relevance of their proposed project to the Climate and Global Program in advance of preparing a full proposal. Full proposals will be encouraged only for LOIs deemed relevant by Program Management, therefore, it is in the best interest of the applicants and their institutions to submit an LOI; however, it is not a requirement. The LOI should provide a concise description of the proposed work and its relevance to the targeted program element. The LOI must include the components listed below. If these components are not included, the LOI risks a delayed response and may not be considered by the program manager. (A) Investigators must identify the program element that is being targeted in the LOI. (B) Investigators must specify a tentative project title in the LOI. (C) LOIs must include the name and institution of all principal investigator(s), and specify which individual is the Lead principal investigator. (D) LOIs should be no more than two pages in length and must include a statement of the problem, brief summary of work to be completed, methodology to be used, and approximate cost of the project. Facsimile and electronic mail are acceptable for LOIs only.

Consideration for financial assistance will be given to those proposals that address one of the Program Elements listed and meet the following evaluation criteria:

(A) Scientific Merit: Intrinsic scientific value of the subject and the study proposed, including methodology and readiness.

(B) Relevance: Importance and relevance to the goals of the selected Program Element(s). (See Program Objectives above)

Proposals, including those submitted by NOAA employees, will be evaluated in accordance with the above evaluation criteria by (A) independent peer mail review, and/or (B) independent peer panel review, and a rating will be calculated based on these evaluations; both NOAA and non-NOAA experts in the field may be used in this process. The Program Manager will not be a voting member of an independent peer panel. The recommendations and evaluations of the panel members will be considered by the Program Manager in final selections. Proposals are usually awarded in the numerical order they are ranked based on the independent peer mail review or the independent peer panel review. However, the Program Manager will ascertain which proposals do not substantially duplicate other projects that are currently funded by NOAA or are approved for funding by other federal agencies, and fall within remaining funds available. Unsatisfactory performance by a recipient under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding. As a result of this review, the Program Manager may decide to select an award out of order. The Program Manager will also determine the total duration of funding and the amount of funding for each selected proposal. 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 (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HIS), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) 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. Institutions eligible to be considered MSIs are listed at the following Internet website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/99minin.html.

The following forms are required in each application, with original signatures on each federal form. Failure to comply will result in proposal application being returned.

(A) Full Proposals: (1) Proposals submitted to the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program must include the original and two unbound copies of the proposal. (2) Investigators are required to submit 3 copies of the proposal, however, the normal review process requires 20 copies. For an optimal review, investigators are encouraged to submit sufficient proposal copies, especially color or unusually sized (not 8.5″ × 11″), or otherwise unusual materials submitted as part of the proposal. Only three original copies of the Federally-required forms are needed. (3) Proposals must be limited to 30 pages (numbered), including budget, investigators vitae, and all appendices, and should be limited to funding requests for one to three year duration. Appended information may not be used to circumvent the page length limit. Federally-mandated forms are not included within the page count. (4) Proposals should be sent to the NOAA Office of Global Programs at the above address. (5) Facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submission of full proposals will not be accepted.

(B) Required Elements: All proposals must include the following elements: (1) Signed title page: The title page should be signed by the Principal Investigator (PI) and the institutional representative and should clearly indicate which program element is being addressed. If more than one investigator is listed on the title page, please identify the lead investigator. The PI and institutional representative should be identified by full name, title, organization, telephone number and address. The total amount of Federal funds being requested should be listed for each budget period. (2) Abstract: An abstract must be included and should contain an introduction of the problem, rationale and a brief summary of work to be completed. The abstract should appear on a separate page, headed with the proposal title, institution(s), investigator(s), total proposed cost and budget period. (3) Results from prior research: The results of each prior research project (during the last 3 years) relevant to the proposed effort should be summarized in brief paragraphs. This section should not exceed two pages. (4) Statement of work: The proposed project must be completely described, including identification of the problem, scientific objectives, proposed methodology, relevance to the goal of the Climate and Global Change Program, and the program priorities listed above. Benefits of the proposed project to the general public and the scientific community should be discussed. The statement of work, including references but excluding figures and other visual materials, must not exceed 15 pages of text. Investigators wishing to submit group proposals that exceed the 15 page limit should discuss this possibility with the appropriate Program Manager prior to submission. Proposals from 3 or more investigators may include a statement of work containing up to 15 pages of overall project description plus up to 5 additional pages for individual project descriptions. (5) Budget Justification: A brief description of the expenses listed on the budget and how they address the proposed work. Item justifications must include salaries, equipment, publications, supplies, tuition, travel, etc. (6) Budget: The proposal must include total and annual itemized budgets corresponding with the descriptions provided in the statement of work. Non-Federal Applicants must submit a Standard Form 424 (4-92) “Application for Federal Assistance,” including a detailed budget using the Standard Form 424a (4-92), “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” Travel must be itemized to include destination, airfare, per diem, lodging and ground travel. The form is included in the standard NOAA application kit. (7) Vitae: Abbreviated curriculum vitae are sought with each proposal. Reference lists should be limited to all publications in the last three years with up to five other relevant papers. (8) Current and pending support: For each investigator, submit a list that includes project title, supporting agency with grant number, investigator months per year, dollar value and duration. Requested values should be listed for pending support.

(C) Other requirements: Applicants may obtain a standard NOAA application kit from Internet:http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/.

All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying”. Applicants are also hereby notified of the following:

(A) Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension: Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, section 105) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, “Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension,” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;

(B) Drug Free Workplace: Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR part 26, section 605) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, Subpart F, “Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)” and the related section of the certification from prescribed above applies;

(C) Anti-Lobbying: Persons (as defined at 15 CFR Part 28, section 105) are subject to the lobbying provisions 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, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000, or the single family maximum mortgage limit for affected programs, whichever is greater; and

(D) Anti-Lobbying Disclosures: Any applicant that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit an SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” as required under 15 CFR part 28, appendix B.

(A) Recipients must require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or 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, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to DOC. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to DOC in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.

(B) Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all applicable Federal laws and Federal and Department of Commerce policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.

(C) Preaward Activities—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 assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation to the applicant on the part of Department of Commerce to cover pre-award costs.

(D) Financial assistance recipients funded by this program are subject to the applicable administrative requirements found in 15 CFR Part 15, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit and Commercial Organizations,” or CFR Part 24, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements to State and Local Governments,” as applicable. Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

(E) All non-profit and for-profit applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of, or are presently facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters which significantly reflect on the applicant's management, honesty, or financial integrity.

(F) A false statement on an 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.

(G) No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either: (i) The delinquent account is paid in full, (ii) A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received, or (iii) Other arrangements satisfactory to the Department of Commerce are made.

(H) Buy American-Made Equipment or Products—Applicants are encouraged that any equipment or products authorized to be purchased with funding provided under this program be American-made to the maximum extent feasible.

(I) The total dollar amount of the 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 or 100 percent of the total proposed direct cost dollar amount in the application, whichever is less.

(J) If an application is selected for funding, the Department of Commerce 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 Department of Commerce.

(K) In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program. The NOAA Climate and Global Change Program does not have direct TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capabilities, but can be reached through the State of Maryland supplied TDD contact number, 800-735-2258, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

(L) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number.

The standard forms have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act under OMB approval number 0348-0043, 0348-0044, and 0348-0046. This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1461, establishes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). 16 U.S.C. § 1461 (e)(1)(B) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to any coastal state or public or private person for purposes of supporting research and monitoring within a National Estuarine Research Reserve that are consistent with the research guidelines developed under subsection (c). This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under “Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves,” Number 11.420.

The NERRS consists of estuarine areas of the United States and its territories which are designated and managed for research and educational purposes. Each National Estuarine Research Reserve (Reserve) within the NERRS is chosen to reflect regional differences and to include a variety of ecosystem types in accordance with the classification scheme of the national program as presented in 15 CFR part 921.

Each Reserve supports a wide range of beneficial uses of ecological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic values which are dependent upon the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. The sites provide habitats for a wide range of ecologically and commercially important species of fish, shellfish, birds, and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Each Reserve has been designed to ensure its effectiveness as a conservation unit and as a site for long-term research and monitoring. As part of a national system, the Reserves collectively provide an excellent opportunity to address research questions and estuarine management issues of national significance. For a detailed description of the sites, contact the individual site staff or refer to the NERR internet Web site provided in the Addresses section.

Funds are expected to be available on a competitive basis to qualified graduate students for research within National Estuarine Research Reserves leading to a graduate degree. No more than two fellowships at any one site will be funded at any one time; based upon fellowships awarded in the 2000 funding cycle, we anticipate 30 openings for Fellowships in FY01. Fellowships are expected to be available at the following sites:

Because NOAA is an active partner in NERRS research, funds will be awarded through a cooperative agreement. NOAA may be involved in the award in the following manner:

All staff at NERRS sites are ineligible to submit an application for a fellowship under this Announcement. Federal funds requested must be matched by the applicant by at least 30% of the TOTAL cost, not the Federal share, of the project. It is anticipated that fellowships receiving funding under this announcement will begin no earlier than June 1, 2001.

NERR Research funds are provided to support management-related research projects that will enhance scientific understanding of the Reserve ecosystem, provide information needed by Reserve management and coastal management decision-makers, and improve public awareness and understanding of estuarine ecosystems and estuarine management issues (15 CFR § 921.50).

The NERR Graduate Research Fellowship program is designed to fund high quality research focused on enhancing coastal zone management while providing students with an opportunity to contribute to the research or monitoring program at a particular Reserve site.

Research projects proposed in response to this announcement must: (1) Address coastal management issues identified as having local, regional, or national significance, described in the “Scientific Areas of Support” below; and (2) be conducted within one or more designated NERR sites. Funding ($16,500 per year) is intended to provide any combination of research support, salary, tuition, supplies, or other costs as needed, including overhead. Fellows will be expected to participate in the Reserve's research or monitoring program for up to a maximum of 15 hours per week. The work plan should be devised cooperatively with the Reserve's Research Coordinator. Fellows conducting multi-site projects may fulfill this requirement at one or a combination of sites but for no more than a total of 15 hours per week. This program may occur throughout the academic year or may be concentrated during a specific season.

The NERRS program has identified the following as areas of nationally significant research interest. Proposed research projects submitted in response to this announcement must address one of the following topics (see #1 above):

• The effects of non-point source pollution on estuarine ecosystems;

• Evaluative criteria and/or methods for estuarine ecosystem restoration;

• The importance of biodiversity and effects of invasive species on estuarine ecosystems;

• Mechanisms for sustaining resources within estuarine ecosystems; or

• Socioeconomic research applicable to estuarine ecosystem management.

Each NERR has local issues of concern that fall within one of the topics above. Applicants are responsible for contacting the NERR site of interest to determine if their proposed projects would be relevant to the Reserve's site-specific research needs.

Applicants for ERD research fellowships must follow the guidelines presented in this announcement. Applications not adhering to these guidelines may be returned to the applicant without further review.

Applications for graduate fellowships in the NERRS are solicited annually for award the following fiscal year. Minority students are encouraged to apply. Application due dates and other pertinent information are contained in this announcement of research opportunities. Applicants must submit an original and two (2) copies of each application and all supporting documents (curricula vitae, literature referenced, unofficial transcripts, etc.), excluding letters of reference which must come directly from their source.

Applicants may request funding for up to three years; funding for years two and three will be made available based on availability of funds and satisfactory progress of research as determined by the Host NERR Research Staff and the student's faculty advisor, in consultation with ERD. The amount of the award is $15,000/annum plus 10% overhead for a total of $16,500/annum which represents 70% of the award total. Requested Federal funds must be matched by at least 30 percent of the award total ( i.e. $7,072 match for $16,500 in Federal funds for a total project cost of $23,572).

