This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the March 8, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 13874), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by March 31, 2001.

Cairo, Louisiana, and North Carolina were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, so GIPSA did not ask for comments on them.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Cairo, Louisiana, and North Carolina are able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the March 8, 2001, Federal Register, for which they applied.

Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this Action.

Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services.

Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the Act.

a. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, is assigned to Barton:

In Indiana:

Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, Jackson, Jennings, Jefferson, Lawrence, Martin, Orange, Perry, Scott, Spencer, and Washington Counties.

In Kentucky:

Bounded on the North by the northern Daviess, Hancock, Breckinridge, Meade, Hardin, Jefferson, Oldham, Trimble, and Carroll County lines;

Bounded on the East by the eastern Carroll, Henry, Franklin, Scott, Fayette, Jessamine, Woodford, Anderson, Nelson, Larue, Hart, Barren, and Allen County lines;

Bounded on the South by the southern Allen and Simpson County lines; and

Bounded on the West by the western Simpson and Warren County lines; the southern Butler and Muhlenberg County lines; the Muhlenberg County line west to the Western Kentucky Parkway; the Western Kentucky Parkway west to State Route 109; State Route 109 north to State Route 814; State Route 814 north to U.S. Route Alternate 41; U.S. Route Alternate 41 north to the Webster County line; the northern Webster County line; the western McLean and Daviess County lines.

In Tennessee:

Bounded on the North by the northern Tennessee State line from Sumner County east;

Bounded on the East by the eastern Tennessee State line southwest;

Bounded on the South by the southern Tennessee State line west to the western Giles County line; and

Bounded on the West by the western Giles, Maury, and Williamson County lines North; the northern Williamson County line east; the western Rutherford, Wilson, and Sumner County lines north.

b. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Illinois, is assigned to Central Illinois:

Bounded on the North by State Route 18 east to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 south to State Route 17; State Route 17 east to Livingston County; the Livingston County line east to State Route 47;

Bounded on the East by State Route 47 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 west to Pontiac, which intersects with a straight line running north and south through Arrowsmith to the southern McLean County line;

Bounded on the South by the southern McLean County line; the eastern Logan County line south to State Route 10; State Route 10 west to the Logan County line; the western Logan County line; the southern Tazewell County line; and

Bounded on the West by the western Tazewell County line; the western Peoria County line north to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 southeast to State Route 116; State Route 116 north to State Route 26; State Route 26 north to State Route 18.

Central Illinois' assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevator inside Central Illinois' area which has been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Springfield Grain Inspection, Inc.: East Lincoln Farmers Grain Co., Lincoln, Logan County, Illinois.

c. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Illinois and North Dakota, is assigned to North Dakota:

In Illinois:

Bounded on the East by the eastern Cumberland County line; the eastern Jasper County line south to State Route 33; State Route 33 east-southeast to the Indiana-Illinois State line; the Indiana-Illinois State line south to the southern Gallatin County line;

Bounded on the South by the southern Gallatin, Saline, and Williamson County lines; the southern Jackson County line west to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 north to State Route 13; State Route 13 northwest to State Route 149; State Route 149 west to State Route 3; State Route 3 northwest to State Route 51; State Route 51 south to the Mississippi River; and

Bounded on the West by the Mississippi River north to the northern Calhoun County line;

Bounded on the North by the northern and eastern Calhoun County lines; the northern and eastern Jersey County lines; the northern Madison County line; the western Montgomery County line north to a point on this line that intersects with a straight line, from the junction of State Route 111 and the northern Macoupin County line to the junction of Interstate 55 and State Route 16 (in Montgomery County); from this point southeast along the straight line to the junction of Interstate 55 and State Route 16; State Route 16 east-northeast to a point approximately 1 mile northeast of Irving; a straight line from this point to the northern Fayette County line; the northern Fayette, Effingham, and Cumberland County lines.

In North Dakota:

Bounded on the North by the northern Steele County line from State Route 32 east; the eastern Steele County line south to State Route 200; State Route 200 east-southeast to the State line;

Bounded on the East by the eastern North Dakota State line;

Bounded on the South by the southern North Dakota State line west to State Route 1; and

Bounded on the West by State Route 1 north to Interstate 94; Interstate 94 east to the Soo Railroad line; the Soo Railroad line northwest to State Route 1; State Route 1 north to State Route 200; State Route 200 east to State Route 45; State Route 45 north to State Route 32; State Route 32 north.

