Petitions have been accepted for filing on the dates indicated from the firms listed below.

The petitions were submitted pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 2341). Consequently, the United States Department of Commerce has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

Any party having a substantial interest in the proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A request for a hearing must be received by Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room 7315, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than the close of business of the tenth calendar day following the publication of this notice.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Hybrid Plastics, Inc., a California corporation, an exclusive license in U.S. Patent No. 5,939,576 entitled, “Method of Functionalizing Polycyclic Silicones and the Compounds So Formed,” issued August 17, 1999; U.S. Patent No. 5,942,638 entitled, “Method of Functionalizing Polycyclic Silicones and the Resulting Compounds,” issued August 24, 1999; and U.S. Patent No. 6,100,417 entitled, “Functionalizing Olefin Bearing Silsesquioxanes,” issued August 8, 2000.

A license for these patents will be granted unless a written objection is received within 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice. Information concerning this Notice may be obtained from Mr. William H. Anderson, Associate General Counsel (Acquisition), SAF/GCQ, 1500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 304, Arlington, VA 22209-2310. Mr. Anderson can be reached at 703-588-5090 or by fax at 703-588-8037.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (Algonquin), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP01-387-000 an application pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate facilities and to authorize the leasing of capacity on Algonquin's system all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.rimsweb1.ferc.fed.us/rims.?rp2~intro (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Specifically, Algonquin proposes to: (1) Retest and upgrade its C-1 and C-1 L pipelines in New Haven County, Connecticut from their current maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 750 psig to an MAOP of 814 psig; (2) expose, inspect and repair, as necessary, two 25-foot segments of pipe on the C-1 pipeline in New Haven County, Connecticut; (3) construct a new 10,310 horsepower compressor station in Cheshire, Connecticut near the beginning of the C-1 and C-1 L pipelines; and (4) remove two tool launchers from an existing aboveground facility in New Haven, Connecticut and relocated them to the proposed compressor station in Cheshire, Connecticut. Algonquin states that the estimated cost of the facilities is approximately $32.3 million. Algonquin proposes to place the facilities in service on November 1, 2003.

Algonquin also seeks authorization to lease 285,000 Dth per day of capacity to Islander East Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Islander East) from Cheshire, Connecticut (the intersection of the Algonquin mainline and its C-system) to a proposed interconnection between Algonquin and Islander East near North Haven, Connecticut for a primary term of 20 years. The fixed monthly lease payment under the lease agreement is $334,135. In addition, Islander East will pay a monthly operating and maintenance charge of $32,307. Algonquin states that the monthly lease payment is less than what Islander East would pay if it had contracted for firm service on Algonquin and thus meets Commission standards for lease payments.

Algonquin states that this project, in conjunction with the Islander East proposal in Docket No. CP01-384-000, et al., will allow markets in the Long Island and New York City area as well as future markets in Connecticut to access eastern Canadian offshore gas production. Algonquin also indicates that the lease agreement will eliminate Islander East's need to construct duplicative facilities in Connecticut, reducing the potential environmental impact of the Islander East project. Further, Algonquin asserts that this project will provide its shippers with direct access to the Long Island and New York City markets and enhance the operating efficiency and reliability of its system with additional compression and increased system pressures. Algonquin states that its proposal is consistent with the Commission's statement of policy on certification of new interstate natural gas pipeline facilities.

Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Richard J. Kruse, Senior Vice President, Industry Initiatives, Pricing & Regulatory Affairs, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642 at 713-627-5368 or by facsimile at 713-627-4027.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before July 13, 2001, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible.

Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov/documents/makeanelectronicfiling/doorbell.htm.

If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued.

Take notice that on June 22, 2001, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (AE Supply), filed an amendment to First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 4 (First Revised Schedule) filed at Docket No. ER01-2111-000. The amendment is filed at the request of Commission Staff.

Copies of the filing have been provided to all parties on the service list in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before July 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Islander East Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Islander East), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed applications pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act. In Docket No. CP01-384-000, Islander East seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to construct, install and operate pipeline, compression, and metering facilities, as well as lease pipeline capacity on Algonquin Gas Transmission Company's (Algonquin) system. In Docket No. CP01-385-000, Islander East seeks a blanket certificate authorizing certain routine activities under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's Regulations. In Docket No. CP01-386-000, Islander East seeks a blanket certificate pursuant to 18 CFR part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's Regulations for self-implementing transportation authority. Islander East's proposals are more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.rimsweb1.ferc.fed.us/rims.q?rp~intro (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Islander East proposes in Docket No. CP01-384-000 to construct and operate approximately 44.8 miles of 24-inch pipeline from an interconnection with the facilities of Algonquin near North Haven, Connecticut to the town of Brookhaven, New York. At Brookhaven, Islander East will deliver gas to KeySpan Energy Delivery Long Island, a local distribution company, and to Brookhaven Energy Limited Partnership, an affiliate of American National Power, which is developing a power plant in Brookhaven. In addition, Islander East proposes to construct and operate approximately 5.6 miles of 24-inch pipeline from the Islander East mainline near Wading River, New York to a proposed power plant near Calverton, New York that is being developed by AES Endeavor, a division of AES Corporation. Further, Islander East seeks authority to construct and operate three metering stations and other appurtenant facilities. Islander East states that the capacity of the proposed pipeline is 285,000 Dth per day. The estimated cost of the facilities is approximately $149.6 million.

Islander East also seeks authorization to lease 285,000 Dth per day of capacity on Algonquin's C-1 and C-1 L systems for an initial term of 20 years. The fixed monthly lease payment under the lease agreement is $334,135. In addition, Islander East will pay a monthly operating and maintenance charge of $32,307. Islander East states that the monthly lease payment is less than what it would pay Algonquin for firm transportation service and thus meets Commission standards for lease payments.

Islander East proposes to provide open access firm and interruptible service under Rate Schedules FTS and ITS, respectively. Islander East will offer both negotiated and recourse rates. Islander East designed its recourse rate using he straight fixed-variable method. Islander East has also included a pro forma FERC Gas Tariff under which it will provide transportation service.

Islander East asserts that its project will provide the Connecticut, Long Island, and New York City markets with access to gas for: local distribution company growth, new gas-fired electric generating plants, and gas conversions. Further, Islander East states that its proposal is consistent with the Commission's statement of policy on certification of new interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. Islander East requests a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues by December 31, 2001, and final certificate authorization by July 15, 2002. Islander East states that this will allow construction to be completed by its proposed in-service date of November 1, 2003.

Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Steven E. Tillman, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Islander East Pipeline Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642 at 713-627-5113 or by facsimile at 713-627-5947.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before July 13, 2001, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be place don the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible.

Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov/documents/makeanelectronicfiling/doorbell.htm.

If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Tariff Sheet No. 175. Tennessee requests that the tariff sheet be made effective August 1, 2001.

Tennessee states that the purpose of Tennessee's tariff filing is to provide formal notice to Rate Schedule FT-G customers and the Commission that Tennessee intends to charge FT-G customers for both the transportation of “swing” volumes into and out of storage commenting August 1, 2001. Tennessee states that its Order No. 636 compliance filing in Docket No. RS92-23 contemplated that Tennessee would charge FT-G customers the applicable commodity rate and fuel for the transportation of “swing” volumes both into and out of storage. However, in setting up its billing system to implement the extensive changes required by Order No. 636, Tennessee inadvertently treated Rate Schedule FT-G customers the same as Rate Schedule FT-GS customers with respect to the transportation of storage “swing” volumes. In that regard, in Docket No. RS92-23, the Commission ruled that Tennessee could charge FT-GS customers only for transportation from customers' receipt points to their citygates. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 62 FERC ¶ 61,250, at 62,658 (1993).

As a result of administrative oversight, Tennessee set up its billing system so that FT-G customers would be billed for the transportation of storage “swing” volumes in the same manner as FT-GS customers. Specifically, when a customer scheduling deliveries to its citygate takes less than the scheduled quantity, the variance would be treated as a storage injection and the customer would pay the applicable commodity rate and fuel for transportation from the receipt point to the citygate; when the customer takes more than its scheduled quantity at the citygate, the variance would be treated as a storage withdrawal, but the customer would not be charged for the transportation of such storage withdrawal quantity from the storage field to the citygate. By the instant tariff filing, Tennessee indicates its intent to commence charging FT-G shippers separately for the transportation of “swing” volumes to and from storage commencing August 1, 2001. Although Tennessee does not believe that a tariff filing is necessary to bill FT-G shippers in this manner, given the length of time that Tennessee has inadvertently not charged FT-G customers for the transportation of “swing” volumes both into and out of storage, Tennessee believes that it is appropriate to provide formal notice to its customers of its plans via a tariff filing.

Tennessee states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of Tennessee's customers and the affected state regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:

Take notice that Cleco Power LLC (Cleco Power), on June 6, 2001, tendered for filing a letter requesting an additional 90 days to comply with the Commission's order in Cleco Power LLC, Docket Nos. ER01-1099-000 and ER01-1099-001, issued March 28, 2001, instructing Cleco Power to bring all of its tariffs, rate schedules and service agreements into compliance with the Commission's Order 614, issued March 31, 2000, by June 25, 2001.

By means of a merger, effective December 31, 2000, Cleco Utility reorganized its corporate form from that of a corporation to that of a limited liability company named Cleco Power LLC; this pursuant to the Commission's order in Cleco Utility Group Inc., Docket No. EC00-142-000, issued November 30, 2000. Pursuant to the Commission's Order 614 and the March 28, 2000 Order, all of Cleco Utility's rate schedules are to be canceled; amended to reflect the Cleco Power name and to comply with Order 614; and refiled as Cleco Power rate schedules.

On June 1, 2001 Cleco Power canceled Cleco Utility's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and Market-Based Rates Tariff and submitted essentially the same OATT and Market-Based Rates Tariff as Cleco Power's tariffs. Cleco Power will cancel most of Cleco Utility's rate schedules and refile them as Cleco Power rate schedules by the June 25, 2001 deadline. However, Cleco Power requested an additional 90 days to file the following rate schedules as well as the service agreements under its OATT and Market-Based Rates Tariff:

Comment date: July 5, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P., formerly known as Westchester RESCO Company, L.P., (Westchester) a Qualifying Facility selling power at wholesale pursuant to market-based rate authority granted to it by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, tendered for filing an updated market power analysis in compliance with the Commission's June 18, 1998, letter order in Docket No. ER98-3030-000.