Applicants who are selected for funding will be required to:

(1) Work with the Research Coordinator or Reserve Manager to develop a plan to participate in the research or monitoring program for up to 15 hours per week; (2) submit semi-annual progress reports to ERD and the host Reserve before the end of each funding cycle on the research accomplishments to date; and (3) acknowledge NERRS support in all relevant scientific presentations and publications. In addition, fellows are strongly encouraged to publish their results in peer-reviewed literature and make presentations at scientific meetings.

Students admitted to or enrolled in a full-time Master's or Doctoral program at U.S. accredited universities are eligible to apply. Students should have completed a majority of their course work at the beginning of their fellowship and have an approved thesis research program.

Applicants are required to submit:

(1) an academic resume or a curriculum vitae that includes all graduate and undergraduate institutions (department or area of study, degree, and year of graduation), all publications (including undergraduate and graduate theses), awards or fellowships, and work/research experience;

(2) a cover letter from the applicant indicating current academic status, research interests, career goals, and how the proposed research fits into their degree program, and the results of discussions with host NERR staff regarding their contributions to the Reserve's research or monitoring program;

(3) a titled research proposal (double-spaced in a font no smaller than 12-point courier) that includes an Abstract, Introduction, Methods and Materials, Project Significance, and Bibliography;

(4) a proposed budget (see Section B, Proposal Content, below for specific guidelines);

(5) an unofficial copy of all undergraduate and graduate transcripts;

(6) a signed letter of support from the applicant's graduate advisor indicating the advisor's contribution (financial and otherwise) to the applicant's graduate studies, and an assurance that the student is in good academic standing; and

(7) two letters of recommendations (from other than the applicant's graduate advisor) sent directly from their source.

One original and two (2) copies of the information requested above, excluding letters of reference and transcripts, must be submitted to the ERD Program Specialist at the address in the Addresses section, postmarked no later than November 1, 2000. Applications postmarked November 2, 2000 or later, will be returned without review. Receipt of all applications will be acknowledged and a copy sent to the appropriate Reserve staff.

The research proposal should contain the sections described below.

1. Title Page. The title page must include:

• name, address, telephone number, fax number, and email address of applicant;

• project title;

• amount of funding requested;

• name of graduate institution;

• name of institution providing matching funds and amount of matching funds;

• name, address, telephone number, fax number & email address of faculty advisor;

• NERR site where research is to be conducted; and

• number of years of requested support.

If it is a multi-site project, the title page must indicate which Reserve will be the primary contact (“host Reserve”).

2. Abstract. The abstract should state the research objectives, scientific methods to be used, and the significance of the project to a particular Reserve and the NERRS program. The abstract must be limited to one double-spaced page.

3. Project Description. The project description must be limited to 6 double-spaced pages excluding figures. The main body of the proposal should be a detailed statement of the work to be undertaken and include the following components:

(a) Introduction. This section should introduce the research setting and environment. It should include a brief review of pertinent literature and describe the research problem in relation to relevant coastal management issues and the research priorities. This section should also present the primary hypothesis upon which the project is focused, as well as any additional or component hypotheses which will be addressed by the research project.

(b) Methods. This section should state the method(s) to be used to accomplish the specific research objectives, including a systematic discussion of what, when, where, and how the data are to be collected, analyzed, and reported. Field and laboratory methods should be scientifically valid and reliable and accompanied by a statistically sound sampling scheme. Methods chosen should be justified and compared with other methods employed for similar work.

Techniques should allow the testing of the hypotheses, but also provide baseline data related to ecological and management questions concerning the Reserve environment. Methods should be described concisely and techniques should be reliable enough to allow comparison with those made at different sites and times by different investigators. The methods must have proven their utility and sensitivity as indicators for natural or human-induced change.

Analytical methods and statistical tests applied to the data should be documented, thus providing a rationale for choosing one set of methods over alternatives. Quality control measures also should be documented ( e.g., statistical confidence levels, standards of reference, performance requirements, internal evaluation criteria). The proposal should indicate by way of discussion how data are to be synthesized, interpreted and integrated into final work products.

A map clearly showing the study location and any other features of interest must be included; a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, or an equivalent, is suggested for this purpose. Consultation with Reserve personnel to identify existing maps is strongly recommended.

(c) Project Significance. This section should provide a clear discussion of how the proposed research addresses state and national estuarine and coastal resource management issues and how the proposed research effort will enhance or contribute to improving the state of knowledge of the estuary; i.e., why is the proposed research important and how will the results contribute to coastal resource management? This section must also discuss the relation of the proposed research to the research priorities stated in Section IV. Applicability of research findings to other NERRS and coastal areas should also be mentioned. In addition, if the proposed research is part of a larger research project, the relationship between the two should be described.

4. Milestone Schedule. A milestone schedule is required. This schedule should show, in table form, anticipated dates for completing field work and data collection, data analysis, progress reports, the final technical report and other related activities. Use “Month 1, Month 2,” rather than June, July, etc., in preparing these charts.

5. Personnel and Project Management. The proposal must include a description of how the project will be managed, including the name and expertise of faculty advisors and other team members. Evidence of ability to successfully complete the proposed research should be supported by reference to similar efforts performed.

6. Literature Cited. This section should provide complete references for current literature, research, and other appropriate published and unpublished documents cited in the text of the proposal.

7. Budget. The amount of Federal funds requested must be matched by the applicant by at least 30% of the total project cost ( i.e., $7,072 match for $16,500 in Federal funds for a total project cost of $23,572). Cash or the value of goods and services (except land) directly benefitting the research project may be used to satisfy the matching requirements. Overhead costs for these awards are limited to $1,500 of the Federal share ( i.e., $15,000 for project and $1,500 for overhead) and waived overhead costs may also be used as match. Funds from other Federal agencies and NERRS staff salaries supported by Federal funds may not be used as match. Requirements for the non-Federal share are contained in 15 CFR Part 14, Uniform administrative requirements for grants and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit and commercial organizations. ERD strongly suggests that the applicant work with their institution's research office to develop their budget (see section D, below).

The applicant may request funds under any of the categories listed below as long as the costs are reasonable and necessary to perform research. The budget should contain itemized costs with appropriate narratives justifying proposed expenditures. Budget categories are to be broken down as follows, clearly showing both Federal and non-Federal shares side by side:

The justification must discuss each of these points along with the purpose of the equipment and a justification for its use, and include a list of equipment to be purchased, leased, or rented by model number and manufacturer, where known. At the termination of the fellowship, disposition of equipment will be determined by the NOAA Property Administrator.

• Materials and Supplies. The budget should indicate in general terms the types of expendable materials and supplies required and their estimated costs;

• Research Vessel or Aircraft Rental. Include purpose, unit cost, duration of use, user, and justification;

• Laboratory Space Rental. Funds may be requested for use of laboratory space at research establishments away from the student's institution while conducting studies specifically related to the proposed effort;

• Telecommunication Services and Reproduction Costs. Include expenses associated with telephone calls, facsimile, copying, reprint charges, film duplication, etc.;

• Computer Services. The cost of unusual or costly computer services may be requested and must be justified.

8:30 a.m— Convene.

8:45 a.m.- 12:00 noon— Receive public testimony on a proposed Dolphin/Wahoo Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Persons who will testify must turn in a registration card before the start of the testimony period on Wednesday.

1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. —Receive the report of the Mackerel Management Committee.

3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. —Receive a report of the Reef Fish Management Committee.

4:00 p.m.- 4:30 p.m. —Receive a report of the Shrimp Management Committee.

4:30 p.m.- 4:45 p.m. —Receive a report of the Stone Crab Management Committee.

4:45 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. —Receive a report of the Red Drum Management Committee.

5:00 p.m..- 5:15 p.m. —Receive a report of the Joint Reef Fish and Mackerel Management Committees.

5:15 p.m.- 5:30 p.m. —Receive a report of the Budget Committee.

8:30 a.m.- 10:30 a.m. —Receive a report of the Administrative Policy Committee.

10:30 a.m.- 10:45 a.m. —Receive a report of the Migratory Species Management Committee.

10:45 a.m.- 11:00 a.m. —Receive a report of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Advisory Committee Meeting.

11:00 a.m.- 11:15 a.m. —Receive enforcement reports.

11:15 a.m.- 11:30 a.m. —Receive the NMFS Regional Administrator's Report.

11:30 a.m.- 11:45 a.m. —Receive Director's Reports.

11:45 a.m- 4:30 p.m. — Other Business.

12:00 noon —Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman.

9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon — Convene the Administrative Policy Committee to discuss amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and will develop recommendations for comments to be heard by full Council on Thursday morning.

1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. — Convene the Budget Committee to review the CY 2001 budget.

2:00 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. — Convene the Mackerel Management Committee to discuss the proposed Dolphin/Wahoo FMP and develop recommendations for final action by the full Council on Wednesday afternoon. The Dolphin/Wahoo FMP has been prepared by the South Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. The first 10 actions, with options, of the Dolphin/Wahoo FMP contain measures that are applicable to the dolphin and wahoo stocks in the jurisdictions of all 3 councils. These include measures to: define the management units; address dealer, vessel, and operator permits; consider data reporting requirements; identify estimates of maximum sustainable yield, optimum yield, and overfishing/overfished criteria; and, framework options to enable seasonal adjustments to the management structure. Other actions, with options, are separately applicable to each council's area of jurisdiction, and include actions that may be implemented through the framework procedures, e.g. minimum size limits, bag limits, trip limits, and allocations, among others.

5:00 p.m.- 5:30 p.m. —Convene the Migratory Species Management Committee to discuss proposed management actions for billfish.

8:30 a.m- 11:30 a.m. — Convene the Reef Fish Management Committee to receive a report on a juvenile red snapper study, the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel's recommendations on grouper complex rebuilding scenarios, and to discuss requiring vessel monitoring systems (VMS) in Reef Fish Amendment 18.

12:30 p.m- 2:00 p.m. — Convene the Shrimp Management Committee to discuss Draft Shrimp Amendment 11 and approve it for public hearings. The draft amendment has alternatives, that if adopted, would require shrimp vessels to have permits or be registered, and operators to have permits.

2:00 p.m- 3:30 p.m. — Convene the Joint Reef Fish and Mackerel Management Committees to approve a Draft Amendment for Charter Vessel Permit Moratorium for public hearings. The draft amendment proposes to put a moratorium on the issuance of additional permits for charter vessels to fish for reef fish or coastal migratory pelagics in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The amendment will make the charter vessel permits transferable.

The committee will review safety and enforcement issues associated with an experimental fishery to allow vessels to seek safe harbor in Gloucester, MA, but not unload if they exceed the Northeast Multi-species Fishery Management Plan haddock trip limit.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 19, continuing through September 20. The Plan Team will prepare the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands king and Tanner crab stocks and review a proposal by the Alaska Marine Conservation Council regarding habitat and bycatch management measures.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Helen Allen, 907-271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

The primary purpose of the work session is to continue development of the draft fishery management plan (FMP) for highly migratory species (HMS). Specific agenda topics include: review of FMP development to date; progress reports and presentations (stock assessments, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and MSY proxy determination, shared stocks); Council guidance to the HMSPDT; bycatch; management data issues, current international and state regulations; analysis of pelagic longlines; and new work assignments.

