Power Provider LLC (Power Provider), an affiliate of Baltimore Gas & Electric Company and a newly created electric power marketer, filed with the Commission in the above-docketed proceeding, a proposed tariff under which Power Provider will engage in the sale of electric energy and capacity at market-based rates with affiliated and non-affiliated entities. Power Provider's filing also requested certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, Power Provider requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by Power Provider. On June 27, 2001, the Commission issued an order that accepted the tariff for sales of capacity and energy at market-based rates (Order), in the above-docketed proceeding.

The Commission's June 27, 2001 Order granted Power Provider's request for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in Appendix A in Ordering Paragraphs (2), (3), and (5):

(2) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by Power Provider 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.

(3) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in Ordering Paragraph (2) above, Power Provider is hereby authorized to issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Power Provider, compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

(5) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of Power Provider's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities.

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 27, 2001.

Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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 in the above referenced notice (66 FR 33958, pub. June 26, 2001) the caption was inadvertently named Idaho Power Company. The correct name is San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

The following paragraphs replaces the first paragraph issued on the Notice of Filing June 18, 2001:

Take notice that on June 13, 2001, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) tendered for filing as service agreements to its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 6, two interconnection agreements. Both agreements related to the interconnection of a new generation plant to be owned by Wildflower Energy, LP (Wildflower). The plant, with a capacity of approximately 92 megawatts, is being constructed on an expedited basis to meet potential shortfalls this summer in the Wester states' electricity supplies. It will be located in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, California and is expected to being service on or about July 1, 2001.

Service Agreement No. 7 is an Expedited Interconnection Facilities Agreement dated June 13, 2001, between SDG&E and Wildflower, dated June 13, 2001, under which SDG&E will construct, operate, and maintain the proposed interconnection facilities. Service Agreement No. 8, the Interconnection Agreement between SDG&E and Wildflower dated June 13, 2001, establishes interconnection and operating responsibilities and associated communications procedures between the parties. SDG&E states that copies of the filing have been served on Wildflower and on the California Public Utilities Commission.

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 9, 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/doorbeell.htm

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

a. Application Type: Non-capacity amendment of license.

b. Project No.: 1494-232.

c. Date Filed: June 19, 2001.

d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority.

e. Name of Project: Pensacola Dam.

f. Location: The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. The project does not occupy any Federal or tribal lands.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mary E. Von Drehle, Assistant General Counsel, Grand River Dam Authority, PO Box 409, Vinita, OK 74301.

i. FERC Contact: Steve Naugle, steven.naugle@ferc.fed.us. 202-219-2805.

j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: August 10, 2001.

All document (original and eight copies) should be filed with Mr. David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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.

Please reference the following number, P-1494-232, on any comments or motions filed.

k. Description of the Application: The applicant requests Commission approval to grant a permit to Arrowhead Investment & Development Company to replace and relocate certain boat docks and to add two new docks at an existing commercial facility known as Arrowhead Marina. The marina, which is located on the Duck Creek arm of Grand Lake O' the Cherokees, currently consists of nine docks with 111 boat slips. After completing the proposed improvements, the marina would consist of 11 docks with 175 boat slips. The expanded docking facilities would be used by patrons of the marina.

l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 202-208-1371. The application may be viewed on-line at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rules of practice and procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all Capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Mail Stop PJ-12.1, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.

p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

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 96-511. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Not withstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0214.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0978.

Expiration Date: 06/30/04.

Title: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Fourth R&O.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 32,000 burden hours annually, 2 hours per response; 16,000 responses.

Description: The information submitted in the quarterly reports will be used by the Commission to keep track of the carriers' progress in complying with E911 TTY requirements and also to monitor the progress technology is making towards compatibility with TTY devices.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register .

Agreement No.: 011700-003.

Title: Senator/CSAV Slot Charter Agreement.

Parties: Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A., Norasia Container Lines Limited, Senator Lines GmbH.

Synopsis: The proposed modification adds Norasia to the agreement as a charterer of slots from Senator Lines in trades between North Europe, the Far East, Central America, Mexico and U.S. Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.

Agreement No.: 011736-001.

Title: Sen/CSAV Cross Slot Charterparty Agreement on AMA/APX.

Parties: Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A., Norasia Container Lines Limited, Senator Lines GmbH.

Synopsis: The proposed modification adds Norasia to the agreement as a charterer of slots from Senator Lines in trades between South Europe, the Near, Middle and Far East, and Western Pacific Islands on the one hand and the U.S. Atlantic Coast.

Agreement No.: 011770.

Title: NSCSA/Oldendorff Slot Exchange Agreement.

Parties: National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, Oldendorff Carriers (Indotrans) Ltd.

Synopsis: The proposed agreement establishes a vessel-sharing agreement between the parties in the trade between U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports and ports in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and on the Arabian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. The parties have requested expedited review.

Agreement No.: 201100-001.

Title: Oakland/Italia Terminal Use Agreement.

Parties: Port of Oakland, Italia di Navigazione-Societa per Azione.

Synopsis: The proposed amendment permits cargo discharged from or loaded onto Medbulk Maritime Corporation vessels at the Charles P. Howard Terminal to be regarded as cargo discharged or loaded by Italia vessels. The agreement continues to run through September 30, 2004.

Agreement No.: 201123.

Title: SSA Terminals (Long Beach) Cooperative Working Agreement.

Parties: SSA Terminals, LLC, SSA Pacific Terminals, Inc., Terminal Investment Limited.

Synopsis: The proposed agreement provides for the joint ownership of SSA Terminals (Long Beach), LLC that will provide container stevedoring, terminal, and related services on A at the Port of Long Beach.

The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding dates shown below:

Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR 515.

Notice is given that on June 25, 2001, the Federal Maritime Commission served an Order of Investigation to determine whether Tignes, Inc. is qualified by the experience and character standards of section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 to be licensed to render services as an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (“OTI”).

Tignes submitted an application for a license as an OTI to operate as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (“NVOCC”). Sergio Lemme is identified in the application as Tignes' Qualifying Individual, as well as its President and sole owner. On April 30, 2001, the Commission sent a letter of intent to deny the license application to Tignes pursuant to 46 CFR 515.15. The letter of intent to deny was based upon a staff determination that Tignes and Mr. Lemme did not have the experience or character necessary to perform OTI services. The staff made this determination based on admitted violations of the 1984 Act in FMC Docket No. 99-20, GSTAAD, Inc. and Sergio Lemme Possible Violations of Section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984, and indications that GSTAAD, continued to solicit new business after approval of the settlement agreement by the ALJ in Docket No. 99-20. The staff also found indications that Southern Group, of which Mr. Lemme is President and Owner, provided NVOCC services without a license and that materially false and misleading statements were made with respect to Tignes' OTI application. As entitled by 46 CFR 515.15, Tignes, through counsel, requested a hearing on the proposed denial of its license application. The Commission issued the Order of Investigation in Docket No. 01-07 in response to this request. The full text of the Commission's Order of Investigation can be found on the Commission's homepage at www.fmc.gov.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq. ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 30, 2001.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

1. American Community Financial, Inc. , Woodstock, Illinois; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of American Community Bank & Trust, Woodstock, Illinois.

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (Council) scheduled for July 19, 2001, extending possibly into July 20th, 2001 at a downtown Washington, DC location to be determined. The meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS will take place on Thursday, July 19th, 2001 (8:30 am to 6 pm). Once a draft agenda is prepared, if deemed necessary the meeting will continue on July 20th (8:30 am to 12 pm). The meetings will be open to the public, however space may be limited. Possible attendees are strongly encouraged to pre-register by calling Shellie Abramson at (202) 860-8863.

Greg Smiley, Designated Federal Official, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 733-E, Washington, DC, (phone: (202) 205-1839, Fax: (202) 690-7560, E-mail: gsmiley@OSOPHS.dhhs.gov ) will furnish the meeting agenda and roster of committee members upon request. Once a draft agenda has been finalized, it may also be accessed through the Council's website: www.pacha.gov . Any individual who requires special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Brand Rymph at (301) 986-4870 no later than July 12, 2001.

Under the authority of Section 6 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 and pursuant to the authorities vested in me as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I hereby order organizational changes in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as follows. Under Part F, (Health Care Financing Administration) Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services, Part F, as amended at 46 FR 13262-63, dated March 9, 1977, and most recently amended at 65 FR 43771, dated July 14, 2000, is being amended to retitle, Part F, Health Care Financing Administration, as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The changes are as follows:

1. Under Part F, all references to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), are hereby changed to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); and all references to HCFA are changed to CMS.

2. All references to the HCFA “Administrator” are changed to the “Administrator of CMS.”

3. Delegations of Authority. All delegations of authority from the Secretary or other HHS officials to the Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration and redelegations from the Administrator to subordinate employees pertaining to the Health Care Financing Administration are vested in the Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and such subordinate employees and remain in effect until revoked or modified.

In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 639-7090.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments to Anne O'Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) Methodological Study—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC). The purpose of this request is to obtain OMB clearance to conduct a methodological study in the Spring of 2002 to assess the contributions of question wording, questionnaire context, and appeals for honesty on prevalence and, thereby, to provide methodological guidance for future surveys, especially surveys of adolescents. In 2000, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) commissioned five expert papers written on the topic “Examining Substance Abuse Data Collection Methodologies.” The papers focused on the YRBS, the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA), and Monitoring the Future (MTF). A consensus among the authors was that disparate results across the studies are most likely a product of methodological differences across the surveys. This YRBS Methodological Study is designed to measure the effect of several critical aspects of the data collection protocol: (1) Question wording, (2) questionnaire context, (3) appeals for honesty, and (4) students' perception of their honesty and accuracy. Approximately 100 students in 40 high schools will be given one of four questionnaires. Elucidation of the impact of these factors on prevalence will assist in reducing response effects and improving the quality of the YRBS data.

The total estimated cost to student respondents is $15,750, which is calculated in terms of their time spent in responding to the survey and is based on an assumed minimum wage of $5.25/hour for the 2001-2002 school year. The total estimated cost to school administrators is $1,400 which is calculated in terms of their time spent in recruitment and is based on an assumed average hourly rate of $34. Thus, the total costs to respondents, based on the costs of their time, are $17,150.