North Dakota's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside North Dakota's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Grain Inspection, Inc.: Norway Spur, and Oakes Grain, both in Oakes, Dickey County, North Dakota.

d. Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Texas, is assigned to Plainview:

Bounded on the North by the northern Deaf Smith County line east to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 south to FM 1062; FM 1062 east to State Route 217; State Route 217 east to Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River; Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River southeast to the Briscoe County line; the northern Briscoe County line; the northern Hall County line east to U.S. Route 287;

Bounded on the East by U.S. Route 287 southeast to the eastern Hall County line; the eastern Hall, Motley, Dickens, Kent, Scurry, and Mitchell County lines;

Bounded on the South by the southern Mitchell, Howard, Martin, and Andrews County lines; and

Bounded on the West by the western Andrews, Gaines, and Yoakum County lines; the northern Yoakum and Terry county lines; the western Lubbock County line; the western Hale County line north to FM 37; FM 37 west to U.S. Route 84; U.S. Route 84 northwest to FM 303; FM 303 north to U.S. Route 70; U.S. Route 70 west to the Lamb County line; the western and northern Lamb County lines; the western Castro County line; the southern Deaf Smith County line west to State Route 214; State Route 214 north to the northern Deaf Smith County line.

Interested persons, including Barton, Central Illinois, North Dakota, and Plainview, are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of Section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning April 1, 2002, and ending March 31, 2005. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information.

GIPSA also is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on the Columbus, Farwell, and Northeast Indiana official agencies. Commenters are encouraged to submit pertinent data concerning these official agencies including information on the timeliness, cost, quality, and scope of services provided. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address.

Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).

The Department published in the Federal Register antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) and CTL plate from Canada on August 19, 1993. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 44162 (August 19, 1993). The Department received timely requests from interested parties to conduct administrative reviews for the August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 period, pursuant to section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations. On September 26, 2000, we initiated an administrative review of three manufacturers/exporters of CTL plate: Stelco Inc. (Stelco), Clayson, and Gerdau MRM Steel (MRM).

On December 8, 2000, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Canada, effective January 1, 2000, pursuant to a determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 751(c) of the Act. See Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products From Canada, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 65 FR 78467 (December 15, 2000) (Revocation Notice). As a result of the revocation of this order, the period of review (POR) for the seventh administrative review of CTL plate is shortened to the period from August 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of 365 days. On March 1, 2001, the Department published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in this review to August 31, 2001. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 66 FR 12924 (March 1, 2001).

On May 8, 2001, MRM withdrew its request for a review of CTL plate. The petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of CTL plate with respect to Stelco and MRM, the only producers of CTL plate for which it had requested a review, on December 13, 2000, and on May 11, 2001, respectively. On July 27, 2001, the Department rescinded, in part, the antidumping duty administrative review of CTL plate, due to the withdrawal of requests for review by the interested parties. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada: Rescission in Part and in Whole of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 39145 (July 27, 2001).

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

CTL plate includes hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. Also excluded is cut-to-length carbon steel plate meeting the following criteria: (1) 100% dry steel plates, virgin steel, no scrap content (free of Cobalt-60 and other radioactive nuclides); (2) .290 inches maximum thickness, plus 0.0, minus .030 inches; (3) 48.00 inch wide, plus .05, minus 0.0 inches; (4) 10 foot lengths, plus 0.5, minus 0.0 inches; (5) flatness, plus/minus 0.5 inch over 10 feet; (6) AISI 1006; (7) tension leveled; (8) pickled and oiled; and (9) carbon content, 0.03 to 0.08 (maximum).

The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (Customs) purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent that are covered by the description in the “Scope of Review” section above and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. After conducting a sales-below-cost test, we had exact matches remaining between products sold in the U.S. and the home market for all U.S. sales, and, therefore, did not have to resort to constructed value (CV) or difference in merchandise (DIFMER) adjustments.

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the EP to NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices.

Clayson had no constructed export price (CEP) sales. The Department calculated EP for Clayson based on packed, delivered prices to customers in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the U.S. gross unit price for U.S. movement expenses (i.e., U.S. brokerage and duty expenses, and inland freight).

We determined invoice date was the proper measurement of date of sale for Clayson's transactions, pursuant to both the commercial realities of Clayson's home market and U.S. sales during the POR and the Department's preference for invoice date, as articulated in section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations.

The Department determines the viability of the home market and the comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales. Section 351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations states that if “the aggregate quantity * * * of the foreign like product sold by an exporter or producer in a country is 5 percent or more of the aggregate quantity * * * of its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States” then it has a viable home market for the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2) (defining “sufficient quantity”). We have determined that Clayson has a viable home market pursuant to this provision. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market situation in the exporting company's country that would not permit a proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. sale.

Clayson made no home market sales to affiliated parties. Home market prices were based on the packed, delivered prices to purchasers in the home market. We made deductions from the home market price for an early payment discount, home market direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses), home market movement expenses (i.e., inland freight), and home market packing expenses in accordance with 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Furthermore, we added to the home market price amounts for U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses) and U.S. packing expenses in accordance with 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.