Management measures that may be adopted in the FMP for HMS fisheries off the West Coast include permit and reporting requirements for commercial and recreational harvest of HMS resources, time and/or area closures to minimize gear conflicts or bycatch, adoption or confirmation of state regulations for HMS fisheries, and allocations of some species to noncommercial use. The FMP is likely to include a framework management process to add future new measures, including the potential for collaborative management efforts with other regional fishery management councils with interest in HMS resources. It would also include essential fish habitat and habitat areas of particular concern, including fishing and nonfishing threats, as well as other components of FMPs required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

The proposed FMP and its associated regulatory analyses would be the Council’s fourth FMP for the exclusive economic zone off the West Coast. Development of the FMP is timely, considering the new mandates under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, efforts by the United Nations to promote conservation and management of HMS resources through domestic and international programs, and the increased scope of activity of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in HMS fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the HMSPDT meeting agenda may come before the HMSPDT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal HMSPDT action during these meetings. HMSPDT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the HMSPDT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

The applicant requests authority to take harbor seals, spotted seals, ringed seals, bearded seals and ribbon seals in Alaska. The applicant proposes to capture, sample and tag a total of 1,000 harbor seals, 500 spotted seals, 250 ringed seals, 250 bearded seals and 250 ribbon seals over a 5-year period throughout Alaska. Additionally, harbor seals may be incidentally harassed during scat collection and aerial surveys. Export of biological samples worldwide and collection of biological samples from subsistence harvested animals is also proposed.

The membership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:

The invention provides a method for replicating virus to higher titer in cultured mammalian cells by infecting the mammalian cells with the high titer virus strain to obtain infected cells. Specifically, attenuated dengue virus strains of serotype 1,2,3, and 4. The resulting replicated virus is suitable for use in vaccines and vaccination methods which are also provided by the invention.

The invention relates to vaccines for bacterial toxins from Bacillus anthracis. The invention relates to a method and composition for use in inducing an immune response which is protective against infection with anthrax.

The invention provides vaccine compositions of attenuated Dengue-1 virus. More specifically, the attenuated virus is produced by serial passage in PDK cells. The invention also provides methods for stimulating the immune system of an individual to induce protection against dengue-1 virus by administration of attenuated dengue-1 virus.

The invention provides vaccine compositions of attenuated dengue-2 virus. More specifically, the attenuated virus is produced by serial passage in PDK cells. The invention also provides methods for stimulating the immune system of an individual to induce protection against dengue-2 virus by administration of attenuated dengue-2 virus.

The invention provides vaccine compositions of attenuated dengue-3 virus. More specifically, the attenuated virus is produced by serial passage in PDK cells. The invention also provides methods for stimulating the immune system of an individual to induce protection against dengue-3 virus by administration of attenuated dengue-3 virus.

The invention provides vaccine compositions of attenuated dengue-4 virus. More specifically, the attenuated virus is produced by serial passage in PDK cells. The invention also provides methods for stimulating the immune system of an individual to induce protection against dengue-4 virus by administration of attenuated dengue-4 virus.

The invention provides vaccine compositions of attenuated dengue virus. More specifically, the attenuated virus is produced by serial passage in PDK cells. The invention also provides methods for stimulating the immune system of an individual to induce protection against all four dengue virus serotypes by administration of attenuated dengue-1, dengue-2, dengue-3 and dengue-4 virus.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: Annual Performance Report for the Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math/Science, and Veterans Upward Bound Programs (JS).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary), State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 900; Burden Hours: 9000.

Abstract: Upward Bound grantees must submit the report annually. The reports are used to evaluate the performance of grantees prior to awarding continuation funds and to assess a grantee's prior experience at the end of each budget period. The Department will also aggregate the data to provide descriptive information on the programs and to analyze the impact of the program on the academic progress of participating students.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346.

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to SCHUBART at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: Mapping Federal Funding to High Schools (SC).

Frequency: Other: One time.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 732.

 Burden Hours: 3499.

Abstract: The Mapping Federal Funding to High Schools study will attempt to (1) ascertain the percentage of federal funds channeled to high schools; (2) identify specific high schools receiving federal funds; and (3) assess the utilization of the funds by high schools.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: The Blue Ribbon Schools Program (KA).

Frequency: Other: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary)

State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 515.

  Burden Hours: 25750.

Abstract: The Blue Ribbon Schools award is a national school improvement strategy with a threefold purpose: (1) to identify and give public recognition to outstanding public and private schools across the nation; (2) to make available a comprehensive framework of key criteria for school effectiveness that can serve as a basis for participatory self-assessment and planning in schools; and (3) to facilitate communication and sharing of best practices within and among schools based on a common understanding of criteria related to success. The information collected will be used to determine by peer review which schools receive the award and information on their exemplary practices and policies will be made available to other schools.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at (703) 426-9692. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under Section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the Committee has been charged with providing technical expertise with regard to systems of need analysis and application forms, making recommendations that result in the maintenance of access to postsecondary education for low- and middle-income students; conducting a study of institutional lending in the Stafford Student Loan Program; assisting with activities related to the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965; conducting a third-year evaluation of the Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP) and the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1993; and assisting Congress with the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

The congressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The Committee traditionally approaches its work from a set of fundamental goals: promoting program integrity, eliminating or avoiding program complexity, integrating delivery across the Title IV programs, and minimizing burden on students and institutions.

Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act has provided the Advisory Committee with a significantly expanded agenda in six major areas, such as, Performance-based Organization (PBO); Modernization; Technology; Simplification of Law and Regulation; Distance Education; and Early Information and Needs Assessment. In each of these areas, Congress has asked the Committee to: monitor progress toward implementing the Amendments of 1998; conduct independent, objective assessments; and make recommendations for improvement to the Congress and the Secretary. Each of these responsibilities flow logically from and effectively implements one or more of the Committee's original statutory functions and purposes.

The proposed agenda includes: (a) Discussion sessions on implementing the provisions of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and their impact on all Title IV programs, in particular, examining the condition of access for low- and middle-income students in the areas of federal, state and institutional early intervention programs, remediation and academic support services, and (b) the Committee's plans for fiscal year 2001. In addition, other Committee business will be addressed. Space is limited and you are encouraged to register early if you plan to attend. You may register through Internet at ADV_COMSFA@ED.gov or Tracy_Deanna_Jones@ED.gov. Please include your name, title, affiliation, complete address (including Internet and e-mail—if available), and telephone and fax numbers. If you are unable to register electronically, you may mail or fax your registration information to the Advisory Committee staff office at (202) 401-3467. Also you may contact the Advisory Committee staff at (202) 708-7439. The registration deadline is Friday, September 15, 2000.

The Advisory Committee will meet in Burlington, Vermont on Monday, September 25, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 6:00 p.m., and on Tuesday, September 26, from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be closed to the public on September 25, from approximately 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to discuss personnel matters. The ensuing discussions will relate to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and will disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemptions (2) and (6) of Section 552(b)(c) of Title 5 U.S.C. A summary of the activities at the closed session and related matters which are informative to the public consistent with the policy of Title 5 U.S.C. 552(b) will be available to the public within fourteen days after the meeting.

Records are kept of all Committee proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., weekdays, except Federal holidays.

The solicitation will be available on the internet on or about August 23, 2000 at the following web site: http://www.doeal.gov/cpd/default.htm. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the solicitation. For profit and not-for-profit organizations, state and local governments, Indian tribes, and institutions of higher learning are eligible for awards under this solicitation. Collaboration between industry, industry organizations, and universities are encouraged.

The Outstanding Junior Investigator program was started in 1978 by the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Research. A principal goal of this program is to identify exceptionally talented new high energy physicists early in their careers and assist and facilitate the development of their research programs. Eligibility for awards under this notice is therefore restricted to non-tenured investigators who are conducting experimental or theoretical high energy physics or accelerator physics research. Since its debut, the program has initiated support for between five and ten new Outstanding Junior Investigators each year. The program has been very successful and contributes importantly to the vigor of the U.S. High Energy Physics program. Applicants should request support under this notice for normal research project costs as required to conduct their proposed research activities. The full range of activities currently supported by the Division of High Energy Physics is eligible for support under this program.

The DOE expects to make five to ten grant awards in fiscal year 2001 to meet the objectives of this program. It is anticipated that approximately $400,000 will be available in fiscal year 2001, subject to availability of appropriated funds. In the past, awards have averaged $50,000 per year, with the number of awards determined by the number of excellent applications and the total funds available for this program. Multiple year funding of grant awards is expected, including renewal beyond the initial project period, as long as the recipient's tenure status is unchanged. Funding will be provided on an annual basis subject to availability of funds.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance as set forth in 10 CFR Part 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project;

2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach;

3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources; and

4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget.

General information about development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluations and selection processes, and other policies and procedures are contained in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program and 10 CFR Part 605. Electronic access to the application guide and required forms is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html

BPA proposes to construct 7 kilometers (4.5 miles) of new 115-kV transmission line in unincorporated King County and in the City of North Bend, Washington. As a connected action, Tanner would construct a 115/12.5-kV substation in the City of North Bend, Washington, which would receive power from BPA's proposed transmission line. BPA is responding to the need to supply reliable electricity to meet current and future loads of its full requirements customer, Tanner.

Local government planning agencies, as well as individual citizens, are strongly interested in the project. Concerns have primarily focused on the visual impacts that would be related to clearing of trees and other vegetation. Specific areas of concern include locations along SE 356th Avenue, adjacent to the Snoqualmie Ridge Business Park, within the I-90 right-of-way (a National Scenic Byway), and along North Bend Way. These concerns led to consideration of a number of different route segments during development of alternatives and to modification of line locations throughout the planning phase.

Two major alternative plans were identified and are addressed in the EA (Chapter 2). Briefly, they are as follows:

• Proposed Action: BPA would construct a new 7-kilometer (4.5-mile), 115-kV single-circuit electric power transmission line in unincorporated King County and in the City of North Bend, Washington, to be energized in the fall of 2001. As a connected action, Tanner would construct a 115-kV/12.5-kV substation in North Bend, Washington, which would be supplied by the new line. The new line would tap Puget Sound Energy's (Puget's) Snoqualmie-Lake Tradition No. 1 transmission line and would be supported on a combination of single wood pole structures and H-frame wood pole structures that could accommodate a Puget distribution line, if necessary.

• No Action Alternative: BPA would not construct the new transmission line. It is likely, however, that another entity, probably Puget, would do so, because the need to supply growing electrical loads in the area would still exist. If another entity were to build the line, the impacts of the No Action Alternative might be similar to the proposal in nature and intensity. However, if no facilities were constructed, impacts would be limited to the socioeconomic effects of not supplying electricity demands, including deteriorating service to electricity customers.

In addition, eight route variations and a proposal to place a portion of the line underground were considered and eliminated for a variety of reasons, including costs and/or environmental impacts that were higher than the proposed action. Table 2 in the EA summarizes the impacts of the proposed action.

BPA has determined, based on the context and intensity of these impacts, that with mitigation, they are not significant, using the definition of this concept in Section 1508.27 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. This determination is based on the following discussion of each point listed in Section 1508.27:

1. The project would benefit electrical customers in the area by meeting the short-term needs of Tanner and the long-term needs of both Tanner and Puget. The project would also benefit the environment by providing one set of facilities (one transmission line, one substation, and one distribution line) that meet the customer service needs of three utilities in the area, an example of one-utility planning. In doing so, the views from some residences and roads will change noticeably, but the effects would be mitigated below the level of significance.

2. Implementation of the proposed action would not affect the health and safety of the people of the North Bend/Snoqualmie area. As documented in Sections 3.11, 4.5.2, and 4.5.3 of the EA, the transmission line and substation would be constructed in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code and state and local safety requirements. Section 3.11 demonstrates that the project would not significantly increase exposure or health risk from electric or magnetic fields.