Title: Refugee Resettlement Program Estimates: CMA.

OMB No.: 0970-0030.

Description: ORR reimburses, to the extent of available appropriations, certain non-Federal costs for the provision of cash and medical assistance to refugees, along with allowable expenses in the administration of the Refugee Resettlement Program. ORR needs sound State estimates of likely expenditures for refugee cash, medical, and administrative (CMA) expenditures so that it can anticipate Federal costs in upcoming quarters. If Federal costs are anticipated to exceed budget allocations, ORR must take steps to reduce Federal expenses, such as limiting the number of months of eligibility for Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA).

To meet the need for reliable State estimates of anticipated expenses, ORR has developed a single-page form in which States estimate the average number of recipients for each category of assistance, the average unit cost over the next 12 months, and the expense for the overall administration of the program. This form, the ORR-1 must be submitted prior to the beginning of each Federal fiscal year. Without this information, ORR would be out of compliance with the intent of its legislation and otherwise unable to estimate program costs adequately.

In addition, the ORR-1 serves as the State's application for reimbursement of its CMA expenses. Submission of this form is thus required by section 412(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that “no grant or contract may be awarded under this section unless an appropriate proposal and application * * * are submitted to, and approved by, the appropriate administering official.”

Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Govt.

Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.

OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a list of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978.

Evaluation of the CMHS/CSAT Collaborative Program on Homeless Families: Women With Psychiatric, Substance Use, or Co-Occurring Disorders and Their Dependent Children, Phase II—New—SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), through a set of cooperative agreements, proposes to conduct a longitudinal, multi-site evaluation study assessing mental health, substance abuse, and trauma interventions received by homeless mothers with psychiatric, substance use, or co-occurring disorders and their dependent children. The study will advance knowledge on appropriate and effective approaches to improving families residential stability, overall functioning, and ultimate self-sufficiency.

Data collection will be conducted over a 33-month period. A total of 1,600 participants will be recruited from eight sites. At each site, a documented treatment intervention will be tested in comparison to an alternative treatment condition. Participants will be interviewed at baseline (within two weeks of entering a program) as well as three additional times (3 months after program entry, 9 months after program entry, and 15 months after program entry). Trained interviewers will administer the interviews to participating mothers. Information on the children will be obtained from the mother.

Key outcomes for the mothers are increased residential stability, decreased substance use, decreased psychological distress, improved mental health functioning, increased trauma recovery, improved health, improved functioning as a parent, and decreased personal violence. Outcomes for the children are reduced emotional/behavioral problems and improved school attendance.

To reduce burden and increase uniformity across the study sites, a central Coordinating Center will develop and administer common data entry and tracking computer programs. A variety of quality control procedures will also be implemented to ensure the integrity and uniformity of the data collected. Data will be submitted to the Coordinating Center via electronic means. Training and technical assistance will be provided to all sites on data submission. Sites will be asked to follow uniform procedures for submitting their data.

The estimated response burden is as follows:

Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Lauren Wittenberg, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

The primary author of this notice is Mark Sherfy, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, phone: 410-573-4556.

In accordance with the Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (Pub. L. 97-451), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease UTU-76060 for lands in Grand County, Utah, was timely filed and required rentals accruing from January 1, 2001, the date of termination, have been paid.

The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5 per acre and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The $500 administrative fee has been paid and the lessee has reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of publishing this notice.

Having met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease UTU-76060, effective January 1, 2001, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rate cited above.

The Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public meeting on Thursday, July 26, 2001 at 10 a.m. in the 13th floor conference room, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the meeting will be implementation of the provisions of the seven consent decrees signed by the United States and diesel engine manufacturers and entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 1, 1999. ( United States v. Caterpillar , Case No. 1:98CV02544; United States v. Cummins Engine Company , Case No. 1:98CV02546; United States v. Detroit Diesel Corporation , Case No. 1:98CV02548; United States v. Volvo Truck Corporation , Case No. 1:98CV02547; United States v. Mack Trucks, Inc. Case No. 1:98CV01495; and United States v. Renault Vehicles Industries, S.A. , Case No. 1:98CV02543). In supporting entry by the court of the decrees, the United States committed to meet with states, industry groups, environmental groups, and concerned citizens to discuss consent decree implementation issues. This will be the sixth of a series of public meetings held quarterly during the first year of implementation of the consent decrees and at least annually thereafter.

Future meetings will be announced in the Federal Register and/or on EPA's Diesel Engine Settlement web page at: www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/diesel.

For further information, please contact: Anne Wick, EPA Diesel Engine Consent Decree Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2242A), EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20460, e-mail: wick.anne@epa.gov.

Notice is hereby given that on June 21, 2001 a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in United States and Air Liquide America Corporation, Civil Action No. 01-S-0113 was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The United States filed this action pursuant to section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for noncompliance with the industrial refrigerant repair, testing, record-keeping, and reporting regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, §§ 82.152-82.166 (the “Subpart F Regulations”), promulgated pursuant to Subchapter VI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q. at 22 industrial process refrigeration systems owned and operated by Air Liquide America Corporation in 18 states.

Under the terms of the Decree Air Liquide America Corporation will pay the United States a civil penalty in the amount of $4.5 million, and perform a supplemental environmental project in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Air Liquide America Corporation will also replace, convert, or take out of service fifty of its industrial refrigeration systems now using regulated “class II” refrigerants with non-ozone depleting refrigerants.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Air Liquide America Corporation, D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-07132. The Decree may be examined at the offices of EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500 South Tower, Denver, Colorado. A copy of the Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy of the Decree, please enclose a check payable to the Consent Decree Library for $17.00 for a complete copy of the decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost).

In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Charles T. Cannada, Civil Action No. 5:99-cv-270Br S (S.D. Miss.), was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on June 20, 2001. This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Charles T. Cannada, pursuant to sections 301(a) and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1344, and imposes civil penalties against Defendant Charles T. Cannada, for the unauthorized discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States located in wetlands on property known as Cypress Lake, in Warren County, Mississippi.

The proposed Consent Decree requires the payment of civil penalties in the amount of $50,000.

The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Please address comments to David N. Usry, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 500, Jackson, Mississippi 39211 and refer to United States v. Charles T. Cannada, DJ # 90-5-1-1-05799.

The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, 245 East Capitol Street, Suite 316, Jackson, MS 39201.

Notice is hereby given that on June 15, 2001, a proposed consent decree was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in a civil action captioned United States of America v. Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives, Civil Action No. 01-1096 (PAM/SRN).

In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief against Defendant Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives (“Cenex”) for violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) in connection with the operations of its facility at 2020 Riverfront Drive, Mankato, Minnesota. The United States alleged violations for failure to file a revised Facility Response Plan in violation of 40 CFR 112.20 and 112.21, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5); failure to prepare and maintain a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan in violation of 40 CFR 112.3, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C); failure to file a response to an information request in violation of 33 U.S.C. 1318(a) and 1321(m); and for allowing an authorizing discharge from the facility in violation of 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3).

The consent decree would resolve the claims by the payment of a civil penalty of $56,250 plus the implementation of two Supplemental Environmental Projects to cost Cenex no less than $300,000. The projects are (1) to install actuators on two gates that would allow the gates to be shut down by the press of a switch from various locations within the facility; and (2) to replace the tank farm monitoring and control system with a modern computer system.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives, Civil No. 01-1096 (PAM/SRN), District of Minnesota, USAO File No. 1999V00714, DOJ Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-07000.

The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Room 600 United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis MN 55415 (Attention: Freidrich A.P. Siekert, AUSA), and at U.S. EPA Regional Counsel's Office (Attention: Peter Felitti), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604-3590. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost for 28 pages) payable in the Consent Decree Library.

Notice is hereby given that three proposed consent decrees in United States v. Drum Service Company of Florida, et al., Civil No. 98-697-Civ-Orl-28C, were lodged on June 28, 2001, with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The first proposed consent decree (“Drum Service Consent Decree”) would resolve certain claims under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9607, as amended, against Drum Service Co. of Florida (“Drum Service”) for performance of response work and recovery of response costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in connection with the release of hazardous substances at the Zellwood Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site (“Site”) in Zellwood, Orange County, Florida. The United States alleges that Drum Service is liable as a person who owns and operates a portion of the Site and who owned and operated a portion of the Site at the time of the release of a hazardous substance.

The proposed Drum Service Consent Decree would resolve the liability of Drum Service with respect to the Site. The proposed Drum Service Consent Decree would release claims against Drum Service for performance of the remedy selected in the Record of Decision entitled “Groundwater Operable Unit 2 (OU2) at the Zellwood Groundwater Contamination Site, Zellwood, Orange County, Florida” signed by the Environmental Protection Agency on August 23, 2000 (“ROD”). The proposed Drum Service Consent Decree would also release claims for response costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at and from the Site. To resolve these claims, Drum Service would perform the remedy selected in the ROD, would pay $3,000,000.00 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund to reimburse the United States for Past Response Costs, and would reimburse the United States for certain Future Response Costs. The proposed Drum Service Consent Decree includes a covenant not to sue by the United States under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607.

The second proposed consent decree (“Murphy Consent Decree”) would resolve certain claims under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607, as amended, and Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, against J. Michael Murphy, for performance of response work and recovery of response costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in connection with the release and threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site. The United States alleges that Mr. Murphy is liable as a person who operated a portion of the Site at the time of the release of a hazardous substance.

The proposed Murphy Consent Decree would resolve the liability of Mr. Murphy with respect to the Site. The proposed Murphy Decree would release claims against Mr. Murphy for performance of the remedy selected in the ROD, and for response costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at and from the Site. To resolve these claims, Mr. Murphy agrees to held jointly and severally liable for the $3,000,000.00 payment to be made by Drum Service pursuant to the Drum Service Consent Decree. The proposed Murphy Consent Decree includes a covenant not to sue by the United States under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, and under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6973.