Questions concerning this filing may be directed to counsel for Westchester, Lawrence W. Plitch, 650 Grove Street, Newton Lower Falls, Massachusetts 02462-1319, Phone (617) 244-7491, Fax (617) 244-4878, e-mail stratergy@mediaone.net.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) tendered for filing under protest the following tariff sheets as part of its FERC Electric Tariff No. 6 and the following Service Agreement under its FERC Electric Tariff No. 6 in compliance with the May 17, 2001 order issued in this proceeding, First Revised Sheet Nos. 142 and 171 and Substitute Service Agreement No. 62. Copies of the filing were served upon the Michigan Public Service Commission and those on the official service list in this proceeding.

The sheets are to have an effective date of May 17, 2001. The Service Agreement is to have an effective date of March 21, 2001.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Illinois Power Company, filed with the Commission a service agreement designation as required by Order No. 614 and the Letter Order issued on May 29, 2001 in this docket.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) tendered for filing umbrella Service Agreements to provide Short-Term Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service to City of Burbank, Burbank Water and Power, and Axia Energy under APS' Open Access Transmission Tariff.

A copy of this filing has been served on City of Burbank, Burbank Water and Power, Axia Energy and the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Maine Public Service Company (Maine Public) filed an executed Service Agreement for Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service under Maine Public's open access transmission tariff with Axia Energy, LP.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Maine Public Service Company (Maine Public) filed an executed Service Agreement for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service under Maine Public's open access transmission tariff with Axia Energy, LP.

Maine Public requests that the enclosed agreement become effective on May 23, 2001.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Ameren Services Company filed a notice of its cancellation of the Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement dated December 15, 1997. Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon the El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P., and the formerly Engage Energy US, L.P.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice on June 18, 2001, Ameren Services Company filed a notice of its cancellation of the Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement dated July 18, 2000. Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon the El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P and the formerly Engage Energy US, L.P.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Ameren Services Company filed a notice of the cancellation of the Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement dated July 18, 2000. Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon the El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P., and the formerly Engage Energy US, L.P.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, Ameren Services Company filed a notice of the cancellation of the Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement dated January 1, 1997. Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon Consumers Power Company d/b/a Consumers Energy Company, and The Detroit Edison Company.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Notice is hereby given that effective as of March 31, 2001 the Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement dated October 6, 1998 (Docket No. ER 99-311-000) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Ameren Services Company is to be canceled.

Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon the Consumers Energy Company and the Detroit Edison Company.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 18, 2001, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed for acceptance materials to permit NEPOOL to reimburse for certain customers participating in NEPOOL's approved Load Response Program the monthly costs for a required Internet-Based Communications System. The Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory commissions and the Participants in NEPOOL.

The Participants Committee requests an effective date of June 18, 2001.

Comment date: July 9, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/ online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:

Take notice that on June 15, 2000, Metro Energy, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business at 425 South Main Street, Suite 201, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.

Applicant is developing a 17 MW electric generating facility located in Wayne County, Michigan and will be engaged exclusively in the business of owning and operating the facility and selling electric energy at wholesale.

Comment date: July 11, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application.

Take notice that on June 13, 2001, Mobile Energy LLC (Mobile), SkyGen Investors LLC (SkyGen), InterGen (North America) Inc. (InterGen), and Tejas Power Generation LLC (Tejas) (collectively, Applicants) submitted for filing an application under section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities in connection with the transfer of an equity interest in Mobile from InterGen's affiliate Tejas to SkyGen or its affiliate.

Comment date: August 13, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Entergy Power Holdings USA Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to Section 292.207(b) of the Commission's regulations. No determination has been made that the submittal constitutes a complete filing.

The facility will be an approximately 588 megawatt combined cycle cogeneration facility, primarily fired by natural gas (the Facility) and will be located in Convent, Louisiana. Thermal energy from the Facility will be used by OxyChem's chlor-alkali plant. The Facility will be owned by Convent Cogen, LLC. The Facility will be interconnected with the Entergy Louisiana, Inc. system.

Comment date: July 5, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Energy Corporation, a behalf of GridSouth Transco, LLC, submitted an erratum to their May 14, 2001 supplemental filing. The erratum corrects Pro Forma Tariff Sheet No. 303 of the GridSouth Open Access Transmission Tariff.

Comment date: July 5, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) tendered for filing a Compliance Filing in association with PNM's earlier filing (dated March 30, 2001) of its completely revised version of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to: (1) Incorporate a new Attachment J—Generator Interconnection Procedures, a new Attachment J-1—Request for Interconnection of Generation With The PNM Transmission System, and a new Attachment K—Index of Interconnection Service Customers; and (2) conform its OATT to FERC Order No. 614 Identification and Numbering requirements. PNM's Compliance Filing incorporates certain changes to the new Generator Interconnection Procedure identified in the Commission's May 16, 2001 Order Conditionally Accepting Amended Tariff, 95 FERC 61,214. PNM's filing is available for public inspection at its offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Copies of the filing have been sent to all PNM Tariff customers, all entities that have pending interconnection requests with PNM and the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Reliant Energy Coolwater, LLC, Reliant Energy Ellwood, LLC, Reliant Energy Etiwanda, LLC, Reliant Energy Mandalay, LLC, Reliant Energy Ormond Beach, LLC and Reliant Energy Services, Inc. tendered for filing an updated market study in compliance with the Commission's Orders in Ormond Beach Power Generation, L.L.C., 83 FERC (CCH) 61,306 (1998); Ocean Vista Power Generation, L.L.C., et al., 82 FERC. (CCH) 61,114 (1998); NorAm Energy Services, Inc., Letter Order, Docket No. ER94-1247-000 (July 25, 1994) and the Notice of Extension of Time issued in these dockets on May 29, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Settlement Agreement filed on June 30, 2000, in Docket No. ER00-1053-000, and accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 15, 2000, Maine Public Service Company (MPS) submits this informational filing setting forth the changed open access transmission tariff charges effective June 1, 2001 together with back-up materials.

Copies of this filing were served on the parties to the Settlement Agreement in Docket No. ER00-1053-000, the Commission Trial Staff, the Maine Public Utilities Commission, the Maine Public Advocate, and current MPS open access transmission tariff customers.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Ameren Energy Marketing Company (AEM) submitted the compliance filing required by the Commission's December 12, 2000 order in Docket No. ER01-7-000. Copies of this filing were served on all parties included on the Commission's official service list established in this proceeding.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (Central Vermont), tendered for filing an executed Service Agreement for Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Citizens Communications Company (Service Agreement) under Central Vermont's FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 7. The Service Agreement was refiled because the cover page for the Service Agreement was inadvertently omitted from the May 29, 2001 filing in this docket. Copies of the filing were served upon the above-mentioned company and the Vermont Public Service Board.

Central Vermont requests an effective date of May 29, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 14, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed a Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Idaho Power Delivery and Idaho Power Marketing, under its open access transmission tariff in the above-captioned proceeding.

Comment date: July 5, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC) tendered for filing blanket Service Agreements for new customers and replacement blanket Service Agreements for existing customers under the AEP Companies' Power Sales Tariffs. The Power Sales Tariffs were accepted for filing effective October 10, 1997 and has been designated AEP Operating Companies' FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 5 (Wholesale Tariff of the AEP Operating Companies) and FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 8, Effective January 8, 1998 in Docket ER 98-542-000 (Market-Based Rate Power Sales Tariff of the CSW Operating Companies). A copy of the filing was served upon the Parties and the State Utility Regulatory Commissions of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

AEPSC respectfully requests waiver of notice to permit this service agreement to be made effective on or prior to May 16, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) tendered for filing umbrella Service Agreements to provide Short-Term Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service to Western Area Power Administration—Colorado River Storage Project under APS” Open Access Transmission Tariff.

A copy of this filing has been served on Western Area Power Administration Colorado River Storage Project and the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) filed as Service Agreement Nos. 178 and 179 under its Open Access Transmission Tariff, two System Impact Study Agreements, one with Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. and one with FPL's merchant function. FPL requests that these System Impact Study Agreements be made effective on May 31 and 17, 2001, respectively.

FPL requests that the Agreement with Seminole be made effective as of May 31, 2001 and that the Agreement with FPL's merchant function be made effective as of May 17, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tendered for filing an amendment to section 17.8 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. The proposed amendment changes the deadline for reservations of daily, firm point-to-point transmission service from noon on the second day prior to commencement of service to noon on the day prior to the commencement of service. Copies of this filing were served upon all PJM members and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM control area.

PJM requests an effective date of June 18, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) tendered for filing Modification No. 14, dated as of April 1, 2001, to the Inter-Company Power Agreement dated July 10, 1953 among OVEC and certain other utility companies named within that agreement as Sponsoring Companies (the Inter-Company Power Agreement). The Inter-Company Power Agreement bears the designation Ohio Valley Electric Corporation Rate Schedule FERC No. 4.

Mod. No. 14 is part of an arrangement intended to resolve certain issues that have arisen as a result of DOE's notice of cancellation of the power agreement between OVEC and the United States of America, currently acting by and through the Secretary of Energy, the statutory head of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) (the DOE Power Agreement). Mod. No. 14 to the Inter-Company Power Agreement is intended to allocate to the Sponsoring Companies shares of demand, energy and costs related to additional facilities and replacements, which will no longer be payable by DOE as a result of DOE's release of capacity and energy to the Sponsoring Companies and other arrangements related to DOE's notice of cancellation of the DOE Power Agreement.

OVEC has requested that the changes to the Inter-Company Power Agreement become effective as of June 1, 2001.

Copies of the filing were served upon Allegheny Energy Supply Company, L.L.C., Appalachian Power Company, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, The Dayton Power and Light Company, FirstEnergy Generation Corp., Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Utilities Company, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Monongahela Power Company, Ohio Edison Company, Ohio Power Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, The Toledo Edison Company, West Penn Power Company, the Utility Regulatory Commission of Indiana, the Public Service Commission of Kentucky, the Public Service Commission of Maryland, the Public Service Commission of Michigan, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Public Utility Commission of Pennsylvania, Tennessee Regulatory Authority, the State Corporation Commission of Virginia and the Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) filed a Service Agreement with The City of Homestead under FPC's Cost-Based Rates Tariff (CR-1), FERC Electric Tariff No. 9. A copy of this filing was served upon the Florida Public Service Commission.