3. The proposed transmission line and substation would cross or be in environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands and a National Scenic Byway. Specifically:

a. The new transmission line would parallel I-90, designated a National Scenic Byway, for 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) (EA, Section 3.8.2). The line would create low to moderate impacts to those travelling on I-90, depending on viewer sensitivities. The line would not become the dominant view to either eastbound or westbound motorists: the dominant views in both directions are of mountains and foothills. The following factors also would limit visual impacts to I-90 motorists:

• the line's relatively small size (115-kV);

• the line's limited length within the highway right-of-way (1 kilometer [0.6 mile]);

• the use of natural materials (wood poles) in a single-pole design;

• the relative speed of viewers (60-70 miles per hour);

• the curvilinear shape of the freeway in this area;

• the vegetative buffer between the line and the highway; and

• the planting of trees and other vegetation to screen the right-of-way from public view.

Therefore, the impacts to the National Scenic Byway would not be significant.

b. The new transmission line would cross a number of small wetlands and one large one (EA, Section 3.6.2). Until project design is finalized, the exact locations of transmission structures and access roads are unknown. However, most wetlands crossed are narrow and will be spanned where practical. Impacts would be related primarily to removal of tall trees from wetlands and associated buffers. Any vegetation that would need to be removed would be left in the sensitive area as wildlife habitat. Should any access roads be constructed in wetlands, BPA would acquire the necessary permits through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Best management practices would be used to prevent erosion and runoff and to avoid adversely affecting the wetlands and their resources.

The proposed alignment bisects the large palustrine scrub-shrub and forested wetland associated with Kimball Creek for about 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile). However, the line would be located on existing fill within the North Bend Way right-of-way, which already bisects the wetland, and no structures would be placed in the wetland. Impact would be limited to removal of a few tall trees from the wetland to maintain line safety and reliability. Because existing access is in place, no new roads would be constructed in the wetland. Therefore, impacts to this wetland would result in no net loss of wetlands and would not be significant.

The actions proposed would not affect other unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as wild and scenic rivers, prime farmland, or park lands, as there are none present in the immediate project vicinity. Although there is a cultural resource within the project area, the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railway (owned and operated by the Snoqualmie Valley Railroad), the proposed action would not compromise its present use for tourism nor adversely affect the railroad as a potential National Register-eligible cultural resource.

4. There are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposal that may affect the significance of the environmental effects of the proposal. Although interest in the proposed project has been high from its inception, BPA has addressed all of the comments received during the 30-day review period of the Preliminary EA, and has made revisions to the document where necessary. Included in the comments received were comments from King County and the cities of North Bend and Snoqualmie; however, no comments were received from the State of Washington. During the 30-day comment period on the Preliminary EA, BPA held an open house in the City of North Bend. The BPA project team and representatives of Tanner Electric and Puget Power attended to address any concerns, provide information, and to take input that would be addressed in the Final EA. Nine people attended the open house.

5. The impacts of the proposed action are not significant due to the degree of highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks. BPA has been constructing transmission lines since the 1930s. The project design is not unique, so it would not create unique risks. The impacts of the new line and corridor can be predicted with a high degree of certainty. While recommending continued research into the health effects of magnetic fields, prominent scientific authorities, including the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, have concluded that: “The data at different biological complexities taken in total do not provide convincing evidence that electric and magnetic fields [EMF] experienced in residential environments are carcinogenic” and that while EMF exposure “cannot be recognized as entirely safe,” the evidence for risk to cancer and other diseases was “weak” and the probability that EMF exposure is a health hazard is “small” and “* * * insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concerns.” In any event, the project either would not increase electromagnetic fields for some segments, or would not increase exposures because no residences or other occupied buildings would be close enough to experience the increased levels (EA, Section 3.11.2).

6. The actions proposed are not related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts, nor would they establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The only future action that depends on this one is Puget's potential underbuild of a distribution line on the new poles proposed for this project. However, the EA included an assessment of the effects of that potential underbuild, including the visual effects and changes to electromagnetic fields. Therefore, BPA's determination of no significant impact includes the impacts of the potential future underbuild.

7. There are no sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at or near any facility location. Although the Snoqualmie Valley Railroad right-of-way may be eligible for listing due to its age, the proposed transmission line would not adversely affect the facility as a potential National Register-eligible cultural resource. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurs with this determination (EA, Section 3.10.2).

8. No federally listed threatened or endangered plants fall within any of the four townships within which the project is located (EA, Section 3.5.1) and no fish or wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act, or their critical habitats, are found within 3 kilometers (2 miles) of the project area, so none would be affected (EA, Section 3.7.1).

9. The actions proposed would not threaten to violate federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The following permit may be required and will be obtained, as needed: Clean Water Act Section 404 permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Final determinations regarding the need for permits will be made after project participants complete final design.

Floodplain Statement of Findings: This is a Floodplain Statement of Findings prepared in accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022. A Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2000, and impacts to floodplains and wetlands were assessed in the EA (Section 3.6). The proposed route crosses the 100-year floodplain adjacent to Kimball Creek, where it would be located on existing fill. Though no structures are proposed to be placed within the 100-year floodplain, if any were, they would be designed to withstand flooding, not impede expected flows, and prevent accumulation of flood debris. The project would not increase the chance of flooding or flood-related damage. Though several route variations were considered, lower-impact, reasonable-cost alternatives that would avoid the floodplain were not found.

Although the substation itself would be outside the 100-year floodplain, construction for footings would remove relatively porous soil below the 100-year flood elevation and replace it with less porous concrete footings and gravel. Because of the fill that would be placed below the flood elevation, Tanner is required to compensate for the resulting loss of water storage capacity on a one-for-one basis. To satisfy this requirement, Tanner will remove soil over an area approximately 46 meters (150 feet) by 44 meters (145 feet) by 26 centimeters (13 inches) deep, yielding a volume of soil totaling 667 cubic meters (873 cubic yards). The amount of material removed by the excavation would make up for the storage capacity lost by substation construction. The excavated soil will be placed outside of the floodplain to avoid additional impacts. Increases in run-off and streamflows due to project clearing and access road construction are expected to be minor. Overall, the proposed project would not adversely affect human life, property, or natural floodplain values.

The actions proposed would conform to applicable state and local floodplain protection standards. Although the proposed transmission line would cross the 100-year floodplain of Kimball Creek, the transmission line would be within the North Bend Way right-of-way, above the base flood elevation of the 100-year floodplain.

The steps to be taken to avoid or minimize potential harm to or within the affected floodplains include:

• In sensitive areas, disturbed land would be restored as closely as possible to pre-project contours and replanted with native and local species.

• Transmission poles will be placed to avoid impacts to wetlands and floodplains. Wetlands would be spanned where practical.

• Best management practices would be employed to control erosion and run-off and to avoid adversely affecting floodplains.

• Manual methods would be employed to remove trees or vegetation determined to be a hazard to transmission line safety and reliability.

• At the substation site, Tanner would remove soil from below the base flood elevation associated with Gardiner Creek. Tanner would deposit the excavated soil in uplands.

BPA will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after publication of this statement of findings before implementing the selected alternative.

Determination: Based on the information in the EA, as summarized here, BPA determines that the actions proposed, as described and analyzed, are not major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared, and BPA is issuing this FONSI.

Title: Quality Assurance Specification and Requirements, OMB Control Number 2060-0033, EPA ICR Number 0866.06, expiration date August 31, 2000. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This ICR covers the quality assurance (QA) paperwork burden that appears at 40 CFR 30.54, 40 CFR 31.45, and 40 CFR 35.260 and 35.6055. These are subsections from 40 CFR Part 30—Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, 40 CFR Part 31—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, and 40 CFR Part 35—State and Local Assistance. The information collection activity involves the development and implementation of quality assurance practices consisting of policies, procedures, specifications, standards, and documentation sufficient to produce data of quality adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions. Specifically, this refers to the preparation of QA management and project plans. The quality system of the recipient of 40 CFR Part 30 assistance must comply with the requirements of ANSI/ASQC E4, “Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs.” A clarifying statement for all organizations receiving EPA financial assistance under 40 CFR Part 31 and 40 CFR Part 35 has been issued by the Office of Grants and Debarment. This clarifying statement defines Agency-wide criteria for meeting the requirements under the applicable CFRs and is consistent with Agency policy since 1988. It cites the ANSI/ASQC E4 as a national consensus standard that applies to all recipients. All QA submissions are reviewed and approved by an EPA certified project officer and/or a designated quality assurance officer.

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 Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on March 21, 2000 (65 FR 15149); no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 85 hours per response. 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Non-profit organizations and State, local, or Tribal agencies applying for financial assistance for environmental data collection operations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1940.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 164,900.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 0866.06 and OMB Control No. 2080-0033 in any correspondence.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who make, distribute, or use racing and aviation gasoline. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical 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/pbt. To access this document, on the PBT Home Page select “Strategy and Action Plans.”

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-00672. 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 TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

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 OPPTS-00672 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 260-7093.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: “oppt.ncic@epa.gov,” or mail your computer disk to the address identified in this unit. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPPTS-00672. 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 technical person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

We invite you to provide your views on the various options we propose, new approaches we have not considered, the potential impacts of the various options (including possible unintended consequences), and any data or information that you would like the Agency to consider during the development of the final action. You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 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.

On November 16, 1998, EPA released its Agency-wide Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants (PBT Strategy). The goal of the PBT Strategy is to identify and reduce risks to human health and the environment from current and future exposure to priority PBT pollutants. This document serves as the Draft National Action Plan for Alkyl-Lead, one of the 12 Level 1 priority PBT pollutants identified for the initial focus of action in the PBT Strategy.

Alkyl-lead compounds are man-made compounds in which a carbon atom of one or more organic molecules is bound to a lead atom. Tetraethyllead (TML) and TML compounds are the most common alkyl-lead compounds that have been used in the past and are still in use today in the United States. These two alkyl-lead compounds are the focus of this National Action Plan. Alkyl-lead is used as a fuel additive to reduce “knock” in combustion engines and also to help lubricate internal engine components and protect intake and exhaust valves against recession. Currently, the largest uses of alkyl-lead are in aviation gasoline for general aviation (piston-engine) aircraft, and racing gasoline. Neither of these uses are subject to any of the regulations that restrict leaded motor gasoline use.

In the body, alkyl-lead compounds are distributed through the blood to “soft tissues” particularly the liver, kidneys, muscles, and brain. Initial symptoms of alkyl-lead poisoning include, among others: anorexia, insomnia, tremor, weakness, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, mood shifts such as aggression or depression, and impairment of memory. In the case of acute alkyl-lead poisoning, possible health effects include mania, convulsions, delirium, fever, coma, and in some cases even death. Lead poisoning due to the ingestion or inhalation of inorganic lead compounds emitted as exhaust through the combustion process (as a direct result of the use of alkyl-lead in gasoline) is a widely recognized public health problem.

EPA is requesting public comment on a strategy to address the remaining risks to human health and the environment from exposure to alkyl-lead: (1) Contribute to international efforts to reduce the use of alkyl-lead world-wide; (2) pursue voluntary initiatives to reduce the use of alkyl-lead in aircraft gasoline, race cars, and non-road vehicles such as farm machinery, marine vessels, construction equipment, and recreational vehicles; and (3) collect information as possible, given resource constraints, related to production, use, emissions, and continued exposure scenarios.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are involved in commercial or industrial process that combine carbon and chlorine at high temperatures. These processes could include magnesium production, commercial production of chlorinated solvents, aluminum plasma etching (used in producing microelectronic components), aluminum degassing with hexachloroethane, chlorination of titanium and niobium/tantalum ores, waste incineration, and chlor-alkali production with graphite anodes. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical 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/pbt. To access this document, on the PBT Home Page select “Strategy and Action Plans.”