The third proposed consent decree (“Other Parties Consent Decree“) would resolve certain claims under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607, as amended, and Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, against Douglass Fertilizer & Chemical Co., Spencer Douglass, Mallory Corporation, the Estate of Irving Feinberg and CSX Transportation (collectively the “Other Parties”), for performance of response work and recovery of response costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in connection with the release and threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site. The United States alleges that Douglass Fertilizer & Chemical Co. and Mallory Corporation are liable as persons who owned and operated a portion of the Site at the time of the release of a hazardous substance. The United States alleges that Spencer Douglass and the Estate of Irving Feinberg are liable as persons who operated a portion of the Site at the time of the release of a hazardous substance. The United States alleges that CSX Transportation is liable as a person who owned a portion of the Site at the time of the release of a hazardous substance.

The proposed Other Parties Consent Decree would resolve the liability of the Other Parties with respect to the Site. The proposed Other Parties Consent Decree would release claims against the Other Parties for performance of the remedy selected in the ROD, and would release claims for response costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances in and from the Site. To resolve these claims, the Other Parties agree to pay a total of $381,000.00 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. The proposed Other Parties Consent Decree includes a covenant not to sue by the United States under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, and under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6973.

In addition, the proposed Other Parties Consent Decree contains a covenant not to take administrative action under these statutes against six Settling Federal Agencies, including Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), United States Department of the Navy, United States Department of the Army, United States Department of the Air Force, United States Department of Energy, United States General Services Agency, and National Aeronautics & Space Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency would make this covenant in return for a payment by the six Settling Federal Agencies of $375,000.00 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund.

The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the three proposed consent decrees. Commenters on the proposed Murphy Consent Decree and Other Parties Consent Decree may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area, in accordance with Section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d). Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, PO Box 7611, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. Drum Service Company of Florida, et al., M.D. FL, Civil No. 98-687-Civ-Orl-28C, DOJ Ref. #90-11-2-266 and #90-11-2-266/1.

The proposed consent decrees may be examined at the Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303 and the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida, Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 80 N. Hughey Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, c/o Assistant U.S. Attorney Roberto Rodriguez. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting copies please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $58.00 for the Drum Service Consent Decree; $4.75 for the Murphy Consent Decree, and $7.50 for the Other Parties Consent Decree (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.

In accordance with Departmental policy and 28 CFR 50.7, the Department of Justice gives notice that a proposed consent decree with Guide Corporation (“Guide”) in the case captioned United States and the State of Indiana v. Guide Corporation and Crown EG, Ind., Civil Action No. IP00-0702-C-D/F (S.D. Ind.) was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 18, 2001. The proposed consent decree relates to a massive fish kill that occurred in the White River in December 1999 and January 2000, from the City of Anderson, Indiana downstream past the City of Indianapolis, Indiana. Guide operates an automotive lighting parts production facility in Anderson, Indiana (the “Anderson Facility”), and is alleged to have discharged industrial wastewater from the Anderson Facility that caused the fish kill.

The proposed consent decree would resolve civil claims of the United States and the State of Indiana against Guide under: (1) The Clean Water Act (the “CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and corresponding state law; (2) the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., and corresponding state law; (3) the release reporting provisions of Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9603, and section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 11004; (4) the natural resource damage provisions of CERCLA Section 107, CWA Section 311(f), and corresponding state law; (5) the response cost recovery provisions of CERCLA Section 107 and corresponding state law; and (6) state common law. To the extent provided by the proposed consent decree, certain specified benefits of the settlement would also extend to four non-defendants, as Additional Covered Persons, namely: Lightsource Parent Corporation (Guide's parent corporation), Vehicle Lighting, Inc. (the parent corporation of Lightsource Parent Corporation), Guide Indiana, LLC (a Guide affiliate and the Anderson Facility's lessee), and General Motors Corporation (the owner of the Anderson Facility).

As required by the proposed consent decree, Guide already has paid $10,025,000 into a Court Registry Account administered by United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. If the proposed consent decree is approved and entered by the Court, that $10,025,000 could be disbursed from the Court Registry Account and divided as follows: (1) $2,000,000 in civil penalties would be split evenly between the United States and the State; (2) $2,000,000 in CERCLA response costs and natural resource damage assessment costs would be paid to the State; (3) $25,000 in natural resource damage assessment costs would be paid to the U.S. Department of the Interior; and (4) $6,000,000 would be paid into two “White River Restoration Funds” to be established by the State, to fund fish restocking and river restoration projects.

The proposed consent decree also would require that Guide complete a RCRA Compliance Audit Program, designed to ensure that waste materials are not being improperly stored in pipes, equipment, tanks, sumps, and trenches in specified areas at the Anderson Facility. After completing the Compliance Audit Program, Guide would be required to submit a comprehensive Compliance Audit Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

For a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, the Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, PO Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States and the State of Indiana v. Guide Corporation and Crown EG, Inc., Civil Action No. IP00-0702-C-D/F (S.D. Ind.), and DOJ Reference Numbers 90-5-2-1-07043 and 90-5-2-1-07043/1.

An electronic copy of the proposed consent decree is posted on the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's website at www.IN.gov/idem/macs/factsheets/whiteriver. A signed copy of the proposed consent decree, including all appendices, may be examined at: (1) The Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, 10 West market Street, Suite 2100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (contact Thomas E. Kieper (317-226-6333)); and (2) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (contact Nicole Cantello (312-886-2870)). Copies of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting copies, please refer to the above-referenced case name and DOJ Reference Numbers, and enclose a check made payable to the Consent Decree Library for $18.75 (75 pages at 25 cents pre page reproduction cost).

In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Sterling Minter and Jo Ann Minter (W.D.Va.), C.A. No. 7:01CV00449, was lodged on June 19, 2001, with the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims against Sterling Minter and Joan Minter with respect to response costs incurred, pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607, in connection with the clean-up of the Old Salem Tannery Site, located near Salem, Roanoke County, Virginia. The Consent Decree also resolves the United States' civil penalty claim, pursuant to section 106(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(b), related to an administrative clean-up order dated November 24, 1992.

Under the Consent Decree, Sterling Minter and JoAnn Minter will pay the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) $100,000 in reimbursement of response costs incurred by EPA in connection with the clean-up of the site. In addition, Sterling Minter will pay $10,000 to resolve EPA's claim, pursuant to section 106(b) Of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(b), related to Sterling Minter's failure to comply fully with the November 24, 1992 administrative order.

The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of 30 days from the date of this publication, comments relating to proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States Sterling v. Minter and JoAnn Minter, C.A. No. 7:01CV00449, DOJ Reference No. 90-11-3-06312/1.

The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 105 Franklin Road, SW., Suite One, Roanoke, Virginia 24011-2305; and the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $9.00 (.25 cents per page production costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), notice is hereby given that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Department of Justice, proposes modifying “Records and Management Information System (JUSTICE/EOIR-001),” last published October 10, 1995 (60 FR 52690, 52695), to add two new routine use provisions.

The first routine use allows contractors and others working on behalf of EOIR to have access to the information in the records to properly assist in the completion of EOIR functions. The second routine use allows disclosure to former employees for purposes of responding to official inquiries by government entities or professional licensing authorities in accordance with the Department of Justice's regulation governing access under such circumstances, 28 CFR 16.300-01. This routine use also allows disclosure to former employees where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee that is necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment on the system of records. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Act, requires a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the system. Therefore, please submit any comments by August 6, 2001. The public, OMB and the Congress are invited to submit any comments to Mary Cahill, Management Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 (Room 1400, National Place Building).

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) the Department has provided a report to OMB and the Congress.

* * * may be disseminated to the appropriate Federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or with enforcing or implementing such law.

[Following this sentence insert the two new paragraphs below.]

Relevant information contained in this system of records may also be released to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.

Pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of the Privacy Act, the Department of Justice may disclose relevant and necessary information to a former employee of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.

[The following section of the text and thereafter does not change.]

Release of information to the news media and the public:

Notice is hereby given that, on June 1, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Personalization Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Guardent, Inc., Waltham, MA; and 180 Solutions, Inc., Bothell, WA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, SPSS, Chicago, IL; eCustomers, Austin, TX; NextClick: The Personalization Agency, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Yo.com, New York, NY have been dropped as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Personalization Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

On June 15, 2000, Personalization Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49266).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 5, 2001. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17202).

Notice is hereby given that, on May 23, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Salutation Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Square USA, Inc., Ramsey, NJ has been dropped as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Salutation Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

On March 30, 1995, Salutation Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 27, 1995 (60 FR 33233).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 2, 2001. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17203).

On or about May 8, 2000, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) by certified mail to Aseel Incorporated, Wholesale Division (Aseel), located in Dallas, Texas, notifying it of an opportunity to show cause as to why the DEA should not deny its application, dated July 7, 1998, for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of the List I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), as being inconsistent with the public interest. The order also notified Aseel that, should no request for hearing be filed within 30 days, the right to hearing would be waived.

The DEA mailed the show cause order on May 11, 2000, to Aseel at the proposed registered location in Dallas, Texas by certified mail. At the same time, a copy of the show cause order was sent by regular first class mail to the Murphy, Texas home address of Aseel's President, Mr. Husham Awadelkariem. The certified letter was returned to DEA by the U.S. Postal Service, marked “moved, left no address.” The copy sent by first class mail was not returned, and presumably was delivered.

Subsequently, on May 25, 2000, a DEA Diversion Investigator in the Dallas, Texas office, received a telephone call from Mr. Awadelkariem, who stated he received the show cause order and inquired whether he could limit his distribution of chemicals to convenience stores without a DEA registration. Since that time, no response has been received from the applicant nor any person purporting to represent the applicant. Therefore, the Administrator of the DEA, finding that (1) thirty days have passed since receipt of the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request for a hearing having been received, concludes that Aseel is deemed to have waived its right to a hearing. After considering relevant material from the investigative file in this matter, the Administrator now enters his final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and (e) and 1301.46 (1999).

The Administrator finds that on August 3, 1998, an application dated July 7, 1998, was received by the DEA Chemical Operations Registration Section on behalf of Aseel for DEA registration as a distributor of the List I chemicals pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, and ephedrine. Aseel did not file this application in time to qualify for temporary exemption from registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1310.09. Accordingly, Aseel was not authorized to distribute these chemicals before approval of the application for registration.