FPC is requesting an effective date of July 1, 2001 for this Agreement.

Comment date: July 5, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (Applicant) filed an Application Submitting Service Agreement Pursuant to Market-Based Rate Authority And Request For Waivers, submitting a Service Agreement between the Applicant and Southside Electric Cooperative for service to a single, new delivery point pursuant to the Applicant's previously granted authority to make sales at market-based rates.

Ol Dominion requests an effective date of May 18, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tendered for filing an amendment to the PJM 2001-2002 Load Response Pilot Program attachment to Schedule 1 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Operating Agreement) and to the Appendix to Attachment K of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff). The proposed amendment modifies Option 1: Emergency Load Response Program (Emergency Program) to provide that those entities that become Special Members of PJM solely to participate in the Emergency Program will not be subject to the provisions of the Operating Agreement that assess liability to PJM Members. Copies of this filing were served upon all PJM members and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM control area.

PJM requests an effective date of June 1, 2001, corresponding to the effective date of the Emergency Program.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) filed to cancel its Electric Service Agreement with City Water and Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, which has been designated OG&E Rate Schedule FERC No. 132, pursuant to Section 35.15 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations. This filing has been served upon the affected purchaser.

OG&E requests acceptance of its notice and waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to permit the cancellation to become effective June 15, 2001, or such later date as authorized by the Commission.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company (APC), tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement (IA) by and between APC and Tenaska Alabama III Partners, L.P. (Tenaska). The IA allows Tenaska to interconnect its generating facility to be located in Coosa County, Alabama, to APC's electric system.

An effective date of June 15, 2001 has been requested.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC (Duke Vermillion) submitted for filing an amendment to Service Agreement No. 1 under Duke Vermillion's FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.

Duke Vermillion requests an effective date for the amendment of June 1, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001 Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) tendered for filing a Service Agreement with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, (Customer) under Consumers' FERC Electric Tariff No. 9 for Market Based Sales.

Copies of the filing were served upon the Customer and the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing revisions to the Amended and Restated Radial Lines Agreement (Amended Agreement) between SCE and AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. (AES).

The revisions to the Amended Agreement reflect the removal of one set of failed Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformers (“CCVTs”) installed on the Ellis No. 1 Line at the Huntington Beach Substation and installation of new CCVTs, which were placed into service on April 6, 2001.

Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and AES.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Duke Energy Madison, LLC (Duke Madison) submitted for filing an amendment to Service Agreement No. 1 under Duke Madison's FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.

Duke Madison requests an effective date for the amendment of June 1, 2001.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., as Transmission Provider, tendered for filing a service agreement for Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service and a service agreement for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service with Avista Energy, Inc. (Avista), as Transmission Customer.

PSE respectfully requests that the service agreement become effective as of June 18, 2001.

A copy of the filing was served upon Avista.

Comment date: July 6, 2001, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (PG&ENW) in the above-referenced docket.

The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following proposed natural gas facilities:

• About 21 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to PG&ENW's existing permanent right-of-way at about mileposts (MP) 87.6 through 108.3 in Kootenia County, Idaho and Spokane County, Washington (Loop C). Loop C would be the third pipeline on PG&ENW's transmission system;

• Various piping, blowdown, and valving additions at Main Line Valve (MLV) 5-1; and one new pig receiver and blowdown additions at MLV 5-2;

• One new 19,500 horsepower (hp) gas-fueled turbine and centrifugal compressor; construction of three new buildings; and installation of replacement standby generator at Compressor Station 4 in Bonner County, Idaho;

• Two new pig launchers, and tie-in facilities of the proposed loop at Compressor Station 5 in Kootanai County, Idaho;

• One new 19,500 gas-fueled turbine and centrifugal compressor; construction of one new building; install one new pig receiver; and replacement of a standby generator at Compressor Station 6 in Spokane County, Washington;

• One new 19,500 hp gas-fueled turbine and centrifugal compressor; construction of one new building; and installation of additional gas cooling facilities and one standby generator at Compressor Station 8 in Walla Walla County, Washington;

• One new 19,500 hp gas-fueled turbine and centrifugal compressor; construction of two new buildings; and relation of gas coller and installation of a replacement standby generator at Compressor Station 10 in Sherman County, Oregon; and

• One new 19,500 hp gas-fueled turbine and centrifugal compressor; construction of three new buildings; relocation of one building and gas cooler; installation of a additional gas cooling facilities; and replacement of one standby generator at Compressor Station 12 Deschutes County, Oregon.

The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1371.

Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, state and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers, and parties to this proceeding.

Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:

• Send an original and two copies of your comments to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Group 1, PJ11.1.

• Reference Docket No. CP01-141-000; and

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 23, 2001.

Comments, protests and interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account which can be created by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.”

Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commenter a party to the proceeding. Any persons seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). 1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.

Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Additional information about the proposed project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (202) 208-1088 or on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov) using the “RIMS” link to information in this docket number. Click on the “RIMS” link, select “Docket #” from the RIMS Menu, and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to RIMS, the RIMS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2222.

Similarly, the “CIPS” link on the FERC Internet website provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. From the FERC Internet website, click on the “CIPS” link, select “Docket #” from the CIPS menu, and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to CIPS, the CIPS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2474.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 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 control number. For further information contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-1379.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0986.

Expiration Date: 12/31/2001.

Title: Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service Plan for Reforming the Rural Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 96-45.

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Annual Burden: 7099 respondents; .81 hours per response (avg.); 5770 total annual burden hours (for all collections approved under this control number).

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually; One-time Requirement; Third Party Disclosure.

Description: In the Fourteenth Report and Order, Twenty-Second Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45 and Report and Order in CC Docket No. 00-256, released May 23, 201 (FCC 01-157), consistent with the recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board), the Commission adopts rules for determining high-cost universal service support for rural telephone companies for the next five years based upon the proposals made by the Rural Task Force. The Commission also addresses certain proposals made by the Multi-Association Group (MAG) for reforming universal services rules applicable to rural carriers. As part of its proposal to reform the federal universal service support mechanism for rural carriers, the Rural Task Force proposed that rural carriers be permitted to depart from study area averaging and instead disaggregate and target per-line high-cost universal service support, including high-cost loop support, LTS, and LSS, into geographic areas below the study area level. The Rural Task Force concluded that the disaggregation and targeting of support is necessary to eliminate the economic distortions that may result from the delivery of support on a uniform per-line basis under the current mechanism. At the same time, however, the Rural Task Force stated that rural carriers need flexibility in the manner in which support is disaggregated and targeted in light of the widely varying characteristics and operating environments of rural carriers. Recognizing that a disaggregation and targeting system must meet the unique regulatory and competitive environments in each state, the Rural Task Force recommended a disaggregation system consisting of three paths. a. Election of Disaggregation Plan and Change in Path: Carriers are required to elect one of three paths within 270 days of the effective date of the Order implementing rural high-cost reform through a submission to the state commission. Rural carriers not subject to the jurisdiction of the state are required to make such submission to the Commission. Carriers failing to do who will not be permitted to disaggregate and target support unless ordered to do so by a state commission or other appropriate regulatory authority either on its own motion or in response to a request by an interested party. See 47 CFR 54.315(a). ( Number of respondents: 1300; hours per response: .5 hours; total annual burden: 650 hours). b. Notification of Disaggregation Methodology: 1. Path One: Carriers Not Disaggregating and Targeting High-Cost Support. Path One provides that a carrier may choose not to disaggregate. This Path is intended to address those instances where a carrier determines that given the demographics, cost characteristics, and location of its service territory, and the lack of a realistic prospect of competition, that disaggregation is not economically rational. A carrier must certify to the state commission, or other appropriate regulatory authority, that it does not want to disaggregate support. Carriers electing Path One must submit to USAC a copy of the certification of the state commission or appropriate regulatory authority certifying that it will not disaggregate and target support. See 47 CFR 54.315(b). ( No. of respondents: 500; hours per response: .5 hours; total annual burden: 250 hours).2. Path 2: Carriers Seeking Prior Regulatory Approval for the Disaggregation and Targeting of Support. Path Two provides that a carrier may seek approval of its disaggregation and targeting plan from the appropriate regulatory authority. Because there are no constraints on disaggregation and targeting proposals under this path, for example a carrier could disaggregate and target support to multiple levels below a wire center, a disaggregation and targeting method can be tailored with precision, subject to state approval, to the cost and geographic characteristics of the carrier and the competitive and regulatory environment in which it operates. A carrier that chooses this path would file a disaggregation plan with the state commission, or other appropriate regulatory authority. Carriers selecting Path 2 must submit a copy to USAC of the Order approving the disaggregation plan submitted by the carriers to the state commission or appropriate regulatory authority and a copy of the disaggregation plan approved by the state commission or appropriate regulatory authority. See 47 CFR 54.315(c), (e), and (f). ( No. of respondents: 873; hours per response: .666 hours; total annual burden: 582 hours). 3. Path 3. Self-Certification of the Disaggregation and Targeting of Support: The Commission adopts the Path Three self-certification process that permits carriers to choose (1) a disaggregation plan of up to two cost zones per wire center, or (2) a disaggregation plan that complies with a prior regulatory determination. A carrier must provide, among other things, the state and USAC with a description of the rationale used to disaggregate support, including the methods and data and a discussion of how the plan complies with the self-certification guidelines. In addition, if the plan uses a benchmark, it must be generally consistent with how the total study area level of support for each category of costs (high-cost loop support, LSS and LTS) is derived, to enable a competitor to compare the disaggregated costs used to determine support for each zone. See 47 CFR 54.315(d), (e) and (f). ( No. of respondents: 873; hours per response: .666 hours; total annual burden: 582 hours). c. Reporting Working Loops at Cost-Zone Level: Rural carriers that elect to disaggregate and target per-line support under either Path Two or Three are required to report loops at the cost-zone level. If there is no competition in the service area the carrier is required to file annually. If competition exists in the service are than the carrier is required to file quarterly. See 47 CFR 54.307(b) and (c). ( No. of respondents: 864 filing annually; 9 filing quarterly; hours per response: 2 hours; total annual burden: 1746 hours). d. State Certification Letter Under 254(e):