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-00671. 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 TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

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 OPPTS-00671 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Document Control Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 260-7093.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: “oppt.ncic@epa.gov,” or mail your computer disk to the address identified in this unit. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPPTS-00671. 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 technical person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

We invite you to provide your views on the various options we propose, new approaches we have not considered, the potential impacts of the various options (including possible unintended consequences), and any data or information that you would like the Agency to consider during the development of the final action. You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 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.

On November 16, 1998, EPA released its Agency-wide Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants (PBT Strategy). The goal of the PBT Strategy is to identify and reduce risks to human health and the environment from current and future exposure to priority PBT pollutants. This document serves as the Draft National Action Plan for Octachlorostyrene, one of the 12 Level 1 priority PBT pollutants identified for the initial focus of action in the PBT Strategy.

Octachlorostyrene (CAS Registry number 29082-74-4) is a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic halogenated aromatic compound with no known commercial uses and is not commercially manufactured. It has been reported as an inadvertent by-product of processes involving chlorine production, chlorination reactions, nonferrous metal production/finishing operations, and high temperature etching in semiconductor production. Landfill leachates from industrial wastes generated by these processes are contaminated with OCS. It may also result from various incineration and combustion processes.

The impact of OCS on the ecosystem is still largely unknown and data on the presence of OCS in the environment are limited. It is bioaccumulative and persistent in the environment. In the food chain, it has been found at increasingly higher concentration levels in higher order fish and shellfish. The feeding habits of aquatic species have been shown to be an important influence on OCS levels in fish, with significant biomagnification in higher order species. Potential human exposure pathways for OCS are through ingestion (especially of contaminated fish), inhalation, and absorption through the skin. Occupational exposure has been shown to result in elevated levels of OCS in the blood of workers at industrial facilities that produce OCS as a by-product. The human toxicological properties of OCS are not well known but it has been shown to cause adverse liver, thyroid, kidney and hematological effects in experimental animals. OCS is also a suspected hormone disruptor, mimicking human hormones and possibly affecting the endocrine system of humans and animals.

EPA is requesting public comment on this draft National Action Plan to address the risks to human health and the environment from exposure to octachlorostyrene: (1) By conducting monitoring through a National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish survey, sediment sampling in geographic areas with high concentrations, and by adding OCS to the list of chemicals to establish an air monitoring network; (2) to continue efforts toward source characterization and voluntary initiatives to reduce OCS releases; and (3) focus research to characterize the relationship between OCS and other chlorinated compounds such as hexachlorobenzene and dioxins/furans.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of particular interest to those persons who manufacture or formulate pesticides. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. You can also go directly to the listings from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” 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. Fax-on -demand . You may request a faxed copy of the guidance, as well as supporting information, by using a faxphone to call (202) 401-0527. Select item 6067 for the document titled “Protocol for Testing the Efficacy of Disinfectants Used to Inactivate Hepatitis B Virus and Corresponding Label Claims.” Select item 6068 for the document titled “Responses to Public Comments on Protocols for Testing the Efficacy of Disinfectants Used to Inactivate Hepatitis B Virus.” You may also follow the automated menu.

3. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00673. 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 Highway, 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.

EPA has authority through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to register pesticide products, including antimicrobial pesticide products, for sale and distribution in the United States. FIFRA section 3(c)(5) requires that the composition of a pesticide product is such as to warrant the claims made for it, i.e., that a product work as claimed. Although registrants must maintain data demonstrating efficacy in their files and must submit these data to the Agency upon request, EPA does not routinely review efficacy data prior to registration of most insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and non-public health antimicrobial pesticides. However, for public health pesticide products (i.e., those that work against pests in situations where they pose public health threats) the Agency reviews efficacy data prior to registration. The Agency believes that the potential consequences of performance failure for public health products warrant this extra precautionary step in the review process. Moreover, for public health products intended to control bacteria, fungi and viruses, the user is typically unable to determine whether the product is working, due simply to the microscopic size of these organisms. Subdivision G of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines describes the efficacy tests routinely used to validate the claims made by antimicrobial public health pesticide products. These guidelines are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847).

For the past several years, EPA has been engaged in a process to identify scientifically and statistically adequate test protocols for evaluating the efficacy of disinfectants used to inactivate human hepatitis B virus (HHBV). In May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19174), the Agency published a Notice of Amendment to Policy regarding certain virucidal claims. Specifically, the Notice stated that virucidal claims for HBV would be permissible only for sterilizer products until such time that acceptable protocols to demonstrate virus isolation and disinfectant product efficacy could be developed.

In 1990, the Agency received and approved a chimpanzee testing protocol to support HBV efficacy claims for hard, environmental surface disinfection products. While the data were being generated using the approved protocol, a General Accounting Office (GAO) Report was issued (August 1990) that criticized the Agency for accepting test methods without criteria or a systematic review process. In response to this criticism, the Agency initiated a process whereby new protocols would undergo external review by scientific experts. In 1995, as a result of this change in process, the chimpanzee protocol was subjected to external review by experts working in various scientific institutions, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and two university medical schools. The experts were asked to review the data generated using the EPA-approved protocol as well as similar data developed by Bond et al. 1983, at CDC. After careful review of all comments received, the Agency concluded that the chimpanzee data submitted by the applicant, when considered together with the data developed by Bond et al. 1983, were sufficient to support a label claim of disinfection against HBV.

During the 1995 external review process for the chimpanzee protocol, several experts urged the Agency to accept data developed using a surrogate virus, thus making available an alternative to chimpanzee testing. One expert stated that it would be unjustified to permit the use of any type of animal for germicidal testing and that such testing could be avoided though the use of properly designed in vitro methods. As a result of these concerns, the Agency began to seek alternative means of testing the product performance of disinfectant products intended for inactivation of HBV. One of the steps in this process was consultation with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in September 1997. At that meeting the questions posed to the Panel were as follows:

1. If the Agency decides to replace the chimpanzee test used in testing the efficacy of disinfectants against human hepatitis B-type virus, what test methodologies could be used as a replacement? Two possibilities that have been proposed to the Agency are the duck hepatitis B Virus Test (DHVT) and the Morphological Alteration and Disintegration Test (MADT). Could one or both of these tests be used to test for efficacy against HHVB?

2. If a surrogate test system (i.e., the DHVT) is found to be acceptable for efficacy testing using HVB, would the results be sufficient to allow the registrant to make a label claim that the product was efficacious against HHBV, even though it was tested against a surrogate virus (i.e., duck hepatitis B virus) and not the human virus?

Briefly, the SAP's responses to these questions were as follows. The Panel concurred with the notion that it is unethical to continue to require testing using a species of primates, chimpanzees, where alternative methods are available, and observed that there is a long history of using surrogate microbes to assess the efficacy of disinfection/sterilization technologies against various classes of microorganisms. The Panel stated that the duck hepatitis B virus (DHBV) constitutes an appropriate HHBV surrogate and added that an advantage to this surrogate is that the DHBV can be utilized in both in vivo and in vitro settings. In particular, the Panel stated that the DHBV approach would allow for sufficient numbers of test samples to be used for each set of experimental conditions so that statistically significant results can be obtained. The Panel discussed the possibility that DHBV may be more resistant to germicidal chemical activity but, in essence, felt that even if this were true it was not a serious issue, given that hepatitis B-type viruses have been demonstrated to be sensitive to the activity of a wide spectrum of liquid chemical germicides including low level disinfectants. While the panel did not discuss the MADT alternative at great length or exclude the possibility of its use, it did observe that the test is only subjective. The Panel stated its belief that registrants who use DHBV could make a label claim of product efficacy to either the specific virus or in the alternative to perhaps the whole virus family as a group. The example of claims against Mycobacterium tuberculosis by testing against Mycobacterium bovis was cited as precedent for the use of a surrogate in disinfectant efficacy testing. If tests validate that a surrogate virus is less or equally susceptible to inactivation by disinfectants, then logically any product which demonstrates efficacy against the surrogate virus should be allowed a label claim against HHBV.

The responses of the SAP to these questions provided invaluable guidance to the Agency in its pursuit of scientifically adequate test protocols for evaluating the efficacy of disinfectants used to inactivate HHBV. The Antimicrobials Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs sponsored a workshop in July 1998 to discuss alternative models for testing disinfectants against HHBV. The workshop was attended by representatives from academia, research centers, testing laboratories, and industry. Presentations were given by experts in hepatitis on various animal models of HBV infection followed by technical presentations on in vitro and in vivo duck models of infection that might be used in testing disinfectants for use against HHBV. Presentations were followed by a discussion on criteria to be used in decision making about surrogate model(s) and proposed labeling claims of registered products. Many participants in the workshop proposed that EPA leave the label claim broad, such as “effective against HBV” or “hepadnavirucidal” and not add information about the test organism. Submitted protocols were evaluated and discussed by all participants. At the end of the workshop an outline was presented, showing the Agency's implementation plans for allowing products to be registered with HHBV label claims using surrogate animal models. Subsequently, the Agency published an FR Notice on December 30, 1998 (63 FR 71924) (FRL-6051-4) announcing the availability of and requesting comments on two protocols for testing the efficacy of disinfectants against HHBV. These protocols were for an in vitro assay using duck hepatocytes and DHBV and an in vivo assay using ducklings and DHBV.

The Agency received 12 sets of comments in response to that Notice. Comments were received from consultants, an animal rights organization, university scientists, the regulated industry, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and private organizations. These comments in their entirety are available in the public docket (OPP-00673). Many of the comments were similar in content, and pertained to general issues concerning Agency policy or specific sections within the protocols themselves. To facilitate review and consideration of the comments, the Agency has grouped comments addressing similar issues together.

After the Agency reviewed the comments, it reached three conclusions:

1. It is the Agency's position that duck HBV serves as an adequate surrogate for human HBV and that the in vitro assay is sufficiently sensitive to preclude the need for any in vivo testing. The Agency is adopting, where possible, policies and data requirements that minimize animal testing, and when animal testing must be conducted, EPA is committed to reducing the number of animals needed for testing, reducing the pain and suffering of the test animals, and whenever scientifically-defensible, replacing animals with validated non-animal test systems. Therefore, relying heavily on the recommendations of the SAP, the Agency expects to rely on the use of the in vitro duck protocol as the method for evaluating the efficacy of disinfectants used to inactivate HHBV. Notwithstanding its commitment to maximize the reduction or elimination of animal testing where feasible, the Agency recognizes that some testing may already have been initiated or completed using the duck in vivo methodology as of the date of this Notice. On a case-by-case basis, the Agency will generally accept these data, if deemed valid, to support a registration.

2. Label claims against either the Hepadnavirus family or, more specifically, HHBV will be permitted when supported by adequate efficacy claims as described below. In addition, the following label claim language will be deemed acceptable: “effective against HBV.” The Agency believes that these label claims can be supported by appropriate DHBV efficacy tests, since the surrogate DHBV has been shown to be a reliable predictor of resistence to chemical disinfection for the Hepadnavirus family as a whole.