The Administrator finds that during the period from February 24, 1998 to June 1, 1998, Aseel sold over 122,767 bottles of List I chemicals to an unregistered distributor when Aseel was not listed to do so, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(9).

The Administrator also finds that during the period from May 25, 1998, to July 14, 1998, Aseel sold over 21,748 bottles of List I chemicals when Aseel was not licensed to do so, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(9).

The Administrator further finds that during the period from January 1998 to May 1998, Aseel purchased in excess of 164,012 bottles of List I chemicals while not registered with DEA, in violation of 21 USC 822(a)(1), which requires inter alia that every person who distributes a List I chemical “shall obtain annually a registration issued by the Attorney General” and also in violation of the registration requirements set forth at 21 CFR 1309.21(a) and 1310.09.

Finally, the Administrator finds that on November 19, 1999, DEA investigators learned that Aseel was no longer located at the proposed registered location and had been evicted due to non-payment of rent. Aseel subsequently requested that DEA amend Aseel's application to include two prospective storage sites in Dallas. DEA investigators were unable to inspect these sites. The investigation further revealed Aseel no longer has valid state permits to distribute list chemicals.

While Mr. Awadelkariem stated that at one point he had two employees other than himself at Aseel, the Administrator finds that with regard to all the incidents described herein, Mr. Awadelkariem acted as the sole agent for Aseel.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), the Administrator may deny an application for a DEA Certificate of Registration if he determines that granting the registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Section 823(h) requires the following factors be considered:

(1) Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2) Compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3) Any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4) Any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5) Such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.

Like the public interest analysis for practitioners and pharmacies pursuant to subsection (f) of section 823, these factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Administrator may rely on any one or combination of factors and may give each factor the weight he deems appropriate in determining whether a registration should be revoked or an application for registration be denied. See, e.g. Energy Outlet, FR 14,269 (DEA 1999). See also Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16,422 (DEA 1989).

Regarding factor one, the maintenance of effective controls against the diversion of listed chemicals, the Administrator finds that Aseel's proposed registered address has been vacated, and that Aseel has failed to provide the addresses for the two storage buildings where it allegedly currently conducts business. Therefore, no pre-registration inspection has been performed at Aseel's places of business. The Administrator consequently finds no evidence that Aseel has any controls whatsoever against diversion. Furthermore, and as set forth more fully below, the DEA investigation revealed that Aseel failed to exercise discretion in selling list chemicals, and routinely sold list chemicals to individuals and entities it should have known presented diversion risks.

Regarding factor two, the applicant's compliance with applicable law, the Administrator finds that the evidence shows Aseel significantly violated applicable law by distributing over 164,012 bottles of List I chemicals from February 24, 1998 through July 14, 1998, when not licensed to do so, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(9).

Regarding factor three, there is no evidence that Aseel or Mr. Awadelkariem has a record of convictions related to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law.

Regarding factor four, the applicant's past experience in the distribution of chemicals, the Administrator finds that the DEA investigation revealed that during late 1996, Aseel had distributed 94 cases of a List I chemical to an individual who came from California to Dallas to make the purchase. This individual provided no identification, nor any addresses, business or otherwise. The only way Mr. Awadelkariem could contact this individual was via pager. During the interview with DEA investigators that elicited this information, and after the investigators explained the illicit uses of List I chemicals, presented Mr. Awadelkariem with the DEA “Red Notice”, and explained the applicable laws regarding List I chemicals, Mr. Awadelkariem stated he would no longer purchase this List I chemical product again. In April 1997, DEA investigators from the Dallas Diversion Group contacted Mr. Awadelkariem, who voluntarily agreed to stop conducting business regarding List I chemicals.

Subsequently, DEA investigators received documents indicating sales of List I chemicals totaling 132 cases to Aseel during September 9, 1997, to October 1, 1997. When Aseel's sales and purchases records covering this time period were subpoenaed, DEA investigators discovered through sales records that List I chemicals were being sold by Aseel to two companies and that both recipient companies were suspect, having been linked to the diversion of List I chemicals to clandestine laboratories in California. In addition, one of the recipient companies was owned by the same previously mentioned individual from California to whom Aseel had distributed the 94 cases of List I chemicals during the latter part of 1996, and the other recipient company was effectively controlled by this same individual. The Administrator further finds that Mr. Awadelkariem knew this individual truly owned and controlled these two companies by at least May or June 1997. The subpoenaed records further revealed that Aseel had sold a total of 376 cases of List I chemicals to these two suspect companies during the period from July 1997 to September 1997. Follow up investigation revealed that the addresses provided by these two companies were false. One of the addresses was a used car lot. Interviews with the owner of the car lot revealed that Mr. Awadelkariem would meet with the previously mentioned individual from California at the car lot to consummate business deals for List I chemicals. Shortly after this interview, Mr. Awadelkariem called a DEA investigator and stated that he had received a call from the individual from California, who stated to Mr. Awadelkariem that he was upset with DEA's inquiries, and further that he already had two List I chemical shipments seized by DEA in the past.

In November 1997, Mr. Awadelkariem contacted DEA regarding an alleged suspicious order by an unknown female from California, but the deal was never consummated. Also in November 1997, Mr. Awadelkariem assisted DEA in the seizure of 100 cases of a List I chemical that were eventually forfeited to the United States.

The Administrator further finds that from January 1, 1998, to July 31, 1998, Aseel purchased and distributed over 164,012 bottles of List I chemicals, as determined from subpoenaed documents. Over 100,800 bottles of List I chemicals were shipped by Aseel to a company that had neither a pending nor an approved DEA registration.

Regarding factor five, other factors relevant to and consistent with the public safety, the Administrator finds that, when confronted with his earlier statements that he would stop doing business in List I chemicals, Mr. Awadelkariem stated the he meant “at the time, he was not going to deal in these products because he had no customers for them.” The Administrator finds this lack of candor, especially taken together with Aseel's demonstrated cavalier disregard of law and regulations concerning registration and distribution of List I chemicals, makes questionable Aseel's commitment to the DEA regulatory requirements designed to protect the public from diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals. See Terrence E. Murphy, 61 FR 2841 (DEA 1996).

Therefore, for the above-stated reasons, the Administrator concludes that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to grant the application of Aseel. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that it has effective controls against the diversion of listed chemicals. Additionally, as described above, the evidence indicates that Aseel has violated applicable law regarding the distribution of List I chemicals on several occasions by distributing List I chemicals while not registered with DEA, and by distributing List I chemicals to companies who also were not registered with DEA. Aseel's lack of effective controls against diversion and its lack of commitment to comply with the laws and regulations designed to prevent diversion, exemplified by its failure to exercise discretion in distributing List I chemicals when it knew or should have known such chemicals were being diverted into other than legitimate channels, present a grave risk of future diversion.

Accordingly, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that the application for a DEA Certificate of Registration submitted by Aseel be denied. This order is effective August 6, 2001.

This is to certify that the undersigned, on June 25, 2001, caused a copy of the Final Order to be mailed, postage prepaid, registered return receipt to Respondent Husham Awadelkariem, 401 Hawthorne Drive, Murphy, Texas 75094-3598.

The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approval has been requested by July 20, 2001. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information Regulation Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, (202) 395-7860, Washington, DC 20530.

During the first 60 days of this same review period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Paul Kendall, General Counsel the Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531, or facsimile at (202) 307-1419.

Request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments 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 functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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.

(1) Type of Information Collection: New.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Community Gun Violence Prosecution Program application on the Grants Management System.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: None. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be as or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State local or Tribal Government. Other: None. The Community Gun Violence Prosecution Program was authorized under Public Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, App.-155 (2000) to provide funding directly to chief local or Tribal Government. Other: None. The Community Gun Violence Prosecution Program was authorized under Public Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, App.-155 (2000) to provide funding directly to chief prosecutors (state, local and tribal) to hire assistant prosecutors who will focus their attention on the prosecution of cases involving violent crimes committed with guns and other violations of gun statutes involving drug trafficking and gang-related crimes in high firearms-related violence areas.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: The time burden of the estimated 1000 respondents to complete the application on-line is 4-hours per application.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete applications for the Community Gun Violence Prosecution Program is 4000 annual burden hours.

If additional information is required contact: Ms. 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.

The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for voluntary remand for further investigation of the negative determination in Former Employees of DeZurik Corporation v. U.S. Secretary of Labor (Court No. 00-07-00319).

On March 30, 2000, the Department issued negative determinations regarding Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers producing industrial valves at DeZurik Corporation, McMinnville, Tennessee. The notices were published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2000; the TAA petition TA-W-37,239 (65 FR 21473) and the NAFTA-TAA petition NAFTA-3642 (65 FR 21475).

On April 15, 2000, the International Association of Machinists (IAM), Local 1941, requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's denial of TA-W-37,239 and NAFTA-3642, which also resulted in affirmation of the initial negative decision. The determination was issued on June 5, 2000, and published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2000 (65 FR 32275).

On remand, the Department obtained new information regarding the production of components produced at the McMinnville, Tennessee plant, which were used in the production of the industrial valves sold by DeZurick. Investigation findings on remand show that the company relied on imports of some of the components formerly produced at the McMinnville, Tennessee plant. Other investigation findings on remand revealed that the subject firm has shifted a portion of the production of valves at the McMinnville, Tennessee plant to Canada.

After careful review of the additional facts obtained on remand, I conclude that there were increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm and that there was a shift in production to Canada. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act, I make the following certification:

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of June, 2001.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.

(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated.

(2) that sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and

(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.

In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.

In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.

Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.

The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The investigation revealed that criteria (1) has not been met. A significant number or proportion of the workers did not become totally or partially separated from employment as required for certification.

The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the month of June, 2001.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Section 250 of the Trade Act must be met:

(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employments and either—

(2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,

(3) that imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increases imports contributed importantly to such workers' separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or

(4) that there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.

In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.

The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.

The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The investigations revealed that criteria (1) has not been met. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision (including workers in any agricultural form or appropriate subdivision thereof) have been totally or partially separated from employment.

I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of June, 2001. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 18, 2001, in response to a worker petition which was filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Clestra Hauserman, Inc., Solon, Ohio.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on May 7, 2001 in response to a petition filed on April 23, 2001 on behalf of workers at Compaq Computers, Offline System Support, Houston, Texas; and, Flextronics International, Offline System Support, San Jose, California.