As discussed above, pursuant to both the commercial realities of Clayson's home market and U.S. sales during the POR and the Department's regulatory preference for invoice date, the Department determined that the date of sale for Clayson's transactions was best reflected in the date of invoice.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as U.S. sales. In both the home market and the United States, Clayson reported one LOT and one distribution system, with one class of customer, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), in both the home and U.S. markets. We compared the selling functions performed at the home market LOT with those performed at the U.S. LOT and found them to be substantially similar.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999 to be as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter: Clayson.

Margin Percentage: 1.37%.

The Department will disclose to the parties to the proceeding calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within ten days after the date of public announcement, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date of filing of case briefs. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of each particular importer made during the POR.

As noted above, as a result of a sunset review by the ITC, the Department has revoked the antidumping duty order for CTL plate from Canada, effective January 1, 2000. See Revocation Notice. Therefore, we have instructed Customs to terminate suspension of liquidation for all entries of CTL plate made on or after January 1, 2000, and further calculation of antidumping cash deposit requirements for this merchandise is no longer necessary.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review is being conducted and the notice published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C 1677f(i)(1)).

The Department is considering how best to address the review requests in this proceeding given our limited resources. Therefore, the Department finds it is not practicable to complete the preliminary determination by January 31, 2002 (see 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act). Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to no later than May 31, 2002. See 19 CFR 351.302(b).

In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, we are issuing and publishing this notice.

The OE Program's mission is to search and investigate the oceans for the purpose of discovery and the advancement of knowledge of the ocean's physical, chemical and biological environments, processes, characteristics, and resources by means of interdisciplinary expeditious to unknown, or poorly known, regions and through innovative experiments. The Program advocates discovery-based science and collaboration between multiple partners and disciplines. Education and outreach are also important OE Program components.

NOAA's OE Program is viewed as a component of an envisioned larger National Ocean Exploration Program which is described in Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration http://oceanpanel.nos.noaa.gov. As envisioned, it would seek to bring the best of our Nation's ocean scientists to ocean science and technological frontiers for the purposes of discovering more about life in the oceans, discovering new oceans processes, learning more about maritime cultural resources and heritage, and prospecting for biological and mineral resources. The NOAA OE Program will thereby support NOAA's role as the Nation's agency for ocean stewardship.

In order to facilitate pathfinding oceanic research and technology development, the OE Program will invest in well-justified projects that will expand our knowledge of the ocean's physical, chemical and biological environments as well as its processes, characteristics, and resources. The OE Program will achieve these goals, in part, by means of interdisciplinary expeditions to unknown, or poorly known, regions and by means of innovative experiments. The Program also will seek to expand the Nation's maritime cultural heritage through support of ocean archeological expeditions.

A major commitment will be devoted to data dissemination and timely communication of the Program's achievements to a broad audience. Participants in the program are anticipated to include the public, private entities, and academic scientists.

The purpose of this announcement is to invite the submission of research proposals to explore and discover fundamental, new knowledge about the ocean and the organisms that live within it, to pursue the advancement of ocean technology and to develop teaching tools and innovative means for disseminating results and data.

Proposals should address pathfinding research within the themes and regions listed below. Research within areas of U.S. legal jurisdiction is encouraged.

Generalized thematic focuses for Ocean Exploration proposals include: (1) Exploring unknown or poorly known ocean regions; (2) exploring ocean dynamics and interactions at new time scales; (3) developing new sensors and systems; (4) exploring the Nation's maritime heritage; (5) exploring the ocean using remote sensing techniques, especially passive acoustics; and (6) exploring for living and nonliving ocean resources.

Areas of geographic interest include (but are not necessarily limited to) the: (1) Eastern Pacific (from the Baja peninsula to the Bering Sea and including the Gulf of Alaska); (2) Northwest Hawaiian Islands; (3) Arctic; (4) Antarctic; (5) Gulf of Mexico; (6) Gulf of Maine; (7) South Atlantic Bight.

The scope of proposals is left to the proposer's discretion, e.g., a proposal may be for a specific task or a large-scale, multi-institutional interdisciplinary expedition. Proposals may include costs for ship time and other facilities, including ROVs, etc.

All funded Principal Investigators (PIs) will be required to cooperate with the OE Program staff in facilitating education and outreach activities, which are major priorities for the program. These activities may entail such things as accommodation of a teacher/educator-at-sea or at-sea media participation. Proposals should specifically address these priorities.