The Commission also concludes that states should be required to file annual certifications with the Commission to ensure that carriers use universal service support “only for the provision, maintenance and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended” consistent with section 254(e). The Commission concludes that the mandate in section 254(e) applies to all carriers, rural and non-rural, that are designated as eligible to receive support under section 214(e) of the Act. States that wish to receive federal universal service high-cost support for rural carriers within their boundaries to file a certification with the Commission and USAC stating that all federal high-cost funds flowing to rural carriers in that state will be used in a manner consistent with section 254(e). The Commission recognizes that some state commissions may have only limited regulatory oversight to ensure that federal support is reflected in intrastate rates. In the case of non-rural carriers, the Commission concluded that states nonetheless may certify to the Commission that a non-rural carrier in the state had accounted to the state commission for its receipt of federal support, and that such support will be used “only for the provision, maintenance and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.” The Commission determined that, in states in which the state commission has limited jurisdiction over such carriers, the state need not initiate the certification process itself. Instead, non-rural local exchange carriers, and competitive eligible telecommunications carriers serving lines in the service area of the non-rural local exchange carriers, may formulate plans to ensure compliance with section 254(e), and present those plans to the state, so that the state may make the appropriate certification to the Commission. Absent the filing of such certification, carriers will not receive support. See 47 CFR 54.313(b) and 54.314. ( No. of respondents: 60 respondents; hours per response: 3 hours; total annual burden: 180 hours). e. Support in Competitive Study Areas: Under our existing rules, rural carriers and their competitors currently are required to file line count data annually, and may file quarterly updates on a voluntary basis. Quarterly updates are required in non-rural carrier study areas. Under the current rules, if an incumbent rural carrier does not update its line count data but its competitor does, the competitor's more recent data may include lines captured from the incumbent since the incumbent's last filing. Thus the incumbent may continue to receive support for the year based on an overstated number of lines. To prevent an overpayment of support, the Commission requires the filing of line count data on a regular quarterly basis upon competitive entry in rural carrier study areas. The Commission emphasizes that this requirement will not apply in rural carrier study areas in which an eligible telecommunications carrier has not been designated. See 47 CFR 36.611 and 36.612. To ensure that the interval between the submission of data and receipt of support is as short as possible in rural carrier study areas, the Commission clarifies that competitive eligible telecommunications carriers may submit initial line count data and receive support on a regular quarterly basis under section 54.307(c). Rural telephone companies that incorporate acquired exchanges into existing study areas should exclude the costs associated with the acquired exchanges from the cost associated with the pre-acquisition study areas in annual universal service data a submissions used to determine eligibility for high-cost loop supports. Acquiring rural carriers shall separately provide the information listed in section 47 CFR 36.611 for both acquired and existing exchanges, as if these two categories of exchanges constitute separate study areas. See 47 CFR section 36.611. ( No. of respondents: 20; hours per response: 24 hours; total annual burden: 480 hours). f. Safety Net Additive: Safety net additive support would only be available in years in which support levels would otherwise exceed the new indexed cap on the high-cost loop support fund. To receive such support in a particular study area, a carrier would need to show that growth in telecommunications plant in service (TPIS) per line is at least 14 percent greater than the study area's TPIS per line in the prior year, or the “base year.” Any study area that initially qualifies for safety net additive support would also qualify for such support in each of the four succeeding years if the cap is again triggered, regardless of whether the study area meets the 14 percent criterion in the succeeding years. Carriers must provide written notice to the Commission and USAC in conjunction with their annual or quarterly submissions to NECA indicating that a study area meets the 14 percent TPIS trigger. If a carrier should fail to provide written notification to the Commission and USAC, the study area that otherwise would have qualified for safety net additive will not be eligible. See 47 CFR 36.605(c)(2). ( No. of respondents: 1300; hours per response: .5 hours; total annual burden: 650 hours). g. Safety Valve: Once relevant regulatory approvals are obtained and the transaction is closed, the rural carrier shall provide written notice to USAC that they have acquired access lines that may become eligible for safety value support. In order to assist USAC in the administration of the safety valve mechanism, rural carriers shall also provide written notice to USAC of when their index year has been established for purposes of calculating eligibility for safety valve support. See 47 CFR 54.305 (f). ( No. of respondents: 1300; hours per response: .5 hours; total annual burden: 650 hours). The Commission will use the information requirements to determine whether and to what extent rural telecommunications carriers providing the data are eligible to receive universal service support. Obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is as noted above. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Performance Evaluation and Records Management, Washington, DC 20554.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for a cooperative agreement with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of Environmental Health.

The purpose of the program is to further develop and establish an environmental health epidemiology, surveillance, and laboratory program for the Latin American and Caribbean countries.

The objectives are to: Collaborate with Latin American and Caribbean countries (LAC) in the conduct of environmental epidemiology studies of populations exposed to environmental contaminants and other harmful agents.

Provide instruction and training to enhance the development of information systems to promote epidemiologic and environmental surveillance in the LAC.

Promote and enhance environmental laboratories for environmental surveillance and exposure assessment; promote and enhance development of methodology for assessment of exposure of populations to environmental contaminants.

Promote and enhance environmental health risk communication in the LAC region.

Work with collaborating centers to implement training programs in the LAC region, and provide access to other existing programs, including those delivered by distance learning approaches.

Implement global environmental health programs that address strategic issues, such as the Children's Health and Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean (CHELAC) initiative.

No human subjects research will be supported under this cooperative agreement.

Assistance will be provided only to the Pan American Health Organization. No other applications are solicited.

The Pan American Health Organization is the most appropriate and qualified agency to provide the services specified under this cooperative agreement because:

PAHO coordinates international health activities for countries and territories of Latin America and the Caribbean. Their access to member States (Latin American and Caribbean countries) and their public health programs is unique in this region.

PAHO has the lead in advancing environmental public health in Latin America and the Caribbean. PAHO is the only organization serving Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on the health impact of agricultural and industrial development. PAHO provides epidemiologic and toxicologic risk assessment and support required for the prevention of health risks associated with toxic wastes and their air and water pollution byproducts, food contamination, and other environmental health and occupational hazards and diseases.

PAHO has long standing expertise in regional disease surveillance, application of technology in different settings, development of training methods for health personnel, use of research to clarify and resolve health problems, and integration of different health programs to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

The proposed program is strongly supportive of and directly related to the achievement of PAHO and CDC/National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) research, development, and implementation programs in environmental health epidemiology, surveillance, and prevention.

Approximately $499,300 is available in FY 2001 to support this program. It is expected that the award will begin on September 30, 2001, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years. Funding estimates may change.

Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.

To obtain business management technical assistance, contact: Sharron Orum, Lead, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone number: (770) 488-2716, Email address: spo2@cdc.gov.

For program technical assistance, contact: Michael A. McGeehin, PhD, MSPH Director, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, 6 Executive Park Drive, Atlanta, GA 30329, Telephone number: (404) 498-1300, Email address: Mmcgeehin@cdc.gov.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Global Malaria Prevention and Control. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus areas of Immunization and Infectious Diseases.

The purpose of the program is to expand the involvement of organizations in the global Roll Back Malaria (RBM) effort and to foster endemic-country action in malaria prevention and control program implementation and the relevant ancillary activities (e.g., baseline evaluation, strategy development, training, monitoring and evaluation, focused operations research to further the program implementation). See Attachment 2 for more background information.

Assistance will be provided to public and private nonprofit organizations and their agents, including public and nonprofit faith-based organizations.

Approximately $500,000 is available in FY 2001 to fund approximately three awards. It is expected that the average award will be $125,000, ranging from $100,000 to $150,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about September 30, 2001, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to three years. Funding estimates may change.

Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.

Funding preference will be given to organizations proposing to work in sub-Saharan African countries with the greatest number of malaria deaths.

In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. (Recipient Activities), and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. (CDC Activities).

The applicant and their partner(s) in the malaria-endemic country must:

a. Enhance local capacity for implementing methods that will reduce malaria transmission and the morbidity and mortality from malaria infection in the partner malaria-endemic country. Applicants, in collaboration with the partner country, should analyze the partner country's current infrastructure for RBM implementation (per Attachment 3) and develop strategies that will address the priority implementation needs. In countries where such an analysis has already been done, applicants should propose to carry out through collaboration with a partner organization in the partner country the priority malaria prevention activities identified through the infrastructure analysis.

Priority program areas are listed below and are examples of activities that would be appropriate to propose under this announcement. Some of these activities may have been addressed or are currently being addressed by the partner country's government or other partner organizations, in which case, the applicant should not duplicate existing efforts. Details and example activities for each are provided as attachments in the application kit.

1. Public health capacity building for government or institutions contributing to malaria prevention and control (Attachment 4)

2. Increase the public's access to effective antimalarial drugs and appropriate management of malaria illness to reduce malaria-associated mortality or the severity and duration of malaria illness. (Attachment 5)

3. Reduce exposure to malaria, particularly among young children and pregnant women, through the use of proven malaria control interventions. (Attachment 6)

4. Prevention of malaria and its adverse consequences during pregnancy. (Attachment 7)

5. Assess RBM program progress (Attachment 8)

6. Operations research (Attachment 9)

b. Attend and participate in an annual meeting of grantee representatives to present, discuss, and evaluate program activities.

c. If a proposed project involves research on human participants, ensure appropriate Independent Review Board (IRB) review.

a. Provide consultation and assistance with training curricula and materials as necessary and appropriate for in-country training programs.

b. Provide consultation and assistance as needed to further the efforts of cooperative agreement recipients and their country partners in RBM planning and assessment.

c. Provide consultation and assistance on methods for treatment of malaria, enhancing local capacity to increase use of insecticide treated bed nets, or prevention of malaria and its adverse consequences during pregnancy.

d. Provide consultation and assistance on operations research study designs that may be carried out by one or more cooperative agreement recipients.

e. Assist in the development of a research protocol for IRB by all cooperating institutions participating in the research project. The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.

f. Participate in an annual meeting of grantee representatives to present, discuss, and evaluate program activities.