The petitioning workers were not employees of either of the subject firms on the date of their separation. Therefore it is determined that the petition is invalid, and the investigation has been terminated.

By letter of May 10, 2001, counsel on behalf of the company, requests administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for North American Free Trade Agreement—Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm plants. The denial notice was signed on March 13, 2001, and was published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2001 (66 FR 19522).

The company presents new information regarding U.S. imports of stud grade lumber.

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two meetings of the Combined Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows:

Museums (Creativity and Organizational Capacity categories): July 24-27, 2001, Room 716. A portion of this meeting, from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. on July 27th, will be open to the public for policy discussion. The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 24th-26th, and from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. on July 27th, will be closed.

Dance (Creativity & Organizational Capacity categories): August 6-10, 2001, Room 716. A portion of this meeting, from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 10th, will be open to the public for policy discussion. The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 6th-9th, and from 11 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on August 10th, will be closed.

The closed portions of these meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of May 22, 2001, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to (c)(4)(6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in attendance.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.

Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that three meetings of the Leadership Initiatives Advisory Panel will be held by teleconference at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C., 20506 as follows:

These meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of May 22, 2001, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

This proceeding involves a proposed civil penalty of $110,000, sought to be imposed by the NRC Staff on the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or Licensee) for an alleged violation of NRC's employee-protection requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.7, based upon the asserted discrimination against a former employee for engaging in protected activities. In response to an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, published at 66 FR 27166 (May 16, 2001), TVA on June 1, 2001, filed a timely request for a hearing. On June 26, 2001, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, consisting of Dr. Richard F. Cole, Ann Marshall Young, and Charles Bechhoefer, who serves as Chairman, was established to preside over this proceeding.

Notice is hereby given that, by Memorandum and Order dated June 28, 2001, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has granted the request for a hearing submitted by TVA. This proceeding will be conducted under the Commission's hearing procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subparts B and G. Parties to this proceeding are TVA and the NRC Staff. The issues to be considered, as set forth in the Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, are (a) whether the Licensee violated the Commission's requirements, as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, dated February 7, 2001; and, if so, (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, the Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty should be sustained.

Documents related to this proceeding, issued prior to December 1, 1999, are available in microfiche form (with print form available on one-day recall) for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), Room 0-1 F21, NRC One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. Documents issued subsequent to November 1, 1999 are available electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), with access to the public through NRC's Internet Web site (Public Electronic Reading Room Link, < http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html >). The PDR and many public libraries have terminals for public access to the Internet.

During the course of this proceeding, the Licensing Board may conduct one or more prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearing sessions. The time and place of these sessions will be announced in Licensing Board Orders. Except as limited by the parameters of telephone conferences (which are in any event to be transcribed), members of the public are invited to attend any such sessions.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 to Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). The requested exemption would allow Duke to store Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) 15x15 spent nuclear fuel assemblies with a nominal width of 8.536 inches in the NUHOMS®-24P storage system at the Oconee Nuclear Site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).

Identification of Proposed Action: By letter dated June 8, 2001, Duke requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 to permit storage of B&W 15x15 spent nuclear fuel assemblies with a nominal width of 8.536 inches in the NUHOMS®-24P storage system at the Oconee Nuclear Site ISFSI. Duke is a general licensee, authorized by NRC to use spent fuel storage casks approved under 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K. Furthermore, Duke is currently using the NUHOMS®-24P storage system design approved by NRC under Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004 to store spent fuel at the ISFSI.

By exempting Duke from both 10 CFR 72.214 and 72.212(a)(2), Duke will be authorized to use its general license to store B&W 15x15 spent nuclear fuel assemblies with nominal widths of 8.536 inches in casks approved under Part 72, as exempted. The proposed action before the Commission is whether to grant these exemptions under 10 CFR 72.7.

The ISFSI is located 30 miles west of Greenville, South Carolina, on the Oconee Nuclear Power Plant site. The Oconee Nuclear Site ISFSI is an existing facility constructed for interim dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.

On June 8, 2001, Transnuclear West Inc. (TN West), the certificate holder, submitted a revised amendment request for CoC No. 1004 to correct the fuel specification tables; Tables 1-1a and 1-1b of the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Standardized NUHOMS® storage system. The NRC staff will address the proposed changes to the CoC in conjunction with its ongoing review of the amendment request previously submitted by TN West on February 23, 2001. However, the staff's review and final action on that pending amendment request will not be completed on a schedule consistent with Duke's stated need for the Oconee Nuclear Site; thus Duke has requested that an exemption be granted by July 9, 2001.

The proposed change would revise Amendment 2 to CoC No. 1004, which became effective on September 5, 2000. Amendment 2 changed the title of one of the parameters in the fuel specification table, (Table 1-1a of the Technical Specifications), from “Nominal Cross-Sectional Envelope” to “Maximum Assembly Width (unirradiated).” The staff has reviewed the technical and safety bases supporting the approval of Amendment 2 and has determined that the maximum fuel assembly widths are not critical values affecting the basis for the safety analysis. The original certificate and Amendment 1 to CoC No. 1004 approved by the NRC both specified the “nominal” fuel assembly width in the fuel specification table, and the design of the B&W 15x15 fuel has not been altered with respect to that dimension. Amendment 2 approved the storage of higher burnup fuel and burnable poison rod assemblies in the NUHOMS®-24P system, and the fuel specification tables were revised to reflect those changes; however, those changes did not involve any change to the “nominal” fuel assembly width previously accepted by the staff. The NRC staff has reviewed the exemption request and has determined that storing B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies with a nominal width of 8.536 inches in the NUHOMS®-24P storage system at the Oconee ISFSI is consistent with the design basis and would not be inimical to public health and safety.

Need for the Proposed Action: Duke has an imminent need to reduce the inventory of spent nuclear fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool at the Oconee Nuclear Site prior to upcoming refueling activities that require empty fuel pool storage locations. Furthermore, Duke must load additional B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies in the Oconee ISFSI to accommodate those planned and potential refueling activities scheduled for late 2001 that require empty spent fuel pool storage locations Because the 10 CFR Part 72 rulemaking to amend the CoC will not be completed prior to the date that Duke needs to begin loading the NUHOMS®-24P with additional B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies, the NRC is granting this exemption based on the staff's review of information submitted by Duke and TN West.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The potential environmental impact of using the NUHOMS®-24P storage system was initially presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to add the NUHOMS®-24P to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (59 FR 65898 (1994)). Furthermore, each general licensee must assess the environmental impacts of the specific ISFSI in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2). This section also requires the general licensee to perform written evaluations to demonstrate compliance with the environmental requirements of 10 CFR 72.104, “Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS [Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation].”

The NUHOMS®-24P storage system is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI include tornado winds and tornado generated missiles, design basis earthquake, design basis flood, accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Special cask design features of the NUHOMS®-24P storage system include a horizontal canister system composed of a steel dry shielded canister (DSC), a reinforced concrete horizontal storage module (HSM) and a transfer cask (TC). The welded DSC provides confinement and criticality control for the storage and transfer of spent nuclear fuel. The concrete module provides radiation shielding and allows cooling of the DSC and fuel by natural convection during storage. The TC is used for transferring the DSC between the spent fuel pool building and the HSM.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. Without the loss of either containment, shielding, or criticality control, the risk to public health and safety is not compromised.

The staff performed a review of the proposed exemption request and found that the loading of B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies with a nominal width as previously specified in the TS does not reduce the safety margin. In addition, the staff has determined that the storage of B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS®-24P storage system as requested does not pose any increased risk to public health and safety. Furthermore, the proposed action now under consideration would not change the potential environmental effects assessed in the initial rulemaking (59 FR 65898 (1994)).

Therefore, the staff has determined that there is no reduction in the safety margin nor significant environmental impact as a result of storing B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies with a nominal width of 8.536 inches in the NUHOMS®-24P storage system at the Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

Alternative to the Proposed Action: The staff evaluated other alternatives to the transfer of additional B&W 15x15 spent fuel assemblies from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI and found that these alternatives produced a greater occupational exposure, increased handling and storage costs, and an increased environmental impact as a result of generating additional low-level radioactive waste. The alternative to the proposed action would be to deny approval of the exemption and, therefore, require Duke to conduct refueling activities and subsequent plant operations with limited space available in the spent fuel pool. This lack of space would limit Duke's ability to implement contingency actions, if needed, such as fuel inspection, movement of refueling equipment and full core offload (the temporary removal of all fuel assemblies from the reactor vessel).

Agencies and Persons Consulted: On June 21, 2001, Mr. Henry Porter, Assistant Director of the Division of Waste Management, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, was contacted about the EA for the proposed action and had no concerns.

The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting an exemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 72.214 so that Duke may store B&W 15x15 spent nuclear fuel in the NUHOMS®-24P storage system at the Oconee ISFSI will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to this exemption request, see the Duke exemption request dated June 8, 2001, which is docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket No. 72-40.

The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

On March 13, 2001, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”), International Securities Exchange LLC (“ISE”), Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”), and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) (collectively, the “Participants”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) in accordance with Section 11A(a)930 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)  1 and Rule 11Aa3-2 thereunder, 2 a proposed amendment to the options intermarket linkage plan (“Linkage Plan”), 3 The amendment proposes to conform the Linkage Plan to the requirements of recently adopted Exchange Act Rule 11Ac1-7, the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule. 4 The proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2001. 5 Three comment letters were received in response to the notice. 6 This order approves the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan.

On November 17, 2000, the Commission adopted Exchange Act Rule 11Ac1-7 to require a broker-dealer to disclose to its customer when the customer's order for listed options is executed at a price interior to a better quote displayed by another market (“intermarket trade-through”), and to disclose the better published quote available at that time. Under the rules, however, a broker-dealer is not required to disclose to its customer an intermarket trade-through if the broker-dealer effects the transaction on an exchange that participates in an approved linkage plan that includes provisions reasonably designed to limit intermarket trade-throughs.