3. To ensure that the in vitro duck method has been adequately validated, data should be provided from at least two independent laboratories for each product tested (two batches per product per laboratory). The validation of a protocol requires the use of a common positive control disinfectant to be tested concurrently with all new products. The recommended control is alkyldimethylammonium chloride (BTC-835, Onyx Chemical Co.) (AOAC Official Methods of Analysis, Chapter 6, p. 136, 15th Edition, 1990). This agent should serve as both an intra-laboratory and an inter-laboratory control and will be used for analyzing the reproducibility of the efficacy data results for that particular protocol. In order to obtain the necessary inter-laboratory data, all submissions must additionally be subjected to confirmatory testing, with the common positive control, at a second laboratory test facility. It is critical for the Agency to know that a test method is repeatable; i.e., that there is an appropriately small standard deviation of log reduction (LR) values found when the test is repeated on different occasions in the same laboratory as well as when the test is conducted in different laboratories. The use of the common positive control and the generation of confirmatory data in a second testing facility will achieve these goals. A more detailed document outlining the criteria for validation is available electronically under the section titled “Related Documents” section of the electronic version of this Notice (“Protocol for Testing the Efficacy of Disinfectants Used to Inactivate Hepatitis B Virus”). This document may also be requested by mail directly from the Agency (refer to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Notice).

The guidance discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and to pesticide applicants and registrants. This notice is not binding on EPA, applicants and registrants, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Registrants and applicants may propose altenatives to the protocols described in this notice and the Agency will assess them on a case-by-case basis.

The complete text of this Public Notice is available on the Commission's Internet site, at www.fcc.gov. Copies of the King County Request may be obtained from the CC Docket No. 94-102 and is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Public Reference Room, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments may be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov.

The fee schedule for sanitation inspections of passenger cruise ships currently inspected under the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) was first published in the Federal Register (52 FR 45019) on November 24, 1987, and CDC began collecting fees on March 1, 1988. Since then, CDC has published the fee schedule annually. This notice announces fees effective October 1, 2000.

The formula used to determine the fees is as follows:

The average cost per inspection is multiplied by a size/cost factor to determine the fee for vessels in each size category. The size/cost factor was established in the proposed fee schedule published in the Federal Register (52 FR 27060) on July 17, 1987, and revised in a schedule published in the Federal Register (54 FR 48942) on November 28, 1989. The revised size/cost factor is presented in Appendix A.

The fee schedule is presented in Appendix A and will be effective October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001. This fee schedule represents a 7% increase over the current fee schedule which became effective October 1, 1997. The increase is primarily due to substantial increases in the cost of air transportation and personnel. If travel expenses continue to increase, it may be necessary to readjust the fees before September 30, 2001, since travel constitutes a sizable portion of the program's costs. If such a readjustment in the fee schedule is necessary, a notice will be published in the Federal Register 30 days before the effective date.

The fees will be applicable to all passenger cruise vessels for which inspections are conducted as part of CDC's VSP.

Inspections and re-inspections involve the same procedure, require the same amount of time, and are, therefore, charged at the same rate.

On August 6, 1996, the President signed into law the SDWA Amendments (Public Law 104-182). Under the Public Notification section of the SDWA Amendments (section 114), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to issue regulations mandating that each community water system mail to each customer of the system an annual report, referred to as a consumer confidence report (CCR), on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system. A complete description of the information contained in a CCR can be found in section II.A of this document.

In the Federal Register of February 13, 1998 (63 FR 7606), EPA published a proposed rule to require local water systems to provide an annual CCR to their customers. Based on that proposal, EPA published a final rule on August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44511). Section 114(b) of the SDWA Amendments required that, no more than 18 months after the date of its enactment, FDA, in consultation with EPA, publish for notice and comment a draft study on the feasibility of appropriate methods, if any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled water. Section 114(b) of the SDWA Amendments also required us to publish a final study not later than 30 months after enactment of the SDWA Amendments.

In the Federal Register of November 12, 1997 (62 FR 60721) (hereinafter referred to as the 1997 notice), we published a notice requesting comment on several matters relevant to the feasibility of appropriate methods of informing customers of the contents of bottled water. In the Federal Register of February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8718), we published a draft feasibility study report (the draft study). In the draft study we evaluated the information received and identified appropriate methods that may be feasible for conveying information about bottled water to customers. In the draft study, we stated that comments received on the draft study would be evaluated and considered in preparation of the final report. Interested persons were given until April 24, 2000, to comment on the draft study. We received over 250 letters, each containing one or more comments, from government agencies, States, consumer groups, and members of the public in response to the draft study. We have evaluated those comments in preparing this final feasibility study report.

(Comment 1) Several comments maintained that Congress, because of the mandate to us to publish a study on the feasibility of appropriate methods, if any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled water, intended for us to engage in rulemaking on feasible methods, if found.

We disagree with these comments. The plain language in section 114(b) of the SDWA Amendments states that we “shall publish for public notice and comment a draft study” and “shall publish a final study * * *.” Thus, our charge under the SDWA Amendments is to publish a draft and final study on the feasibility of appropriate methods, if any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled water. There is no language in section 114(b) of the SDWA Amendments requiring us to issue regulations. On the contrary, Congress did clearly express its intent in other sections of the SDWA Amendments where it wanted regulations to be issued. For example, section 114(a) of the SDWA Amendments on consumer confidence reports, states that EPA “shall issue regulations * * *.” No such similar intent was expressed in the plain language of the statute, under section 114(b). Therefore, section 114(b) of the SDWA Amendments does not require us to issue regulations; section 114(b) requires us to publish a draft and final feasibility study. Moreover, the Conference Report on the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (H. Rept. 104-741, at 9701 (1996)) states, “The study is intended to provide information on the feasibility of informing customers concerning the contents of bottled water, and is not intended to prejudge the question of whether such information requirements are necessary.” The question about whether information requirements are necessary is outside the scope of this final feasibility study. We plan to consider, based on the findings in the final feasibility study, whether to engage in future rulemaking on information requirements on the contents of bottled water.

(Comment 2) A few comments stated that all of the information outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR should be placed on the label of bottled water because consumers have a right to know this information at point of purchase.

A discussion of an individual's right to know certain information on bottled water is beyond the scope of this study. The SDWA Amendments directed us to study the feasibility of appropriate methods, if any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled water, not whether an individual has a right to know information on the contents of bottled water. To the extent that these comments assert that it is an appropriate and feasible method to include all CCR-type information on the label of bottled water, we respond to such assertion in comment 8 of this document.

(Comment 3) Several comments requested that more information on contaminants and their health effects than what is contained in a CCR be placed on the labels of bottled water. Conversely, other comments maintained that it is not necessary to provide any of the CCR-type information on bottled water to customers; the comments further stated that bottled water companies already do provide this information voluntarily to customers who request it. In addition, several comments requested that fluoride and sodium content be provided on labels of bottled water. These comments indicated that fluoride information is important so that customers and health professionals can determine if an individual's fluoride intake is appropriate and information on sodium is important for individuals on a low sodium diet.

A discussion about whether it is necessary to provide, to customers, more information than what is contained in a CCR or more than what is currently required on the contents of bottled water is beyond the scope of this study. The SDWA Amendments directed us to study the feasibility of appropriate methods, if any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled water, not whether information is necessary. Please note that the sodium content of bottled water is already required to be declared on the label, consistent with 21 CFR 101.9(c)(4).

We stated in the draft study that we believe that much of the information contained in a CCR is applicable to bottled water (65 FR 8718 at 8721). We note that a CCR, as outlined by EPA, contains the following: (1) Information about the source of drinking water; (2) definitions of “maximum contaminant level” (MCL), “maximum contaminant level goal” (MCLG), “exemption” and “variance”; (3) the MCL, MCLG, and contaminant level detected in the water for regulated contaminants found in the water during the year and, for any contaminant detected that violates the MCL during the year, information on the health effects that led EPA to regulate that contaminant; (4) information on compliance with EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and notice if the system operates under a variance or an exemption and the basis on which the variance or exemption was granted; (5) information on the levels of unregulated contaminants for which monitoring by the system is required (including, for example, levels of Cryptosporidium and radon where States determine such levels may be found); and (6) a statement that the presence of contaminants in drinking water does not necessarily indicate that the drinking water poses a health risk, and that more information about contaminants and potential health risks can be obtained by calling the EPA hotline.

In the draft study, we stated that, while much of the information contained in a CCR is applicable to bottled water, we recognize that certain information contained in a CCR is relevant only to public drinking water systems. Such information includes the definition and statement of MCLG's and MCL's and information on public drinking water systems operating under a variance and other information that is relevant only to public drinking water systems regulated by EPA, such as information on EPA's drinking water hotline.

In the draft study, we noted that our intent in the 1997 notice was to solicit information that was analogous to that outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR (see above). Although we recognize that the SDWA Amendments provide for States to develop alternative requirements with respect to the form and content of a CCR, it was not our intent to solicit a broad range of information but rather to limit the discussion to information that is analogous to that outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR.

(Comment 4) Several comments stated that contaminants should be discussed in terms of MCLG's rather than allowable levels for contaminants in bottled water. These comments maintained that MCLG's are health-based goals for drinking water, unlike EPA's MCL's and FDA's allowable levels that are simply based on MCLG's and that are not health-based standards. Further, several comments advocated giving health effects information for all contaminants that exceed EPA's MCLG's.

In order to respond to this comment, it is important to note that EPA establishes MCLG's and MCL's for contaminants in public drinking water, while FDA establishes quality standards with allowable levels for contaminants and other constituents in bottled water.

To the extent that these comments suggest that it is an appropriate method to discuss contaminants in bottled water as MCLG's rather than as our allowable contaminant levels, we do not agree with these comments. EPA's MCLG's and MCL's are both health-based standards for contaminant levels. Our allowable levels for contaminants and other constituents in bottled water are established under a quality standard (21 CFR part 165.110), but are based on EPA's MCL's and, therefore, are also health-based standards.

We have already stated that, for the purposes of determining the feasibility of appropriate methods of informing customers of the contents of bottled water, we intended for the scope of the information discussed in this study to be analogous to that outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR. Public drinking water systems are required, in their CCR's, to provide information regarding the health concerns that resulted in regulation of a contaminant, when that contaminant exceeds a MCL, not a MCLG. The risks from a contaminant that exceeds a MCLG but not a MCL or an allowable level is negligible and, therefore, health effects information may not be appropriate. Because our allowable levels are based on EPA's MCL's, we believe that it would be an appropriate method to base any information regarding health concerns for contaminants in bottled water on our allowable levels. MCLG and MCL are terms defined by EPA for public drinking water and not for bottled water. Therefore, we disagree that it is an appropriate method to discuss contaminants in terms of MCLG's rather than allowable levels.

(Comment 5) Several comments requested that EPA's drinking water hotline be provided to customers or that we establish a bottled water hotline.

We do not believe that it would be appropriate to direct customers to EPA's drinking water hotline for information on bottled water because EPA's hotline only provides information on public drinking water. However, we agree that an information hotline for general information on bottled water would be analogous to CCR-type information available for drinking water. In fact, consumers who have questions about bottled water can contact us on our food information hotline, 1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366), and receive information on bottled water that is similar to the type of information on drinking water provided by EPA on its drinking water hotline.

(Comment 6) Several comments indicated that, in addition to the information contained in a CCR, bottled water information should include a mineral profile, hydrogen-ion concentration (pH) and hardness measurements, and information on the type of treatment the water has received so that immunocompromised individuals can determine whether the water has been treated by one of the methods recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the elimination of Cryptosporidium . Cryptosporidium is a parasite that has caused serious waterborne illness outbreaks, particularly among immunocompromised individuals, from the consumption of contaminated public drinking water. Comments also suggested that a “date bottled” statement, a lot code, an “expiration date” and a “refrigerate after opening” statement should be provided on the label.