An LOI is requested for this program. The narrative should be no more than two single-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one inch margins, and unreduced font. Your letter of intent will be used to plan the independent review group. The letter should include the following information (1) name and address of the organization and the proposed partner country and organization(s); (2) name, address and, telephone number of a contact person; (3) a brief description of the past and anticipated collaboration between the applicant and partner organization(s) in the partner country.

Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan.

Applicants must include evidence that they have notified the appropriate agency or Ministry of Health (MOH) in the government of the international or partner country. Applicant must receive concurrence from the appropriate agency or MOH in the government before an official award is made.

Applicants must show an established relationship with a partner organization(s) in the country they propose for their project. A letter with the partner's letterhead documenting the partner's agreement to collaborate on the respective activities must be included after the face page of the application. Without this letter(s), the application will be deemed non-responsive and returned.

On or before July 15, 2001 submit the LOI to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.

Submit the original and five copies of PHS-398 (OMB Number 0925-0001) (adhere to the instructions on the Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS 398). Forms are available in the application kit and at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/forminfo.htm.

On or before August 13, 2001, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.

Deadline: Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:

1. Received on or before the deadline date; or

2. Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the independent review group. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)

Late: Applications which do not meet the criteria in 1. or

2. above will be returned to the applicant.

Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.

a. The extent to which the malaria situation in the partner malaria-endemic country is well established as an important cause of morbidity and mortality across the country;

b. The extent to which the existing malaria control program and its prevention and control strategies are clearly described;

c. The extent to which existing surveillance, monitoring and evaluation methods and capability are clearly described;

d. The extent to which gaps and priorities in malaria prevention and control implementation are clearly described.

a. The extent to which the description of past and current collaboration between the applicant and partner organization in the partner country reflects an effective working relationship that will support the proposed activities;

b. The extent to which the collaboration will include the organization responsible for policy and implementation of malaria prevention and control in the target area;

c. Formal letters of support are provided for this application from appropriate groups (Ministry of Health, University, etc.) within the malaria-endemic country to demonstrate the appropriate and necessary cooperation for malaria prevention and control program support.

d. The extent to which plans for representation at the annual meeting of awardees reflect the intent to actively collaborate with other awardees through this meeting.

a. The extent to which the application provides evidence that key personnel have the ability and program skills to develop and carry out the proposed activities;

b. The extent to which the applicant and malaria-endemic partners have demonstrated a collaborative review of the priority needs for malaria in the malaria-endemic country;

c. The extent to which the applicant clearly defines objectives and justifies these objectives in relation to the proposed focus of the plan to address priority issues for the malaria-endemic country RBM program;

d. The adequacy of the plan to carry out major project components (e.g., in both the applicant and malaria-endemic country: leadership, staffing, administrative coordination, planning, and measurement activities), including a timetable that provides major milestones for implementing activities;

e. The degree to which the plan is consistent with malaria prevention best practices and RBM principles;

f. If capacity building for public health in malaria is proposed, the extent to which the planned activities relate to capacity improvements that will benefit RBM activities in the partner country;

g. The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:

(1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.

(2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.

(3) A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.

(4) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.

The extent to which (a) the applicant describes a detailed plan for monitoring the implementation of the activities and evaluating the extent to which the proposed activities strengthen local and national capacity for malaria prevention and control, and (b) the monitoring and evaluation plan builds on existing monitoring and evaluation systems in the project area and can demonstrate progress towards RBM objectives.

The extent to which the budget is detailed, clear, justified, describes in-kind or other project support, and is consistent with the proposed program activities.

Does the application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects? (Not scored; however, an application can be disapproved if the research risks are sufficiently serious and protection against risks is so inadequate as to make the entire application unacceptable.)

Technical Reporting Requirements Provide CDC with original plus two copies of—

1. annual progress reports;

2. financial Status Report (FSR), no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and

3. final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.

Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.

The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I of the announcement in the application kit.

This program is authorized under sections 301(a), 307, and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. sections 241(a), 2421, and 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.

This and other CDC announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address—http://www.cdc.gov Click on “Funding” then “Grants and Cooperative Agreements.”

To obtain business management technical assistance, contact: Merlin Williams, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2765, Email address: mqw6@cdc.gov.

For program technical assistance, contact: Richard W. Steketee, MD, MPH or Craig Leutzinger, Division of Parasitic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 770-488-7760, Fax: 770-488-7761, Email address: ris1@cdc.gov or cll1@cdc.gov.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention-Surveillance and Epidemiology (DHAP-SE), Epidemiology Branch (EpiB), has an opportunity for collaboration to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of topical microbicides for rectal application to reduce HIV transmission. These evaluations will include in-vitro assays, macaque studies, and phase I/phase II trials in MSM.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention-Surveillance and Epidemiology (DHAP-SE), Epidemiology Branch (EpiBr), has an opportunity for collaboration to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of topical microbicides designed for vaginal application to reduce HIV transmission. These evaluations will include in-vitro assays, macaque studies, and phase I/phase II trials in heterosexual women and men.

The inventions named in this notice are owned by agencies of the United States Government and are available for licensing in the United States (U.S.) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207, to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing.

This invention comprises a method of controlling Lyme disease by preventing the maturation of deer ticks on white-footed mice by exposing the mice to insecticides as they enter food-baited boxes. Other tick- and flea-borne diseases can also be controlled by this method.

Inventors: Gary O. Maupin et al. U.S. Patent Application SN: 09/595,034 (CDC Ref. #: I-031-00).

This invention comprises a method of controlling Lyme disease by preventing the maturation of deer ticks on white-footed mice by exposing the mice to insecticides as they enter food-baited boxes. Other tick- and flea-borne diseases can also be controlled by this method.

Inventors: Gary O. Maupin et al. U.S. Patent Application SN: 09/595,035 (CDC Ref. #: I-032-00).

This invention comprises a method of controlling Lyme disease by preventing the maturation of deer ticks on white-footed mice by exposing the mice to insecticides as they enter food-baited boxes. Other tick- and flea-borne diseases can also be controlled by this method.

Inventors: Gary O. Maupin et al. U.S. Patent Application SN: 09/595,177 (CDC Ref. #: I-041-00).

A simple and inexpensive method to give patients a guideline for determining the severity of an adverse reaction that may occur at the site of injection. Patients can be instructed to notify health care providers if an inflammatory response spreads beyond a measured distance from the location of injection.

Inventor: Laurie Kamimoto, U.S. Patent Application SN: 60/238,691 (CDC Ref. #: I-036-00).

This invention provides for the precise reproduction of recorded sounds. Under ordinary conditions, a sound signal is distorted by the amplifier, speakers, and the surroundings. This invention modifies the signal delivered to the speaker in such a way as to precisely reproduce the signal as it was originally recorded. The graphical user-interface allows for the easy selection and playback of individual components of a larger sound recording. This invention could have applications as a diagnostic screening tool, as a telemedicine tool, and as a teaching tool to instruct the user on the various body sounds, such as lung, bowel, or heart sounds.

Inventors: Walter McKinney et al. U.S. Patent Application SN: To be assigned, filed 4.30.2001. (CDC Ref. #: I-037-00).

The invention is a vaccine comprised of three synthetic peptides of 20-25 amino acids in length from different M proteins. The synthetic peptides can be recognized by M type-specific antibodies and are capable of eliciting functional opsonic antibodies in mice. The vaccine may have the potential to eliminate over 85% of Group A Streptococci infections and reduce by 85% the nasopharyngeal reservoir of Group A Streptococci in the United States.

Inventors: Bernard Beall et al . U.S. Patent Application SN: To be assigned, filed 5.18.2001. (CDC Ref. #: I-039-00)

Confirmation of a diagnosis of an infectious agent usually depends upon the detection of the causative agent or its signature effect on the immune system. Nucleic acid detection methods offer the greatest sensitivity but depend upon specific hybridization of a primer or a probe, thus they can only be used to detect nucleic acids. This invention comprises a novel method of diagnostic detection which retains the sensitivity of nucleic acid based amplification methods while allowing detection of non-nucleic acid targets such as antibodies, surface proteins, or other antigenic components. Thus, no specific sequence information need be known about the potential target.

Inventors: Yuri Khudyakov, U.S. Patent Application SN: (CDC Ref. #: I-043-00)

BACTID consists of a software program coupled with a database whereby the user enters a description of an unknown microorganism which the software compares to the database for the purpose of identification of the unknown. This program allows regional diagnostic labs to access national databases which provide for greater sensitivity and specificity in identification of unknowns without the need to transfer samples to larger labs.

Inventor: John J. Farmer, U.S. Patent Application SN: Application yet to be filed. (CDC Ref. #: I-045-00)

This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

Name of Committee : General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

General Function of the Committee : To provide advice and recommendations to the agency on FDA’s regulatory issues.

Date and Time : The meeting will be held on July 17, 2001, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Location : Hilton, Salons D and E, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.

Contact : David Krause, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-410), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-3090, ext. 141, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12519. Please call the Information Line or access the Internet address of http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/panelmtg.html for up-to-date information on this meeting.

Agenda : The committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote on a premarket approval application for an interactive wound and burn bressing. Background information, including the agenda and questions for the committee, will be made available to the public on July 16, 2001, on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/panelmtg.html.

Procedure : On July 17, 2001, from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person by July 3, 2001. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., and between approximately 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person before July 3, 2001, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation.

Closed Committee Deliberations : On July 17, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., the meeting will be closed to permit FDA to present to the committee trade secret and/or confidential commercial information (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)) relating to pending issues and applications.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

Name of Committee : Anesthesiology and Respiratory Therapy Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

General Function of the Committee : To provide advice and recommendations to the agency on FDA’s regulatory issues.

Date and Time : The meeting will be held on July 16, 2001, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Location : Corporate Bldg., conference room 20B, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD.

Contact : Michael Bazaral, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-450), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-443-8611, ext. 140, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12624. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

Agenda : The committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote on a premarket approval application for a high-frequency ventilator used in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in adults. Background information and questions for the committee will be available to the public on July 13, 2001, on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/panelmtg.html.