In the Adopting Release, the Commission noted that to conform to the requirements of the Trade Through Disclosure Rule, a linkage plan must, at a minimum, contain provisions to: (1) Limit participants from trading through, not only the quotes of other linkage plan participants, but also, the quotes of exchanges that are not participants in an approved linkage plan; (2) require plan participants to actively surveil their markets for trades executed at prices inferior to those publicly quoted on other exchanges; and (3) make clear that the failure of a market with a better quote to complain within a specified period of time that its quote was traded-through may affect potential liability, but does not signify that a trade-through has not occurred. 7 The proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan was intended to add such provisions to the Linkage Plan.

First, the proposed Amendment would change the definitions of “National Best Bid or Offer” (“NBBO”) and “Trade-Throughs” so that the terms would apply to unlinked, as well as linked, exchanges. Second, the proposed amendment would require Participants to establish procedures for conducting surveillance for trade-throughs, both respect to trading through linked and unlinked markets. Third, it would require that Participants adopt uniform rules that make it a violation of a participant's rules for a member to engage in a pattern or practice of trading through bids and offers in other linked markets, unless one of the enumerated exceptions to the Linkage Plan's Trade-Through provisions applies and, in the case of a Block Trade, where the initiating member has satisfied aggrieved parties at the block price. Lastly, the proposed amendment would add a provision to the Linkage Plan that states that a failure to a lodge a Trade-Through complaint will not signify that a Trade-Through has not occurred, but instead, affects only liability.

The Commission received comment letters from three participants in response to the notice published in the Federal Register. 8 In these letters, the Participants expressed concerns regarding the reference in the Notice to footnote 62 of the Adopting Release. The Notice states “[n]otwithstanding the more limited language in the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan, each exchange's rules must address trade-throughs of better quotes displayed by both linked and unlinked markets.” 9

The commenters stated that they believe that the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan fully complies with the requirements of the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule, and that it is not necessary for the exchanges to adopt rules to address trade-throughs in addition to complying with the requirements of the Linkage Plan, as amended. 10 The commenters argued that the proposed amendment clearly provides that members should not effect trade-throughs, and that participants to the Linkage Plan should conduct surveillance to detect any violations of this mandate. 11 One commenter further noted that Section 4(b) of the Linkage Plan specifically requires that all participants enforce the provisions of the Linkage Plan. 12

Another commenter questioned how else the partipants could address trade-throughs beyond the requirements contained in the proposed amendment. 13 The commenter disagreed that the participants must adopt rules to mandate disciplinary action against members for trading through unliked markets in order to comply with the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule, expressing frustration that this view was not expressed by the Commission before the proposed amendment was submitted. 14

One commenter expressed concern regarding a requirement that the exchanges impose sanctions on their members for trading through unlinked markets. 15 This commenter stated that while it agreed that members who trade through quotes from unlinked markets without justification or due diligence should be subject to investigation and possible sanction, it would be unfair for the exchanges to adopt rules under which members would be sanctioned if they traded through an unlinked market when investigation revealed that such market was inaccessible to members, or information concerning the validity of that market unreliable. 16 This commenter also stated that upon submitting the proposed amendment to the Commission it did not understand that it also would be required to adopt specific exchange rules providing for sanctions on members that trade through unlinked markets.

Finally, one commenter argued that the Commission's position that the proposed Linkage Plan does not satisfy the rule may severely impact broker-dealers due to the additional cost and potential liability associated with detecting and disclosing possible trade-throughs resulting from a failure to have in place a Commission-approved linkage. 17 This commenter suggested that the compliance date of the rule should be coordinated with the implementation date of the proposed Linkage Plan.

The Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan satisfies the three minimal requirements set out in the Adopting Release to conform the Linkage Plan to the requirements of the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule. Specifically, the Commission finds that by amending the definitions of “NBBO” and “Trade-Throughs” so that the terms apply to unlinked, as well as linked, exchanges, the proposed amendment would add to the Linkage Plan a provision to limit participants from trading through, not only the quotes of other linkage plan participants, but also, the quotes of exchanges that are not participants in an approved linkage plan. The Commission also finds that the proposed amendment would add to the Linkage Plan a requirement that each participant establish procedures for conducting surveillance for trade-throughs of both linked and unlinked markets. In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan clarifies that the failure of a market with a better quote to complain within a specified period of time that its quote was traded through may affect potential liability, but does not signify that a trade-through has not occurred.

Further, the Commission has carefully considered the comment letters submitted by the CBOE, Phlx, and Amex. The Commission reiterates its statement made in the Adopting Release that, in addition to the minimal provisions that must be included in an intermarket linkage plan to allow broker-dealers effecting transactions on exchanges participating in the plan to be excepted from the disclosure requirements of the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule, each exchange participating in a linkage plan would have to adopt certain rules. The Adopting Release stated that an exchange participating in the Linkage Plan:

Would have to adopt rules to allow the exchange to sanction specialists or market makers that trade through better prices of other exchanges, maintain policies and procedures that would limit the occurrence of intermarket trade-throughs, and maintain records that would identify intermarket trade-thoughs and any review or remedial action taken by the exchange in response to such intermarket trade-throughs. 18

The Commission believes that the requirement set forth in the Adopting Release, detailed above, that the Linkage Plan participants adopt rules regarding trade-throughs of better prices of other exchanges, not only linked markets, provided adequate notice to the participants in the Linkage Plan that such rules were expected to be filed for Commission approval. The Commission again restates here that the Commission fully expects the Linkage Plan participants to satisfy this requirement. Moreover, the Commission notes that the concerns raised by commenters are, at this time, purely academic because all of the options exchanges currently are participants in the Linkage Plan.

Finally, the Commission strongly believes that each exchange must have rules to allow it to sanction any member who has the ability to execute a transaction in its market at a price inferior to a price displayed by another exchange. In connection with the requirement set forth in the Adopting Release that each exchange adopt rules to allow it to sanction “specialists or market makers that trade through better prices of other exchanges,” the Commission believes that this language cannot be read as limiting the reach of the exchanges' rules to only specialists or market makers in each market. Rather, this provision must be read in conjunction with the other requirements set forth in the Adopting Release and consistent with a plain reading of the Linkage Plan. Specifically, the Commission believes that the requirement in the Adopting Release that, in addition to provisions that the Linkage Plan must contain to conform to the requirements of the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule, each exchange participating in the Linkage Plan has to “maintain policies and procedures that would limit the occurrence of intermarket trade-throughs,”  19 can only be read to require that such policies and procedures limit the occurrence of intermarket trade-throughs for all trades, other than those trades expressly excluded from the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule, regardless of the member affecting such trade. Moreover, Section 8(c) of the Linkage Plan states that “the Participants agree that absent reasonable justification and during normal market conditions, members in their markets should not effect trade-throughs (emphasis added).”

Finally, after careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan to consistent with the requirement of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with Section 11A of the Act, 20 and Rule 11Aa3-2 thereunder, 21 in the it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system. Moreover, the Commission believes that the Linkage Plan, as amended, satisfies the minimal requirements of the Trade-Through Disclosure rule to except broker-dealers who effect transactions on one of the linked markets from making the required disclosures under the Trade-Through Disclosure Rule, so long as each of the linked markets has adopted the required rules, discussed above.

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act  22 and Rule 11Aa3-2 thereunder, 23 that the proposed Linkage Plan amendment is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 24

On November 14, 2000, the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-00-17) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2001. 2 The Commission received two comment letters in support of the proposal. 3 For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.

If a participant fails to pay its settlement obligation to DTC at the end of the day, DTC will use its liquidity resources (all-cash participants fund and bank line of credit) to complete settlement. Currently, DTC's rules provide that if the participant is insolvent and use of the participant's participants fund deposit does not eliminate its net debit obligation, DTC may on the business day following the failure-to-settle either: (1) Resell to deliverers the securities they had delivered to the insolvent participant on the day of the failure (“resale procedure”) or (2) sell in the open market those securities and other collateral in the insolvent participant's account. Under the proposed rule change, DTC would amend its Rule 9(B) to eliminate DTC's option to resell to deliverers the securities they had previously delivered by book-entry to the account of a participant that has failed to settle its debit obligation to DTC.

The resale procedure was included in DTC's rules prior to the industry's conversion to same-day funds settlement and DTC's adoption of associated risk management controls, including the collateral monitor and the imposition of net debit caps. 4 The collateral monitor systematically prevents a participant from accruing a net debit that exceeds the value of the collateral in its account by blocking any transaction that would have that effect. For this purpose, collateral includes: (1) The participant's deposit to the participants fund, (2) the value of securities in the participant's account that it has designated as collateral, and (3) the value of securities that are the subject of deliveries from other participants. The collateral value attributed to securities is equal to their market value minus a “haircut” determined by DTC. DTC believes that its risk management controls adequately limit DTC's risk exposure in the event of a participant insolvency and that there is no need to rely upon the resale procedure.

Section 17A(b)(3)(F)  5 of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. The Commission believes that DTC's risk management controls such as collateral monitoring and the use of net debit caps adequately limit DTC's exposure in the event of a participant failure to settle an insolvency situation. The Commission further believes that DTC's right to sell the insolvent's collateral in the open market give DTC a sufficient means to eliminate any unsatisfied net debit obligation of the insolvent participant. Therefore, the Commission finds DTC's decision to eliminate its right to resell securities to deliverers and to rely upon its risk management controls and its right to resell collateral into the open market is consistent with DTC's obligations to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of DTC or for which it is responsible because use of the risk management controls and open market sales should provide DTC with the means to meet its financial obligations in the event of a participant's failure to settle.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-00-17) be and hereby is approved.

Harrison County and the contiguous counties of Hancock, Jackson, Pearl River and Stone constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Tropical Storm Allison that occurred on June 11, 2001. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on August 27, 2001 and for economic injury until the close of business on March 26, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308

The interest rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 335308 and for economic injury the number assigned is 9M1100.

The Near East/South Asia/Africa Division of the Office of Citizen Exchanges, of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) announces an open competition to build and strengthen U.S.-Africa partnerships in the government sector. U.S.-based public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in IRS regulation 26 CFR 1.501(c) may submit proposals to conduct international exchange programs. Grants are subject to the availability of funds under the Education for Development and Democracy Initiative.