In the draft study, we noted that our intent in the 1997 notice was to solicit information that was analogous to that outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR (see above). Although we recognize that the SDWA Amendments provide for States to develop alternative requirements with respect to the form and content of a CCR, it was not our intent to solicit a broad range of information but rather to limit the discussion to information that is analogous to that outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR. Therefore, consideration of information that is not within the context of the SDWA Amendments (i.e., analogous to information outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR) is beyond the scope of this study and would be considered in any future rulemaking on this subject, if undertaken by us.

In the draft study, we evaluated the appropriateness and feasibility of six methods of informing customers of the contents of bottled water. These methods included information on the label, a phone number/address for company contact on the label, a combination of the two previous methods (some information on the label, some available through company contact), a pamphlet at point of purchase, an information package distributed with bulk water deliveries, and the Internet.

(Comment 7) Several comments stated that if it is feasible for public drinking water systems to provide their customers with content information on an annual basis, then it is feasible for bottled water manufacturers to provide their customers with content information on an annual basis, regardless of the method.

We agree that it is feasible for the bottled water industry to provide CCR-type information, updated on a yearly basis, to their customers, as public drinking water systems are required to provide to their customers. However, certain methods may be more feasible than others for providing such annual updates. Moreover, we note that contaminant information about bottled water that is updated annually may not represent the contents of any one individual bottle of water but may represent the contaminant history for a specific time period.

In the draft study, we stated that placing information on the label is an appropriate method to inform customers about the contents of bottled water. However, we questioned the feasibility of placing all of the information that is analogous to information contained in a CCR on the label of bottled water. We tentatively determined that the amount of information contained in a CCR, as outlined by EPA, is considerable and, if placed on a bottled water label, would result in label clutter.

We stated in the draft study that we also have concerns about the economic feasibility of placing information on a label that has the potential to change on a frequent basis as a result of ongoing monitoring that is required under 21 CFR part 129, “Processing and Bottling of Bottled Drinking Water.” Costs associated with labeling changes to accurately report information that changes on a regular basis could be an economic hardship to companies. In addition, frequently changing information may result in a product label that is no longer accurate, due to changing test results, which may misbrand the product under section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343). Therefore, we tentatively determined that it is not feasible to place on a bottled water label all of the information that would be analogous to that contained in a CCR.

(Comment 8) Comments that addressed the issue of whether it is feasible to place all of the bottled water information analogous to that contained in a CCR on a bottled water label, with the exception of the comments in comment 2 of this document, stated that it is not feasible to do so.

We agree with the comments that stated it is not feasible to provide all of the information that is analogous to that contained in a CCR on a bottled water label. Such information would be excessive in limited label space, particularly on the small, single serving bottles. In addition, information that requires frequent changes due to changing test results may result in a product label that is no longer accurate, which may result in a misbranded product. Costs of frequent label changes that are necessary to ensure accurate information on the contents of a bottled water product, due to frequently changing information, may present an economic hardship to companies. Moreover, even annual updates that represent the contaminant history would need information to put the history for all such CCR-type information in context for the customer and would be excessive in limited label space. We believe that other methods discussed below may be more feasible for informing customers about the CCR-type information on bottled water.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that a phone number or an address on the label directing customers on how to obtain information from the company is an appropriate and feasible method of providing information to customers. Telephones and mail are available to almost all customers. Information provided in this manner can also be kept current. It is the least costly method to industry of providing information to customers because it does not require frequent label changes. Moreover, the startup costs would only apply to a portion of the industry since many firms already provide information to customers in this manner.

(Comment 9) Most comments received on the draft study stated that making all or some of the CCR-type information on bottled water obtainable via a phone number or an address on the label with directions to customers on how to obtain information from the company is appropriate and feasible. Several comments maintained that the label should provide a toll-free number to call for information, while other comments stated that a toll-free number would be a financial burden for small bottled water manufacturers.

We agree with these comments that it is both appropriate and feasible for water bottlers to provide CCR-type information to customers through a phone number or an address on the label directing customers on how to obtain information from the company. Determining whether the company should provide a toll-free number versus a toll number or an address to customers is beyond the scope of this study.

The comments maintaining that a toll-free number would be an economic burden for small bottled water manufacturers provided no information to support their assertion. In the draft study, we did not find the cost of providing information to customers via a toll-free number to be economically prohibitive and are not persuaded by comments to alter that finding.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that it would be appropriate to provide information to bottled water customers by placing certain individual pieces of information on the label, while making other CCR-type information available to customers through contact with the company (i.e., a combination approach). We also stated that we believe that this method is feasible as long as the particular information that is placed on the label does not require frequent changes as a result of ongoing monitoring for contaminants.

(Comment 10) A few comments advocated providing lists of contaminants that exceed MCLG's, our allowable level for the contaminant, and health effects for the contaminant on the label or lists of all regulated contaminants detected and their allowable levels on the label, with all other CCR-type information available through company contact. These same comments, that advocated listing contaminants on the label, stated that the number of contaminants that would need to be listed would be minimal; one comment estimated that the number would be less than six, based on anecdotal evidence from public drinking water CCR's. Some comments stated that listing contaminants on the label would not lead to label clutter because the labels could be expanded or an additional label that hangs around the neck of the bottle could be used. Other comments that advocated listing contaminants on the label did not address label space, but stated that it is important that this information be immediately and easily available to the customer.

We do not agree with these comments. Even if the number of contaminants to be included is minimal, when this information is combined with the additional information (e.g., allowable levels, possible sources of the contaminant, and health effects information, if necessary) that would be needed to put the contaminant information in context for the customer, such information could be excessive in limited label space, particularly on the small, single serving bottles. We discourage the use of labels that fold out or hang around the neck of a bottle. These labels can be easily removed or torn apart before purchase or before the product reaches the final consumer, resulting in a product that could be misbranded.

While we agree that the label is an appropriate method for listing certain CCR-type information, as discussed in comment 11 of this document, and provides immediate information to customers, we disagree that such a method is appropriate and feasible for all CCR-type information for the reasons previously stated. In addition, we believe that CCR-type information obtained through other methods, for example through company contact, also is easily available to customers. Comments did not provide information to indicate otherwise.

(Comment 11) Many comments advocated that one or two pieces of information, such as a specific statement of the source of the water and any treatment the water received or levels of specific contaminants (i.e., fluoride, lead, arsenic, mercury, radioactive compounds), be placed on the label, while all other CCR-type information be available by contacting the company.

We agree that placing some pieces of information on the label, while other CCR-type information is available by contacting the company, is an appropriate and feasible method of informing customers of the contents of bottled water. We do not agree that it is feasible to place pieces of information on the label that are not consistent from product to product and may result in excessive information (i.e., contaminant listings that would require considerable additional text to place the information in context for the bottled water customer) in limited label space.

(Comment 12) A few comments also contended that updating contaminant information yearly on a bottled water label would not be burdensome economically to the bottled water industry.

This comment seems to suggest that updating contaminant information yearly on a bottled water label is feasible because it would not create an economic burden to the bottled water industry. Whether such a label change would create an economic burden would likely depend upon the scope and detail of information that would be included as “contaminant information,” e.g., whether such information includes a listing of contaminants, allowable contaminant levels, possible sources of contaminants, health effects information, etc. If requiring firms to change labels annually in order to update contaminant information increased the frequency of scheduled label changes, such label changes would result in a greater cost than what would exist in the absence of such a requirement. According to a survey of practices in the bottled drink industry, the average time between typical label changes is over 22 months (Research Triangle Institute, “Compliance Costs of Food Labeling Regulations,” January 1991). Requiring firms to update the information on labels every 12 months would increase the frequency of label changes and would therefore impose an additional cost on the industry. Whether such cost would result in an economic burden may depend on how much information needs to be updated.

In the draft study, we tentatively concluded that providing CCR-type information to customers in a pamphlet that is available at retail may not be the most feasible method when other methods of conveying information are available. Information on bottled water contained in a pamphlet would be subject to the same frequent changes that may be necessary for label information due to changing test results from ongoing monitoring. In addition, there would be practical concerns about assuring that the pamphlets were consistently available at point of purchase.

(Comment 13) Comments did not support placement of a pamphlet containing CCR-type information about bottled water at the point of purchase as an appropriate and feasible method of providing information to customers. One comment stated that retailers carrying several brands of bottled water might be required to keep a virtual library of bottled water pamphlets and the burden of stocking them also would be on the retailer.

We agree with the comments and believe that pamphlets at point of purchase are not a feasible method of providing CCR-type information on bottled water to customers.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that it would be appropriate and feasible for bulk water deliverers to include an information package with a bill or deliver it with an invoice. An information package could be prepared in response to any changes in information about the delivered product, rather than printed in advance as labels typically are. The information also could be provided to customers by bulk deliverers only in response to customer request. This would reduce the chance for customers who are not seeking additional information on the contents of bottled water to be confused by information that may not be relevant to them or in which they have no interest.

(Comment 14) Many comments indicated that it would be appropriate and feasible for bulk water deliverers to provide customers with CCR-type information on bottled water on a yearly basis. A few comments noted that the label of bulk water containers should contain the same information as smaller bottles of water and that a package of information delivered with a large container of water should not substitute for the label.

We agree with comments that stated that it is both appropriate and feasible for bulk water deliverers to provide CCR-type information to their customers on a yearly basis. Bulk water deliverers could include this information with a bill or invoice. We also note that the labels of bulk containers of water are required to carry the same information as smaller bottles of water and that information delivered with a large container of water would not substitute for the label that is required on the product itself.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that it may not be appropriate for the Internet to be the sole source of information on the contents of bottled water for customers, because not all customers have access to it. According to the 1999 Economic Report of the President (Washington, DC, 1999), approximately 70 million Americans (26 percent of the U.S. population) have access to the Internet. It is an appropriate and feasible method of providing information to customers who have access to the Internet; however, it may need to be used in combination with another method to ensure that all bottled water customers have access to CCR-type information.

(Comment 15) Most comments stated that the Internet was not appropriate as the sole source of CCR-type information to bottled water customers and a few noted that small bottled water producers might experience an economic burden if made to create and maintain a website. A few comments indicated that the Internet is an appropriate and feasible method of providing bottled water information to customers. These comments suggested that, if creating and maintaining a website would be burdensome to small bottled water producers, we could defray the costs of their website or provide the information on our website. Another comment indicated that we should maintain a website with CCR-type information on all bottled water producers.

The comments did not dissuade us from our belief that the Internet is not appropriate as the sole source of information on bottled water for customers because all customers do not have access to it. Comments requesting that we establish a website for bottled water information or defray costs to small producers for creating and maintaining a website are beyond the scope of this study.

(Comment 16) One comment stated that we underestimated by 1,000-fold the cost of creating and maintaining a website.

We estimated that it would cost $2,000 to $7,500 per year to create and maintain a website with information on bottled water. We believe our estimate is correct for the cost of a website that provides information only on the contents of bottled water. A website that contains graphics and other information would likely cost more than our estimate. However, we calculated the cost of providing only CCR-type information on bottled water to customers in a simple text format.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that much of the information contained in a CCR is applicable to bottled water, with the exception of a definition and statement of MCLG's, information on public drinking water systems operating under a variance, and other information that is relevant only to public drinking water systems regulated by EPA, such as information on EPA's drinking water hotline. No substantive comments were received. Therefore, we have concluded that the information contained in a CCR, with the exceptions noted above, is applicable to bottled water.

We intended to limit discussion of information on the contents of bottled water to information that is analogous to that outlined by EPA for inclusion in a CCR. However, we recognize that certain information, such as the type of treatment the bottled water has received, that is not contained in a CCR may be of particular interest to certain customers and, should we engage in rulemaking on this subject in the future, we would consider requiring that manufacturers of bottled water provide this information to customers.