Procedure : On July 16, 2001, from 12 a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person by July 9, 2001. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 12:15 p.m. and 12:45 p.m. Near the end of the committee deliberations, a 30-minute open public session will be conducted for interested persons to address issues specific to the submission before the committee. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person before July 9, 2001, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation.

Closed Committee Deliberations : On July 16, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, the meeting will be closed to permit FDA to present to the committee trade secret and/or confidential commercial information (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)) regarding pending and future anesthesiology and respiratory therapy device submissions.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until August 27, 2001.

If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Mike Quinn, 202-616-3508, Office of Administration, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

Overview of this information:

(1) Type of information collection: New collection.

(2) The title of the form/collection: Categorical Assistance Progress Report.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is OJP FORM 4587/1, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Federal Government, State, Local or Tribal. Other: Individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions.

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for grants and Cooperative Agreements—28 CFR, part 66, and OMB Circular A-110—authorizes the Department of Justice to collect information from grantees to report on project activities and project accomplishments. Grantees that are recipients of discretionary grant (and some formula grant) programs are required by OJP program offices to submit Categorical Assistance Progress Reports on project activities and accomplishments. It is expected that reports will include data appropriate to this stage of project development and in sufficient detail to provide a clear idea and summary of work and accomplishments to date. Progress reports are primarily designed to aid grant managers in carrying out their responsibilities for monitoring grant- supported activities. The major focus of these reports is the progress achieved on each task in relation to the approved schedule and project milestones for that reporting period. The grantee's review of the project, its functions, and activities are included in the progress report. Generally, progress reports are brief (normally less than five pages) and are in chart form, narrative form, or both. Grantees must include the following information in progress reports submitted to the OJP grant manager:

• Description of the progress made during the reporting period toward accomplishing goals and objectives.

• Changes in the overall project, its objectives, time schedule, organization, or staffing for the period.

• Favorable developments or events which enable the grantee to meet time schedules or milestones sooner than anticipated.

• Any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which have affected or will affect the ability on the grantee to attain project objectives, including the timely submission of products. Accomplishments during reporting period, such as statistics on measurable project outcomes (e.g., number of people trained, manuals produced, etc.).

• Need for technical assistance relating to programmatic or financial issues.

• Next steps; and other pertinent information including, where appropriate, analysis and explanation of expenditures.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 10,366 grantees will each take approximately two hours to complete each semi-annual submission of their Categorical Assistance Progress Report form for a total of four hours annually per grantee. A progress report is required for each current grant that a grantee has.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total hour burden to complete the progress report forms is 41,464 hours.

If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1220, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, or via facsimile at (202) 514-1534.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is being sought for the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2001, Volume 66, page 15889, allowing for a 60 days for public comment.

The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments until July 30, 2001. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice,especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530. Comments may also be submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Suite 1220, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's/component's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

Overview of this information:

(1) Type of information collection: New Collection.

(2) The title of the form/collection: The Victimization of People With Disabilities Study.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection: NCVS-1, NCVS-2, Modified NCVS-1, and Modified NCVS-2.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Individuals. The Victimization of People With Disabilities Study will interview approximately 200 persons with developmental disabilities, age 12 or older, using existing questionnaires and modified standard questionnaires to test suitability of the standard and modified questionnaires for a population of developmentally disabled individuals. Additionally, the test will evaluate U.S. Bureau of the Census interviewer training program for collecting victimization data from persons with disabilities.

Other: None.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: 200 respondents at 1 hour per interview.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 200 hours burden.

If additional information is required, contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1220, National Place, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

Primrose Coal Company #2, 475 High Road, Ashland, Pennsylvania 17921 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1200(d) and (i) (mine maps) to its Buck Mountain Vein Slope (I.D. No. 36-08698) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposes to use cross-sections instead of contour lines through the intake slope, at locations of rock tunnel connections between veins, and at 1,000 foot intervals of advance from the intake slope; and to limit the required mapping of the mine workings above and below to those present within 100 feet of the veins being mined except when veins are interconnected to other veins beyond the 100-foot limit through rock tunnels. The petitioner asserts that due to the steep pitch encountered in mining anthracite coal veins, contours provide no useful information and their presence would make portions of the map illegible. The petitioner further asserts that use of cross-sections in lieu of contour lines has been practiced since the late 1800's thereby providing critical information relative to the spacing between veins and proximity to other mine workings which fluctuate considerably. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Primrose Coal Company #2, 475 High Road, Ashland, Pennsylvania 17921 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1202 and 75.1202-1(a) (temporary notations, revisions, and supplements) to its Buck Mountain Vein Slope (I.D. No. 36-08698) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposes to revise and supplement mine maps annually instead of every 6 months as required, and to update maps daily by hand notations. The petitioner also proposes to conduct surveys prior to commencing retreat mining and whenever a drilling program under 30 CFR 75.388 or plan for mining into inaccessible area under 30 CFR 75.389 is required. The petitioner asserts that the low production and slow rate of advance in anthracite mining make surveying on 6-month intervals impractical. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Coastal Coal Company, LLC, 117 Madison Avenue, Suite B, Whitesburg, Kentucky 41858 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its Red Star Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-18306), Hip-High Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-17571), Lynn Branch Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-17605), Black Thunder Mine No. 3 (I.D. No. 15-18161), and Koyle Branch Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-07232) all located in Letcher County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a permanently installed spring-loaded device instead of a padlock on mobile battery-powered equipment to prevent unintentional loosening of battery plugs from battery receptacles and to eliminate hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Coastal Coal Company, LLC, 117 Madison Avenue, Whitesburg, Kentucky 41858 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.900 (low-and medium-voltage circuits serving three-phase alternating circuits equipment; circuit breakers) to its Red Star Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-18306), Hip-High Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-17571), Lynn Branch Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-17605), Black Thunder Mine No. 3 (I.D. No. 15-18161), and Koyle Branch Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-07232) all located in Letcher County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to install contactors to obtain under-voltage protection in lieu of using circuit breakers. The petitioner has listed in the petition specific procedures that would be followed when its proposed alternative method is implemented. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Marrowbone Development Company, P.O. Box 119, Naugatuck, West Virginia 25685 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1002 (location of trolley wires, trolley feeder wires, high-voltage cables and transformers) to its Dingess Tunnel No. 1 Deep (I.D. No. 46-08891) located in Mingo County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to use 2,400 volt AC-powered continuous mining equipment at its Dingess Tunnel No. 1 Deep Mine. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Speed Mining, Inc., 325 Harper Park Drive, Beckley, West Virginia 25801 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1002 (location of trolley wires, trolley feeder wires, high-voltage cables and transformers) to its American Eagle Mine (I.D. No. 46-05437) located in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to use high-voltage 4,160 volt cables on longwall equipment at its American Eagle Mine. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Turris Coal Company, P.O. Box 21, Elkhart, Illinois 62634 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 77.214(a) (refuse piles; general) to its Elkhart Mine (I.D. No. 11-02664) located in Logan County, Illinois. The petitioner proposes to backfill abandoned shafts with noncombustible materials and then cover with a concrete cap. The cap will then be covered with 18 inches of “CL” or “ML” soils compacted in 6″ lifts. Then the shaft and cap will be covered with maximum of 6o feet of course refuse. The petitioner states that the backfill materials would be of a nature, and placed in the shaft, in such a manner as to minimize settling. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Excel Mining, LLC, HC 67 Box 615, Pilgrim, Kentucky 41250 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.360(b)(5) (preshift examination at fixed intervals) Mine No. 3 (I.D. No. 15-08079) located in Pike County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use an alternate method to monitor the quality of air passing the permanent seals that ventilate working sections to ensure constant monitoring of the mine atmosphere when miners are working in a ventilating current that has been used to ventilate a set of seals. The petitioner has outlined specific procedures in the petition that would be followed when its proposed alternative method is implemented. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Monterey Coal Company, 14300 Brushy Mound Road, Carlinville, Illinois 62626 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.350 (air courses and belt haulage entries) to its No. 1 Mine (I.D. No. 11-00726) located in Macoupin County, Illinois. The petitioner requests a modification of the standard to permit the use of the belt conveyor entry to course intake air to ventilate active working places. The petitioner proposes to install safeguards, such as a carbon monoxide monitoring system in all belt entries used to course air to a working place as part of an early warning fire detection system. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Peabody Energy, Rivers Edge Mining, Inc., 202 Laidley Tower, P.O. Box 1233, Charleston, West Virginia 25324-1233 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1002 (location of trolley wires, trolley feeder wires, high-voltage cables and transformers) to its Rivers Edge Mine (I.D. No. 46-08890) located in Boone County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to use high-voltage 2,400 volt trailing cables in the last open crosscut at the working continuous miner section(s). The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Cumberland River Coal Company, Pardee Complex, P.O. Drawer 109, Appalachia, Virginia 24216 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.364(b)(2) & (4) (weekly examination) to its Band Mill Mine (I.D. No. 44-06816) located in Wise County, Virginia. Due to deteriorating roof conditions in certain areas of the return air course, traveling the affected area in its entirety to conduct weekly examinations would be unsafe. The petitioner proposes to establish two monitoring stations to evaluate the air entering and leaving the affected area of the return air course, and have a certified person examine the monitoring stations on a weekly basis and record the date, his/her initials, time of examination, and the quantity and quality of air in a book or on a date board that would be maintained on the surface of the mine and made accessible to all interested parties. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 1970 Barrett Court, P.O. Box 1990, Henderson, Kentucky 42420 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1700 (oil and gas wells) to its Harris No. 1 Mine (I.D. No. 46-01271) located in Boone County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to plan to clean out and prepare oil and gas wells for plugging and to plug all wells that are encountered during normal operations at the Harris No. 1 Mine. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Tilden Mining Company, L.C., One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-1410 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 56.14131 (seat belts for haulage trucks) to its Tilden Mine (I.D. No. 20-00422) located in Marquette County, Michigan. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit an alternate method of compliance for labeling seat belts. The petitioner proposes to equip its haul trucks with seatbelt/driver restraint systems which are manufactured, installed, and labeled in conformance with SAE J800C, SAE J386, subsequent amendments to those recommendations, or any other SAE recommendations applicable to seat belt/driver restraint systems. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.

Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via e-mail to “comments@msha.gov,” or on a computer disk along with an original hard copy to the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 627, Arlington, Virginia 22203. All comments must be postmarked or received in that office on or before July 30, 2001. Copies of these petitions are available for inspection at that address.

The restrictions of section 406(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply to (1) the granting to BofA by the Westbrook Real Estate Fund IV, L.P. (LP), a Delaware Limited Partnership, of a first, exclusive, and prior security interest in the capital commitments, reserve amounts and capital contributions (Capital Contributions), whether now owned or after-acquired, of certain employee benefit plans (Plans) investing in the LP; (2) the collateral assignment and pledge by the LP to BofA of its security interest in each Plan's limited partnership interest, whether now owned or after-acquired; (3) the granting by the LP of a first, exclusive, and prior security interest in a borrower collateral account to which all Capital Contributions will be deposited when paid; (4) the granting to BofA by Westbrook Real Estate Partners Management IV, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of the LP (the General Partner), of its right to make calls for cash contributions (Drawdowns) under the Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Westbrook Real Estate Fund IV, L.P., dated as of September 15, 2000, where BofA is the representative of certain lenders (the Lenders) that will fund a so-called “credit facility” (Credit Facility) providing credit to the LP, and the Lenders are parties in interest with respect to the Plans; and (5) the execution of a partner agreement and estoppel (Estoppel) under which the Plans agree to honor the Drawdowns; provided that (i) the proposed grants, assignments, and Estoppels are on terms no less favorable to the Plans than those which the Plans could obtain in arm's-length transactions with unrelated parties; (ii) the decisions on behalf of each Plan to invest in the LP and to execute such Estoppels in favor of BofA, for the benefit of each Lender, are made by a fiduciary which is not included among, and is independent of and unaffiliated with, the Lenders and BofA; (iii) with respect to Plans that may invest in the LP in the future, such Plans will have assets of not less than $100 million 1 and not more than 5% of the assets of such Plan will be invested in the LP; (iv) the General Partner is unrelated to any Plan and any Lender; and (v) on or after December 31, 2000, this exemption is not applicable for any direct or indirect transaction between the AT&T Management Pension Plan and the AT&T Pension Plan and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (or any affiliate of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. that is a party in interest with respect to the AT&T Plans).

For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption (the Notice) published on March 21, 2001 at 66 FR 15897.

Effective Date: This exemption is effective September 15, 2000.

The Department received one comment letter with respect to the Notice. The comment letter was submitted by BofA (the Applicant) to report certain facts that had changed since the exemption application was filed.

The Applicant stated that the following six employee benefit plan trusts acquired limited partnership interests in the LP in addition to the trusts listed in the original application: (i) The White Plaza Group Trust; (ii) the UPS Retirement Plan Master Trust; (iii) Leeway & Co., as nominee for the Long-Term Investment Trust; (iv) the U.S. Steel and Carnegie Pension Fund, as Trustee for the Marathon Oil Group Trust; (v) the U.S. Steel and Carnegie Pension Fund, as Trustee for the U.S. Steel Union Trust; and (vi) the U.S. Steel and Carnegie Pension Fund, as Trustee for the U.S. Steel Non-Union Trust.

The following employee benefit plans which are invested in the LP hold assets in these Trusts:

The Applicant represented that by April 20, 2001, representatives of the fiduciaries of each of the above Plans were given notice of the proposed exemption, provided with a copy of the Notice, and informed that they had the opportunity to submit comments for a period of 35 days. Accordingly, the Applicant represented that the comment period was extended until May 25, 2001.

The Applicant also wished to clarify that Morgan Guaranty Trust Company (MGT) was the fiduciary who exercised the discretionary authority to cause the AT&T Management Pension Plan and the AT&T Pension Plan (together, the AT&T Plans) to invest in the LP and to execute the Estoppel through Leeway & Company (Leeway), as Nominee for the Long Term Investment Trust (the Long Term Trust). At the time of the investment, MGT was a wholly-owned subsidiary of J.P. Morgan & Co. (J.P. Morgan). J.P. Morgan was independent of all the Lenders. However, J.P. Morgan subsequently merged (the Merger) with The Chase Manhattan Corporation on December 31, 2000. As a result of the Merger, MGT is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the surviving entity: J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (Morgan Chase).

The Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase) is the co-syndication agent and a Lender participating in the Credit Facility. At the time of the investment by the Long Term Trust in the LP, Chase was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chase Manhattan Corporation. As a result of the Merger, MGT is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Chase. Accordingly, MGT and Chase are included in a brother-sister group of trades or businesses as described in section 1.414(c) of the federal income tax regulations.

The Notice requires as a condition of the proposed exemption that the decisions on behalf of each Plan (as defined in the Notice and including the AT&T Plans) to invest in the Partnership and to execute the Estoppel in favor of BofA, for the benefit of each Lender participating in the Credit Facility, be made by a fiduciary which is not included among, and which is independent of and unaffiliated with, the Lenders and BofA. To avoid the need to consider whether the Merger raises any issues in respect of this condition, the affected parties to the Credit Facility have determined that BofA, as administrative agent, will continue the allocation of collateral set forth in Section 5.1(c) of the Credit Facility in a manner that the AT&T collateral will not be used as collateral for, or the payment of, Chase's interest, fees, or the portion of the Credit Facility attributable to Chase's lending commitment under the Credit Facility.

The effect of such allocation of collateral will be that the interests and rights granted by the AT&T Plans pursuant to Section 5.1(b) of the Credit Facility (the Partner Collateral) will be allocated by BofA in such a manner that Chase will not hold any security interest or lien in the Partner Collateral attributable to the AT&T Plans, and will not receive any payment of its portion of the Credit Facility or any interest or fees from capital contributions attributable to the AT&T Plans. Moreover, any claim for the payment of the Credit Facility, interest or fees brought against the AT&T Plans will be brought by BofA, as administrative agent for the benefit of the Lenders. Thus, Chase will not receive any benefit from the Estoppel executed at the direction of MGT by Leeway & Co., as nominee for the Long Term Trust, on behalf of the AT&T Plans.

In connection with the Credit Facility, Chase could earn interest, an unused commitment fee, and administrative fees. Interest and the unused commitment fee are paid to all Lenders in the Credit Facility on a pro rata basis. The unused commitment fee is similar to interest. It reflects in part the opportunity costs incurred by the Lenders in committing funds to the Credit Facility, just as interest reflects in part the Lenders' opportunity costs in actually funding the Credit Facility. The amount of the unused commitment fee is based on the difference between the money actually borrowed and the amount which the Lenders have committed under the Credit Facility. Chase had already been paid its co-syndication fees prior to the date of the Merger. In the event there was to be a material amendment to the Credit Facility, Chase, as well as other Lenders, could be paid additional interest and/or administrative fees, including a co-syndication fee. However, as a result of the allocation of collateral as described above and the factors described below, the Applicant represents that no prohibited transactions would be created by the payment of such interest or fees.

As suggested in Representation 11 of the Summary of Facts and Representations contained in the Notice (the Summary), the exemption application assumes that the LP is an “operating company” under the Department's Plan Asset Regulations. 2 Based on such assumption and the allocation of collateral described above, no amounts which will be received or accrued by Chase in its role as co-syndication agent and Lender were or will be paid from Plan assets; all interest and fees paid to Chase in any capacity in connection with the Credit Facility are usually paid by the LP. In the unlikely event any amount is paid by the limited partners, including the AT&T Plans, then BofA, as administrative agent for the benefit of the Lenders, will allocate the AT&T Plans' capital commitments in a manner to ensure that none of Chase's interest or fees will be paid by assets of the AT&T Plans.

In addition, from and after the date of the Merger, the AT&T Plans' investment (or any decision by MGT to retain the AT&T Plans' investment) in the LP will have no effect on Chase's receipt of any interest or fees. The collateral that secures the Credit Facility sufficiently exceeds the amount customarily required by lenders in similar transactions with similar lending terms. As a result of such over-collateralization and the allocation of collateral, neither the investment by the AT&T Plans in the LP nor their withdrawal from the LP increase or decrease the interest or fees received by Chase in connection with the Credit Facility. Accordingly, Chase will earn any interest or fees arising in connection with the Credit Facility without regard to whether the AT&T Plans remain as a limited partner of the LP.

The Applicant also made an additional clarification regarding the information contained in the Summary. The fourth sentence of Representation 10 of the Summary should be deleted and replaced with the following:

The Applicant requested that the sentence be deleted and replaced with the above in order to provide that the documentation described in items (1) and (2) may be received by either the General Partner or the Applicant. Thus, as a result of this clarification, BofA may also receive the representation letter from the independent fiduciaries of the Plans.

The Applicant requested that the exemption be made retroactive to September 15, 2000, to cover any executions of Estoppels that may have occurred prior to the granting of the exemption.

Finally, the Applicant represented that it is not requesting relief for any direct or indirect transaction between the AT&T Plans and Morgan Chase (or any affiliate of Morgan Chase that is a party in interest with respect to the AT&T Plans). However, the exemption will cover any transaction between the AT&T Plans and the other Lenders.

Accordingly, based on the entire record, the Department has determined to grant the exemption as clarified herein.

For Further Information Contact: Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department, telephone (202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-free number.)

The restrictions of section 406(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply effective as of June 8, 2001, to (1) the receipt of common stock (Stock) of The Phoenix Companies, Inc. (the Holding Company), the parent of Phoenix, or (2) the receipt of cash (Cash) or Policy Credits, by or on behalf of any Eligible Policyholder of Phoenix which is an employee benefit plan (a Plan), including any Eligible Policyholder that is a Plan maintained by Phoenix or its affiliates (Phoenix Plan), in exchange for such Eligible Policyholder's membership interest in Phoenix, in accordance with the terms of a plan of reorganization (the Plan of Reorganization) adopted by Phoenix and implemented pursuant to Section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law.

In addition, effective as of June 8, 2001, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(E) and (a)(2) and section 407(a)(2) of the Act shall not apply to the receipt and holding of the Stock, by a Phoenix Plan, whose fair market value exceeds 10 percent of the value of the total assets held by such Plan.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions set forth below in Section II.