Programs and projects must comply with Bureau requirements and guidelines outlined in the Solicitation Package: this includes the Request for Grant Proposals (RFGP) and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).

All communications with the Bureau concerning this Request for Grant Proposal (RFGP) should refer to the announcement title “Education for Development and Democracy: U.S.-Africa Governance Partnerships” and reference number ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-02-08.

The Bureau welcomes proposals for governance partnerships linking U.S. professionals with judicial, executive and legislative institutions in Africa to strengthen their effective, accountable, and transparent service to the public. The partnership concept is emphasized as a mutually beneficial, direct and efficient method of promoting education, democracy, and free market economics. Partnerships promote the interests and long-term commitment of African and American participants going beyond U.S. government financing. Partnerships also help to establish a strong network of counterpart institutions in the U.S. and Africa, which invigorate and inform each other, enable collaborations and joint projects, and promote the exchange of information and resources.

EDDI is an African-led development program with special emphasis on girls and women, concentrating on improving the quality and access to education; enhancing the availability of technology; and increasing citizen participation in government to accelerate Africa's integration into the world community of free-market democracies. In addition to governance projects, it promotes sustainable partnerships among African education and democracy organizations and between them and their sister organizations in the United States to educate children, involve communities, implement new business modes, and extend quality educational services.

Proposals for governance partnerships should include a bi-lateral, multi-phase, integrated approach to program activities, which build sequentially from exploratory work to cooperative action plans and concrete outcomes. The Office of Citizen Exchanges encourages applicants to be creative in planning project activities. Proposals should include practical, hands-on, community-based initiatives, designed to achieve concrete objectives in the field. The proposal should not focus on theoretical/academic workshops, seminars, studies or research.

In an effort to increase mutual understanding and build long-lasting linkages between our countries, proposals should include, to the fullest extent possible, equal numbers of American and African participants in international travel. In addition, applicants are encouraged to include American participants who are new to international exchanges and/or to the target countries.

The Bureau encourages applicants to consider carefully the choice of target countries. In order to prevent duplication of effort, applicants should research the work of development agencies (such as USAID, UN agencies) on the target themes, and select countries for which there has been limited investment on the issue. Applicants are welcome to contact the Public Affairs Sections (PAS) in U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the Office of Citizen Exchanges, to discuss proposed activities and their relevance to mission priorities.

Applicants may design single-country or multiple-country projects. The Bureau offers the following programming ideas and suggestions.

A well-trained, independent judiciary is fundamental to a democratic political and social system. The judiciary must be protected from political interference in legal proceedings and public perception of unequal and unfair treatment before the bench of women, members of ethnic minority communities, and the poor. Even well qualified and well-intentioned judges are obstructed in their efforts to deliver justice by case backlog, by procedural delay, and by insufficient authority to exercise judicial discretion in court management. It is important that judges of both lower and higher courts be introduced to the principles and practices of U.S. jurisprudence and that such fundamental procedures as alternative dispute resolution, early neutral evaluation, case management, plea bargaining, continuous trial proceedings, and arbitration/mediation be familiar to them. The Bureau invites proposals that strengthen the integrity of the judicial process, and that consequently build public confidence in the ability of the judicial process to deliver justice.

In many countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, newly elected legislators take office with little practical experience to prepare them in writing new laws. There are “infant” drafting programs at a few South African universities (Pretoria, Stellenbosch), but more help is needed in South Africa and throughout the region. Legislators, however, do not work on their own; the breadth, depth and utility of the laws they write are dependent on the input from aides or researchers who search for models or “best practices” from elsewhere. We believe programs meant to help both legislators and legislative researchers would be useful. A program aimed at legislators could bring in experts to work with local universities, organizations or government institutions in developing legislative-training programs. If neighboring posts are interested, they could send academic or “political” participants to drafting workshops held in the host country. ECA also welcomes proposals with a focus on training legislative researchers. Participants would be trained for 3-4 months performing research and policy analysis. Participants may include employees of foreign governments, employees of political parties, or university students.

The Bureau invites proposals with the purpose of promoting and improving the effectiveness of African legislatures through development of procedural and organizational options and opportunities, which serve themselves, the public, and other elements of government. These proposals might address matters such as staff organization and management, public accessibility and accountability, constituent relations, public information and media relations, and enhancing transparency of the legislative process. Also of interest are proposals that explore the impact of legislation on national and state budgets or address the role of legislatures in fiscal and programmatic oversight.

The Bureau is interested in programs that will enhance management skills of local government officials and administrators. Applicants must demonstrate expertise and knowledge of the political landscape and how the system of local government functions in the target country or countries. Programs may include a combination of U.S.-based internships, in-country workshops, roundtables, panel discussions, case studies and specially tailored projects. Suggested topics include accountability to and communication with constituencies; relationship with provincial and national governments; fiscal management; working with the press; negotiation skills and conflict resolution; consensus building; coalition building (particularly related to bloc or partisan communications); ethics in government; working with diverse populations; conducting issue-related casework; drafting legislation and implementing policy; promoting public participation in local government decision making.

Program activities for the above-listed themes may include:

1. A U.S.-based program that includes: Orientation to program purposes and to U.S. society; study tour/site visits; professional internships/placements; interaction and dialogue; hands-on training; professional development; and action plan development.

2. Capacity-building/training-of-trainer (TOT) workshops in Africa to help participants to identify priorities, create work plans, strengthen professional and volunteer skills, share their experience to committed people within each country, and become active in a practical and valuable way.

3. Site visits by U.S. facilitators/experts to monitor projects in the region and to provide additional training and consultations as needed.

4. Content-based Internet training/ cyber-training to encourage citizen participation in workshops, fora, chats, and/or discussions via the Internet that will stimulate communication and information sharing among key opinion leaders on priority topics. Internet and Cyber Training should be only one component of an overall program, not the main focus of the proposal.

Content-Based Internet Training: As noted above, the Bureau encourages applicants to use the Internet to assist African counterparts in networking, communicating and organizing on the above-listed priority issues. Proposals that include content-based Internet training must reflect knowledge of the opportunities and obstacles that exist for use of information technologies in the target country or countries, and, if needed, provide hardware, software and servers, preferably as a form of cost sharing. Internet and Cyber Training should be only one component of an overall program, not the main focus of the proposal.

In-Country Partners: Applicants should identify the U.S. and African partner organizations and individuals with whom they are proposing to collaborate. Specific information about the African partners' activities and accomplishments is required and should be included in the section on “Institutional Capacity.” Resumes for individuals mentioned in the proposal should be included, including proposed U.S. and African staff, trainers, consultants, etc.

Multiplier Effect/Impact: Programs should be designed so that the sharing of information and training that occurs during the grant period will continue long after the grant period is over. Proven methods of sustainability include, but are not limited to: a model TOT program that would include initial training, practice presentation sessions for the African participants, followed by training activities coordinated and implemented by the African participants in their home countries; a commitment to create or support in-country training/resource centers; a curriculum program that would include teacher training, lesson plan development, and cooperation with ministries of education and related education administrators on implementation; development of online communities, professional networks or professional associations; regularly published electronic and/or hard-copy newsletters.

Evaluation: Short- and long-term evaluation is critical to the success of any professional development program. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Federal Agencies must create strategic plans, set performance goals, and develop methods for measuring how well the goals of this program are realized. The grantee would be required to work closely with the Bureau to fulfill this responsibility. Applicants are asked to submit an evaluation plan that would address the GPRA requirements and assess the long-term impact and effectiveness of this program. The evaluation plan should include a summation of goals and results desired, and an indication of what types of information would be used to determine if these goals were met or results achieved, as well as a description of how the applicant would gather and evaluate this information. Please include with the proposal any evaluation tools (survey/focus group questions) that would be used as part of the overall plan.

To be competitive, proposals should include a description of an open, merit-based participant selection process, including advertising, recruitment and selection. A sample application should be submitted with the proposal. Applicants should expect to carry out the entire selection process, but the Bureau and the Public Affairs Sections of the U.S. Embassies abroad should be consulted. The Bureau and the U.S. Embassies retain the right to nominate participants and to approve or reject participants recommended by the grantee institution. Priority must be given to foreign participants who have not traveled to the United States. ECA encourages applicants to design programs for non-English speakers, as appropriate. The Bureau is particularly interested in projects that focus on or include persons with disabilities in any of the above-listed themes. Please refer to the sections on “Budget Guidelines” and “Review Criteria” for additional information.

Foreign participants on programs sponsored by The Bureau are granted J-1 Exchange Visitor visas by the U.S. Embassy in the sending country. All programs must comply with J-1 visa regulations. Please refer to the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for further information.

The Public Affairs Sections of the U.S. Embassies (formerly known as USIS posts) play a key role throughout every phase of project development. Posts evaluate project proposals; coordinate planning with the grantee organization and in-country partners; facilitate in-country activities; nominate participants and vet grantee nominations; observe in-country activities; debrief participants; and evaluate project impact. Posts are responsible for issuing IAP-66 forms in order for overseas participants to obtain necessary J-1 visas for entry to the United States. They also serve as a link to in-country partners and participants.

Project administration and implementation are the responsibility of grantee. The grantee must inform the PAS in participating countries of its operations and procedures and coordinate with and involve PAS officers in the development of project activities. The PAS should be consulted regarding country priorities, current security issues, and related logistical and programmatic issues.

A total of $835,000 will be available to support multiple grant awards. The funding available under this competition will be disbursed through grants to several organizations. Although no funding limit exists, organizations are strongly encouraged to submit proposals that do not exceed $225,000. Proposals that do not exceed $225,000 will be given priority. Organizations with less than four years of experience in managing international exchange programs are limited to $60,000.

The Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding from private sources in support of its programs.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with African partners in the design of the proposal budget. Competitive proposals will demonstrate a thorough and realistic understanding of the costs for in-country administration, communication, transportation, per diem, etc.

Format: Applicants must submit a comprehensive line item budget based on the model in the Proposal Submission Instructions, but are encouraged to provide the optional separate sub-budgets for each program component, location or activity in order to facilitate decisions on funding. Applicants should include a budget narrative or budget notes for clarification of each line item.