There are several methods that we have determined are both appropriate and feasible for providing information to customers on the contents of bottled water. In addition, we have determined that it is feasible for bottled water producers to provide CCR-type information on bottled water, updated annually, to customers as public drinking water systems are required to do for their customers.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that a phone number or an address on the label directing customers on how to obtain information from the company is an appropriate and feasible method of providing information to customers. Comments did not provide any information contradicting our tentative determination. Therefore, we have determined that it is both appropriate and feasible to provide CCR-type information to customers through a phone number or an address on the label directing customers on how to obtain information from the company.

We also believe that the combination approach (i.e., particular pieces of CCR-type information would be placed on the label, and the remainder of the information would be available through contact with the company by phone or mail) is appropriate and feasible. In the draft study, we tentatively determined that this method is appropriate and feasible and has the benefit of delivering certain pieces of information to customers at the point of purchase. The majority of comments agreed with our tentative conclusion.

Therefore, we have determined that the combination approach is an appropriate and feasible method of providing CCR-type information to bottled water customers, provided that the information that appears on the label does not result in excessive information (e.g., contaminant listings that would require considerable additional text to place the information in context for the bottled water customer) in limited label space.

In the draft study, we tentatively concluded that this is an appropriate and feasible method of informing bulk bottled water customers of the contents of bottled water by distributing an information package with bulk water deliveries. The majority of comments to the draft study agreed with our tentative conclusion.

We have determined that it is both appropriate and feasible for bulk water deliverers to include an information package containing CCR-type information on bottled water with a bill or to deliver the information package with an invoice.

There are several methods that we have determined are not appropriate and feasible for providing information to customers on the contents of bottled water.

In the draft study, we stated that placing information on the label is an appropriate method of conveying information to bottled water customers; however, we questioned the feasibility of placing all CCR-type information, in particular information that might change frequently, on the label of bottled water. Concerns over excessive information in limited label space, potential misbranding and the potential economic burden of frequent label changes led us to tentatively determine that it is not feasible to place all of the information on a bottled water label that would be analogous to information contained in a CCR.

Some comments received on the draft study maintained that customers need CCR-type information in order to be informed and that this information would not crowd the label because the number of contaminants listed would be minimal, even though these comments also advocated information on allowable levels, possible sources of the contaminant, and health effects information to be included on the label. We continue to have concerns about excessive information in limited label space and the cost of frequent label changes. We believe that the amount of information that would need to go on the label to place the contaminant information, as suggested in these comments, in context for the bottled water customer may be considerable and could lead to excessive information in limited label space. Therefore, we have determined that placing all of the information that is analogous to that contained in a CCR on a bottled water label is not an appropriate and feasible method to inform customers of the contents of bottled water.

In the draft study, we tentatively determined that providing CCR-type information to customers in a pamphlet available at retail may not be the most feasible method of informing customers when other methods are available. We cited concerns over ensuring that the information in the pamphlets is current and that the pamphlets are consistently available at retail. Comments received on the draft study agreed with our assessment. Therefore, we have determined that placing pamphlets containing CCR-type information with bottled water at retail is not a feasible method of informing customers of the contents of bottled water.

In the draft study, we tentatively concluded that the Internet is not appropriate as the sole method of providing information on the contents of bottled water to customers because not all customers may have access to it. Most comments agreed with our tentative conclusion. Therefore, we have determined that the Internet is not appropriate as the sole method of providing information on the contents of bottled water to customers.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is mandated by section 1868 of the Social Security Act to appoint a Practicing Physicians Advisory Council (the Council) based on nominations submitted by medical organizations representing physicians. The Council meets quarterly to discuss certain proposed changes in regulations and carrier manual instructions related to physicians' services, as identified by the Secretary. To the extent feasible and consistent with statutory deadlines, the consultation must occur before publication of the proposed changes. The Council submits an annual report on its recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration not later than December 31 of each year.

The Council consists of 15 physicians, each of whom has submitted at least 250 claims for physicians' services under Medicare or Medicaid in the previous year. Members of the Council include both participating and nonparticipating physicians, and physicians practicing in rural and underserved urban areas. At least 11 members must be doctors of medicine or osteopathy authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the States in which they practice. Members have been invited to serve for overlapping 4-year terms. In accordance with section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of the Council by appropriate action before the end of the 2-year term. The Council held its first meeting on May 11, 1992.

The current members are: Jerold M. Aronson, Richard Bronfman, Joseph Heyman, Sandral Hullett, Stephen A. Imbeau, Jerilynn S. Kaibel, Angelyn L. Moultrie, Derrick K. Latos, Dale Lervick, Sandra B. Reed, Amilu Rothhammer, Maisie Tam, Victor Vela, Kenneth M. Viste, Jr., and Douglas L. Wood. The Council Chairperson is Derrick L. Latos.

Council members will be updated on the Provider Enrollment Form, Advance Beneficiary Notices (ABN), Physician Regulatory Issues Team (PRIT), OIG Referrals, Physician Involvement in Beneficiary Education Efforts, and Carrier Contractor National Policy Issues.

The agenda will provide for discussion and comment on the following topic:

• Evaluation and Documentation Guidelines.

For additional information and clarification on the aforementioned topics, call the contact person listed above.

Individual physicians or medical organizations that represent physicians that wish to make 5-minute oral presentations on agenda issues should contact the Executive Director by 12 noon, August 29, 2000, to be scheduled. Testimony is limited to listed agenda issues only. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. A written copy of the presenters' oral remarks should be submitted to the Executive Director no later than 12 noon, September 5, 2000, for distribution to Council members for review prior to the meeting. Physicians and organizations not scheduled to speak may also submit written comments to the Executive Director and Council members.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired or other special accommodation should contact John Lanigan at (202) 690-7418 at least 10 days before the meeting.

Mr. Leon Kolankiewicz, Environmental Planner, The Mangi Environmental Group Inc. (Mangi), is the primary author of this document. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Department of the Interior, has contracted with Mangi to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Nebraska and Iowa which will guide management of the Refuge for the next 15 years.

The plan describes how the Refuge will provide for migratory and endangered species within its boundaries; work with partners to improve habitats beyond its boundaries; expand opportunities for wildlife viewing and fishing; further develop environmental education and interpretation of natural and cultural history; and provide outreach programs to describe appreciation of fish, wildlife, and the environmental influence of Western settlement.

The Environmental Assessment contains discussion of four alternatives under consideration that were analyzed and evaluated during planning:

(A.) No Action. No major changes in existing management goals and objectives would occur.

(B.) Maximize Restoration and Conservation of Historical Natural Resource Conditions. Management strategies would be to restore and conserve fish and wildlife populations, species and habitat diversity, composition and abundance to levels and conditions existing in the pre-development era (to about the mid-1800's).

(C.) Maximize Compatible Public Use Potentials. The six priority wildlife-dependent uses originating with the Refuge Improvement Act (interpretation, education, observation, photography, hunting, fishing) would be promoted and enhanced.

(D.) Optimize Natural Resource Conditions and Public use Potential (Preferred). This alternative seeks the best or optimal balance between the sometimes competing ideals of wildlife conservation, habitat restoration and public use.

Other government agencies and members of the general public contributed to the planning and evaluation of the proposal and to the preparation of this CCP and EA. Planning involved participation of Refuge staff, Service planners, a consultant to the Service, Refuge neighbors, organizations, local and state governmental agencies, and interested citizens. Planning team and public scoping meetings were held in July, August, September, October, and November 1999, and in January and February 2000. A focus group of 19 participants and 12 participants of an open house session provided comments.

All agencies and individuals are urged to provide comments and suggestions for improving this CCP and EA by September 25, 2000. All comments received by this date will be considered in preparation of the Final CCP and EA.

This proposed Land Tenure Adjustment Plan has two general goals: (1) To implement and expand on the land acquisition decisions of the BLM Alturas Management Plans; and (2) to expand on the disposal/exchange decisions of the Alturas Management Plans. This Land Tenure Adjustment (LTA) plan amendment is intended to identify broad areas of public lands for disposal through exchange, and broad areas where private lands may be acquired by land exchange. This LTA plan amendment is intended to implement the goals and objectives identified in the Alturas Management Plans by acquiring private lands with potentially high public resource values which will provide better Federal land management, in exchange for public lands that will meet the needs of State and local people as described in section 206(a) of FLPMA. The exchanges proposed in this plan amendment are intended to result in better Federal land management by the BLM, and in better private land management for the landowners who may acquire the public lands through the exchanges. Public scoping meetings on this proposed plan amendment will be held in towns throughout the affected area.

The application made by GTE/Verizon requests that the existing agreement be extended for a period of ten years and the addition of two wireless telephone panels to the wireless telephone facility serving users in the area immediately south of the Golden Gate Bridge.

The Superintendent will consider and evaluate all comments resulting from this public notice before authorizing execution of this agreement.

The Commission ordered the institution of this investigation on February 4, 2000, based on a complaint filed by Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, California (“Intel”). 65 FR 7059 (2000). The complaint named five respondents: VIA Technologies, Inc., of Taipei, Taiwan; VIA Technologies, Inc., of Fremont, California (collectively, “VIA”); First International Computer, Inc., of Taipei, Taiwan; First International Computer of America, Inc., of Fremont, California (collectively “FIC”); and Everex Systems, Inc., of Fremont, California (“Everex”). Id.

On July 5, 2000, complainant Intel and respondents VIA, FIC, and Everex filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation by settlement. On July 17, 2000, the Commission investigation attorneys filed a response supporting the joint motion. On July 26, 2000, the presiding ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting the joint motion. No party petitioned for review of the ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.42). Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000.

Background. —These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on August 18, 2000, by Slater Steels Corporation, Specialty Alloys Division, Fort Wayne, IN, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Pittsburgh, PA.

Participation in the investigations and public service list. —Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference. —The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on September 8, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact D.J. Na (202-708-4727) not later than September 1, 2000, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions. —As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before September 13, 2000, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Each State's Employment Security Agency selects weekly random samples of UI benefit payments. The BAM program staff collects information about these payments by contacting claimants, employers, and third parties to determine whether the correct amounts of UI benefits were paid in accordance with State law, policy, and procedure. The results of the payment audits are recorded in electronic databases in each State and in the Department of Labor's National Office in Washington, DC.

The Department of Labor publishes results from the investigations for the 52 jurisdictions participating in the UI BAM program. Five items are reported for each State: (1) The amount of UI benefits paid to the population of claimants; (2) the size of the BAM samples (number of completed cases); and (3) the percentages of proper payments, (4) overpayments, and (5) underpayments in the population estimated from the BAM investigations. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are presented for each of the three percentages as measures of the precision of the estimates. States may provide narratives to comment on or to clarify the meaning of the data.

The CY 1999 UI PERFORMS Annual Report also includes background information and the data collection methodology for the BAM program. Graphs that display the distribution of overpayment rates for all States, national overpayment rates by year, and national cause and responsibility data for overpayments for the last five years are also provided.

Readers are strongly cautioned that it may be misleading to compare one State's BAM overpayment and underpayment rates with the rates of other States. No two States' written laws, regulations, and policies specifying eligibility conditions are identical. Differences among States in these conditions influence the potential for error. For example, States with stringent, complex provisions will tend to have higher overpayment rates than those with simpler, more straightforward provisions. No performance standards for UI benefit accuracy have been established.

States are not required to publish their BAM program data; however, persons wanting clarification or additional information concerning a specific State's report are encouraged to contact the individuals identified in the following list.