(a) The Plan of Reorganization is subject to approval, review and supervision by the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York (the Superintendent) and is implemented in accordance with procedural and substantive safeguards that are imposed under New York law.

(b) The Superintendent reviews the terms and options that are provided to Eligible Policyholders of Phoenix as part of such Superintendent's review of the Plan of Reorganization and the Superintendent only approves the Plan of Reorganization following a determination that the Plan of Reorganization is fair and equitable to Eligible Policyholders and is not detrimental to the general public.

(c) Each Eligible Policyholder has an opportunity to vote to approve the Plan of Reorganization after full written disclosure is given to the Eligible Policyholder by Phoenix.

(d) Any determination to receive Stock, Cash or Policy Credits by an Eligible Policyholder which is a Plan, pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, is made by one or more Plan fiduciaries which are independent of Phoenix and its affiliates and neither Phoenix nor any of its affiliates exercises any discretion or provides investment advice, within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c), with respect to such decisions.

(e) In the case of the Phoenix Plans, an independent fiduciary with respect to the Phoenix Plans:

(1) Exercises its authority and responsibility to vote on behalf of the Phoenix Plans at the special meeting of Eligible Policyholders on the proposal to approve the Plan of Reorganization;

(2) Monitors, on behalf of the Phoenix Plans, the acquisition and holding of any Stock, Cash or Policy Credits received;

(3) Makes determinations on behalf of the Phoenix Plans with respect to the voting and continued holding of any Stock held by such Plans until such holding is reduced so that it does not exceed the limits of section 407(a) of the Act;

(4) Disposes of Stock exceeding the limits of section 407(a) of the Act within six months of the effective date of the Plan of Reorganization.

(5) Provides the Department with a complete and detailed final report as it relates to the Phoenix Plans prior to the effective date of the demutualization.

(f) After each Eligible Policyholder entitled to receive Stock is allocated 37 shares of Stock (subject to possible adjustment as provided in the Plan of Reorganization), additional consideration is allocated to each Eligible Policyholder who owned participating policies based on actuarial formulas that take into account each participating policy's contribution to the surplus of Phoenix, which formula has been approved by the Superintendent.

(g) All Eligible Policyholders that are Plans participate in the transactions on the same basis as all Eligible Policyholders that are not Plans.

(h) No Eligible Policyholder pays any brokerage commissions or fees in connection with the receipt of Stock or in connection with the implementation of the commission-free purchase and sale program.

(i) All of Phoenix's policyowner obligations remain in force and are not affected by the Plan of Reorganization.

(j) The terms of the transaction are at least as favorable to the Plans as an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party.

For purposes of this exemption:

(a) An “affiliate” of Phoenix includes—

(1) Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Phoenix. (For purposes of this paragraph, the term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual), and

(2) Any officer, director or partner in such person.

(b) The term “Eligible Policyholder” means a person who is (or collectively, persons who are) the owner(s) of one or more policies that are in force on the date of the adoption of the Plan of Reorganization.

(c) The term “Phoenix” means Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company and any of its affiliates, as defined in paragraph (a) of this Section III.

(d) The term “Policy Credit” means (a) for an individual or joint participating whole life insurance policy, the crediting of paid-up additions which will increase the cash value and death benefit of the policy; (b) for supplementary contracts issued under optional modes of settlement or annuities in the course of installment payment without a defined account value and that provide for the payment of additional interest, the crediting of an additional amount in the form of additional interest; (c) for supplementary contracts issued under optional modes of settlement or annuities in the course of installment payment without a defined account value not providing for the payment of additional interest, an increase in the installment payment amount; and (d) for all other individual or joint life policies and annuities, (i) if the policy or contract has a defined account value, an increase in the account value, to which the Company will apply no sales, surrender or similar charges, or that will be further increased in value to offset any of these charges, or (ii) if the policy or contract does not have a defined account value, the crediting of dividends under the policy or contract.

Effective Date: This exemption is effective June 8, 2001.

The Department received seven written comments with respect to the proposed exemption. Six comments were submitted by Plan policyholders of Phoenix. The seventh comment was submitted by Phoenix, and contained only technical corrections to update factual information provided in the Summary of Facts and Representations included as part of the proposed exemption. The policyholders' comments, as well as the comments submitted by Phoenix, are discussed below.

As noted above, six policyholders submitted comments with respect to the proposed exemption. Three of the policyholders indicated concern that the demutualization would affect retirement benefits owed to them under Phoenix policies. In response, Phoenix emphasizes that the demutualization will not in any way cause a loss or a reduction in the benefits paid pursuant to Phoenix policies.

One policyholder expressed doubts as to the benefit to Phoenix of the plan of demutualization. In response, Phoenix states that converting to a stock life company will increase Phoenix's potential for long-term growth and financial strength in ways not available to it as a mutual company. Phoenix acknowledges that, as in all business ventures, there are risks. However, Phoenix asserts that as a stock company, it will be better able to attract needed capital and offer additional financial products and services to its policyholders. In sum, Phoenix states that the demutualization will make it a stronger, more flexible company.

One policyholder commented that the disclosure information provided by Phoenix did not describe with sufficient clarity the transaction with respect to which Phoenix desires an exemption. In response, Phoenix references the Policyholder Information Booklet, Part I, which contains the following description of the transaction:

Section 406 of ERISA and Section 4975 of the Code prohibit employee benefit plans from engaging in certain transactions with “parties in interest” and “disqualified persons.” If Phoenix is a “party in interest” with respect to an employee benefit plan under ERISA or a “disqualified person” under the Code, the receipt of Compensation in exchange for the Policyholders' Membership Interests owned by an Eligible Policyholder with respect to such employee benefit plan could be viewed as prohibited. Phoenix has applied to the U.S. Department of Labor for an administrative exemption to cover such transactions.

Finally, one policyholder submitted a comment that was determined not to be germane to the requested exemption.

The Department notes the following clarifications made to the Summary of Facts and Representations by Phoenix:

1. Representation 1. In the fourth paragraph of Representation 1, it is stated that Holdings has an approximate 60% ownership interest in publicly traded Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. (PXP). Phoenix wishes to clarify this to state that Holdings is now the sole owner of PXP.

2. Representation 2. Phoenix wishes to revise the fourth paragraph of Representation 2 in a number of respects. Phoenix clarifies that the Phoenix Plans are employee benefit plans sponsored by Phoenix, PXP and a PXP subsidiary, Pasadena Capital Corporation. Phoenix states that, with respect to subparagraphs (e) and (f), the actuaries have determined that the Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Employee Group Life Insurance Plan and the Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Agent Group Life Insurance Plan were not be entitled to any demutualization compensation. Therefore they should not be included in the list of Phoenix Plans which are expected to be Eligible Policyholders. With respect to subsection (g) (redesignated as (e) below), Phoenix notes that the Phoenix Investment Partners Ltd. Group Profit Sharing Plan and Trust was terminated effective March 19, 2001, and that the demutualization proceeds will be used to pay a small portion of the legal expenses for obtaining an IRS determination letter. With respect to subsections (h) and (i) (redesignated as (f) and (g) below), Phoenix states that the Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. Group Life Insurance Plan and the Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. Group Long Term Disability Plan were terminated effective December 31, 2000, and the demutualization proceeds received by those plans which constitute plan assets will be used to reduce participants contributions under essentially similar plans maintained by Phoenix and in which PXP employees participate. Finally, Phoenix adds the Pasadena Capital Corporation Major Medical and Dental Treatment Plans (the Pasadena Plans), welfare plans, to the listing of plans which are considered Phoenix Plans. As of December 31, 1999, the Pasadena Plans had 87 participants.

Accordingly, as revised, the fourth paragraph of Representation 2 reads as follows:

Phoenix, PXP, and a PXP subsidiary, Pasadena Capital Corporation, sponsor the following Plans, which are expected to be Eligible Policyholders (collectively referred to herein as the “Phoenix Plans”):

(a) The Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Employee Pension Plan (the Pension Plan) is a defined benefit pension plan. As of December 31, 1999, the Pension Plan had approximately 6,160 participants.

(b) The Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Savings and Investment Plan (the Savings Plan) is a defined contribution plan. As of December 31, 1999, the Savings Plan had 3,002 participants.

(c) The Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Agent Pension Plan (the Agent Pension Plan) is a defined contribution plan. As of December 31, 1999, the Agent Pension Plan had 1,024 participants.

(d) The Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Agent Savings and Investment Plan (the Agent Savings Plan) is a defined contribution plan. As of December 31, 1999, the Agent Savings Plan had 535 participants.

(e) The Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. Group Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the PXP Profit Sharing Plan) is a defined contribution plan. As of December 31, 1999, the PXP Profit Sharing Plan had 193 participants. The PXP Profit Sharing Plan was terminated effective March 19, 2001. The anticipated distribution will be used to pay a small portion of the legal expenses for obtaining an IRS determination letter.

(f) The Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. Group Life Insurance Plan (the PXP Group Life Plan) is a welfare benefit plan. As of December 31, 1999, the PXP Group Life Plan had 493 participants. The PXP Group Life Plan was terminated effective December 31, 2000. Consideration received by the plan which constitutes plan assets will be used to reduce participants' contributions under essentially similar plans maintained by Phoenix and in which PXP employees participate.

(g) The Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. Group Long Term Disability Plan (the PXP Long Term Disability Plan) is a welfare benefit plan. As of December 31, 1999, the PXP Long Term Disability Plan had 359 participants. The PXP Long Term Disability Plan was terminated effective December 31, 2000. Consideration received by the plan which constitutes plan assets will be used to reduce participants' contributions under essentially similar plans maintained by Phoenix and in which PXP employees participate.

(h) The Pasadena Capital Corporation Major Medical and Dental Treatment Plans (the Pasadena Plans) are welfare benefit plans. As of December 31, 1999, the Pasadena Plans had 87 participants.

After giving full consideration to the entire record, including the written comments, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. In this regard, the comment letters submitted to the Department have been included as part of the public record of the exemption application. The complete application file, including all supplemental submissions received by the Department, is made available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

For Further Information Contact: Karen Lloyd of the Department, telephone (202) 219-8194. (This is not a toll-free number).

The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemptions does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) These exemptions are supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and

(3) The availability of these exemptions is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.

Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register . Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the Federal Register and shall inform interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing (where appropriate).