Cost sharing: Since the Bureau's grant assistance constitutes only a portion of total project funding, proposals should list and provide evidence of other sources of cost sharing, including financial and in-kind support. Proposals with substantial private sector support from foundations, corporations, and other institutions will be considered highly competitive. Please refer to the statement on cost sharing in the Proposal Submission Instructions.

The following program costs are eligible for funding consideration:

1. Transportation. International and domestic airfares (per the Fly America Act), transit costs, ground transportation costs, and visas for U.S. participants to travel to African countries (visas for African participants to travel to the U.S. for travel funded by the Bureau's grant assistance are issued at no charge).

2. Per Diem. For U.S.-based programming, organizations should use the published Federal per diem rates for individual U.S. cities. For activities in Africa, the Bureau strongly encourages applicants to budget realistic costs that reflect the local economy. Domestic and foreign per diem rates may be accessed at: http://www.policyworks.gov/. Applicants may opt to provide “home-stay” accommodations as a way to reduce per diems costs and as a way to enhance cross-cultural understanding.

3. Interpreters. Local interpreters with adequate skills and experience may be used for program activities. Typically, one interpreter is provided for every four visitors who require interpreting, with a minimum of two interpreters. The Bureau grants do not pay for foreign interpreters to accompany delegations from their home country. Salary costs for local interpreters must be included in the budget. Costs associated with using their services may not exceed rates for U.S. Department of State interpreters. The Bureau strongly encourages applicants to use local interpreters. U.S. Department of State Interpreters may be used for highly technical programs with the approval of the Office of Citizen Exchanges. Proposal budgets should contain a flat $170/day per diem for each U.S. Department of State interpreter, as well as home-program-home air transportation of $400 per interpreter, reimbursements for taxi fares, plus any other transportation expenses during the program. Salary expenses are covered centrally and should not be part of an applicant's proposed budget.

4. Book and cultural allowance. Foreign participants are entitled to a one-time cultural allowance of $150 per person, plus a book allowance of $50. Interpreters should be reimbursed up to $150 for expenses when they escort participants to cultural events. U.S. program staff, trainers or participants are not eligible to receive these benefits.

5. Consultants. Consultants may be used to provide specialized expertise or to make presentations. Daily honoraria cannot exceed $250 per day. Subcontracting organizations may also be used, in which case the written agreement between the prospective grantee and subcontractor should be included in the proposal. Subcontracts should be itemized in the budget.

6. Room rental. Room rental may not exceed $250 per day.

7. Materials development. Proposals may contain costs to purchase, develop and translate materials for participants. The Bureau strongly discourages the use of automatic translation software for the preparation of training materials or any information distributed to the group of participants or network of organizations. Costs for good-quality translation of materials should be anticipated and included in the budget. Grantee organizations should expect to submit a copy of all program materials to the Bureau.

8. Equipment. Proposals may contain costs to purchase equipment for Africa-based programming such as computers, fax machines and copy machines. Please note, however, that the Bureau encourages cost sharing for these expenses. Costs for furniture are not allowed. Equipment costs must be kept to a minimum.

9. Working meal. Only one working meal may be provided during the program. Per capita costs may not exceed $5-8 for a lunch and $14-20 for a dinner, excluding room rental. The number of invited guests may not exceed participants by more than a factor of two-to-one. Interpreters must be included as participants.

10. Return travel allowance. A return travel allowance of $70 for each foreign participant should be included in the budget. The allowance may be used for incidental expenses incurred during international travel.

11. Health Insurance. Foreign participants will be covered under the terms of a Bureau-sponsored health insurance policy. The premium is paid by the Bureau directly to the insurance company. Applicants are permitted to include costs for travel insurance for U.S. participants in the budget.

12. Administrative Costs. Costs necessary for the effective administration of the program may include salaries for grantee organization employees, benefits, and other direct and indirect costs per detailed instructions in the PSI. Applicants are encouraged to provide administrative costs for African partner organizations to cover their in-country costs. While there is no rigid ratio of administrative to program costs, priority will be given to proposals whose administrative costs are less than twenty-five (25) per cent of the total requested from the Bureau. Proposals should show strong administrative cost-sharing contributions from the applicant, the African partner and other sources.

Please refer to the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) for complete budget guidelines.

Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered, and all are important in the proposal evaluation:

1. Program Planning and Ability to Achieve Objectives: Program objectives should be stated clearly and precisely and should reflect the applicant's expertise in the subject area and the region. Objectives should respond to the priority topics in this announcement, clearly meet the strategic objectives of EDDI, and relate to the current conditions in the target country or countries. Objectives should be reasonable, attainable, and tied to the anticipated outcomes of the project. A detailed work plan should explain step-by-step how objectives would be achieved and should include a timetable for completion of major tasks. The substance of project planning, orientation sessions, workshops, presentations, consultations, site visits and seed/sub-grant projects should be included as attachments (i.e. sample agendas, draft applications, etc.). Responsibilities of U.S. and in-country partners should be clearly described.

2. Institutional Capacity: The proposal should include: (1) The U.S. institution's mission and date of establishment; (2) detailed information about the capacity of any partner institutions, and the history of the partnership(s); (3) an outline of prior awards—U.S. government and private support received for the target theme/region; and (4) descriptions of experienced staff members and other resource persons who would implement the program. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program's goals. The narrative should demonstrate proven ability to handle logistics. The proposal should reflect the institution's expertise in the subject area and knowledge of the conditions in the target country/region(s). Specific information about the African partners' activities and accomplishments is required and should be included in the section on “Institutional Capacity.” Resumes for individuals mentioned in the proposal should be included, including proposed U.S. and African staff, trainers, consultants, etc.

3. Cost Effectiveness and Cost Sharing: Overhead and administrative costs for the proposal, including salaries, honoraria and subcontracts for services, should be kept to a minimum. Applicants are encouraged to cost share a portion of overhead and administrative expenses. Cost sharing, including contributions from the applicant, U.S. or African partners, and other sources, should be included in the budget. Although no minimum cost sharing is stipulated in this competition, previous grantees have routinely covered more than 20 percent of total project costs.

4. Program Evaluation: The proposal must include a plan and methodology to evaluate the program's successes, both as activities unfold and at the program's conclusion. ECA recommends that the proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique (such as a series of questions for a focus group) to link outcomes to original program objectives. The evaluation plan should include a summation of goals and results desired, and an indication of what types of information would be used to determine if these goals were met or results achieved, as well as a description of how the applicant would gather and evaluate this information. Please include with the proposal any evaluation tools (survey/focus group questions) that would be used as part of the overall plan.

5. Multiplier Effect/Impact: The proposal should show how the program would strengthen long-term mutual understanding and institutionalization of program objectives. Applicants should describe how responsibility and ownership of the program would be transferred to the African participants to ensure continued activity and impact. ECA places a priority on programs that include convincing plans for sustainability.

6. Follow-on Activities: The proposal should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (beyond the ECA grant period), ensuring that ECA-supported programs are not isolated events. Follow-on activities sponsored by the applicant should be clearly outlined.

7. Support of Diversity: The proposed project should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Program content (training sessions, resource materials, follow-on activities) and program administration (participant selection process, orientation, evaluation, resource/staff persons) should address diversity in a comprehensive and innovative manner. Applicants should refer to ECA's Diversity,Freedom and Democracy Guidelines on page four of the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).

8. Multiplier Effect/Impact: Programs should be designed so that the sharing of information and training that occurs during the grant period will continue long after the grant period is over. Proven methods of sustainability include, but are not limited to: A model TOT program that would include initial training, practice presentation sessions for the African participants, followed by training activities coordinated and implemented by the African participants in their home countries; a commitment to create or support in-country training/resource centers; a curriculum program that would include teacher training, lesson plan development, and cooperation with ministries of education and related education administrators on implementation; development of online communities, professional networks or professional associations; regularly published electronic and/or hard-copy newsletters.

Highly competitive proposals usually have the following characteristics: An active, existing partnership between a U.S. organization and African institution(s); a proven successful track record for conducting program activity; cost-sharing from U.S. and African sources, including donations of air fares, hotel and/or housing costs, ground transportation, interpreters, room rentals, etc.; experienced staff with relevant language ability; a clear, convincing plan outlining exactly how the program components will be carried out and how permanent results will be accomplished as a result of the grant; and a follow-on plan that extends beyond the Bureau grant period. Please refer to the section on Review Criteria in the RFGP for additional information.

Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physical challenges. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into the total proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible.

The Bureau will acknowledge receipt of all proposals and will review them for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards (grants) resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer.

Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries* * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” Funding authority for the program cited above is provided through the Fulbright-Hays Act and the Education for Development and Democracy Initiative (EDDI).

The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements.

The entire Solicitation Package (includes two documents: the RFGP and the PSI) may be downloaded from the Bureau's website at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/RFGPs or the division's website at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/citizens/africa. Please read all information before downloading.

The Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/NEAAF, Room 220, U.S. Department of State, 301 4th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20547, attention: Orna Blum, telephone: (202) 260-2754 and fax number: (202) 619-4350, Internet address: oblum@pd.state.gov.

Please read the complete Federal Register announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed.

All proposal copies must be received at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington, D.C. time on Friday, September 7, 2001. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Documents postmarked the due date but received on a later date will not be accepted. Each applicant must ensure that the proposals are received by the above deadline.

Applicants must follow all instructions given in the Application Package. The applicant's original proposal and ten (10) copies (unbound) should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-02-08, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.

Applicants must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal on a 3.5″ diskette, formatted for DOS. These documents must be provided in ASCII text (DOS) format or Microsoft Word format. The Bureau will transmit these files electronically to the Public Affairs section at the US Embassy for its review, with the goal of reducing the time it takes to get embassy comments for the Bureau's grants review process.

Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal U.S. Department of State procedures.

The Bureau expects to provide an assistance award in an amount not to exceed $475,000 to one organization to support the program and administrative costs required to implement this program. Organizations with less than four years of experience in conducting international exchange programs are not eligible for this competition.

Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. The Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost-sharing and funding from private sources in support of its programs.

Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.

All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/PE/C/PY-01-85.