NOAA's Ocean Explorer website (http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov) is the principle vehicle for chronicling and documenting missions supported by the OE Program. PIs and mission participants will be required to provide materials for this site. Mechanisms to do this, e.g., coordination with the NOAA Ocean Explorer website team (see Ancillary Information at: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov), should be described in the proposal, and costs for accomplishing this goal should be included in the budget.

PIs must also be willing to cooperate with OE to ensure that data acquired through their grants are compatible with the OE data/information system currently under development. All funded proposals will be required to provide OE with metadata (via the Internet) pertaining to all research data sets within 90 days of their collection. In keeping with OE's education and outreach goals, the Internet databases also should be friendly to users from a wide spectrum of abilities and backgrounds. Because of the anticipated wide diversity in kinds of data to be acquired, dates for access to specific datasets (by the OE Program, relevant data repositories, and other requesters) will be individually established prior to each proposal award.

This solicitation announces that approximately $14M may be available in FY 2002, in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for this program.

There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If one incurs any costs prior to receiving an award agreement signed by an authorized NOAA official, one would do so solely at one's own risk of these costs not being included under the award. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that one may have received, pre-award costs are not allowed under the award unless the Grants Officer approves them in accordance with 15 C.F.R. 14.28.

Applications must reflect the total budget necessary to accomplish the project, including contributions and/or donations. However, applicants are not required to seek matching funds to qualify for this award. If an applicant chooses to cost-share, and if that application is selected for funding, the applicant will be bound by the percentage of the cost-share reflected in the award.

The type of a funding instrument (either grant or cooperative agreement) that NOAA will use will be determined by the NOAA Grants Office in consultation with the NOAA OE Program Office. Mechanism for actual transfer of funds will depend on the specific agency or institution and its relationship to NOAA. Note: Grants or cooperative agreements will not be used in the case of funding for other Federal agencies. Such agencies will be funded through an inter-agency transfer (see Section IX for additional information).

Proposals may request funding for up to three years. Funding in out-years will be contingent on successful accomplishment of prior-year objectives and the level of the program's overall funding. A year-end report of accomplishments will be required for multi-year proposals.

Institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, commercial organizations, foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments, and Federal agencies are eligible to apply and be awarded funds. Note: Before other Federal applicants may be funded, they must demonstrate that they have legal authority to receive funds for the purpose of this program in excess of their appropriation; see Section IX for more details on this point. Because this announcement is not proposing to procure goods or services from applicants, the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) is not an appropriate legal basis.

NOAA encourages proposals that are interdisciplinary and involve legitimate collaborations with more than one institution or agency.

All applications must include the forms listed in section IX(A) and a proposal that conforms to the specifications in section IX(B). For other federal agencies wishing to apply, please contact the OE Program Director at 301-713-9444 or via email at oar.oe.fag@noaa.gov prior to the development of any research proposals to discuss the legal authority for receiving these funds.

Standard Forms 424, Application for Federal Assistance, 424A, Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs, 424B, Assurances-Non-Construction Programs, SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Rev. 7-97) (if applicable); DOC forms, CD-346, Applicant for Funding Assistance, CD-511, Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters: Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying, and CD-512, Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying shall be used in applying for financial assistance. All necessary forms may be obtained via the OE Internet site (see: OE Application Kit) at http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov. For hard copies, see ADDESSES and/or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

The proposal should be self-contained. The proposal must clearly delineate each partner's efforts and the associated requests for OE funds, as well as any cost-sharing. The same proposal will be used to implement funding of all partners in the proposed effort, if selected. Thus, separate budgets within the single proposal will be required if more than one funding action is needed..

All proposals/applications must include the following: (a) Completed cover page; (b) a maximum half-page executive summary; (c) a maximum 20-page description of the entire project (including collaborations, period of performance, and work plan); (d) budget narrative (including proper budget justification for non-standard items); (e) a summary of relevant current funding support; (f) a short Principal Investigator resume, including recent relevant publication references,and (g) all government forms required for submission.

The entire package must make 40 pages or less. Proposals must be stapled or bound in the uppermost left-hand corner. Margins should be one inch on all four sides and the font size should be at least 10 point. A copy of the proposal on floppy diskette or Zip disk in Adobe Acrobat PDF or Microsoft Word format is requested, but not required.

Investigators/applicants may submit hard copies or electronic copies (via email) of their proposals. Applicants submitting hard copies must submit three hard copies of the proposal. While extra copies are not required, submission of an extra twelve copies will expedite the review process. Although electronic submissions are welcomed, the forms, identified in Section IX(A), must be submitted in hard copy with original signatures in conjunction with any electronic submissions by the closing date/time. Three original copies of the forms, identified in section IX(A), are needed. Failure to submit the required forms may result in a proposal being rejected. Please send electronic submissions to the following email address: oar.oe.submissions@noaa.gov. For further information, see Announcement of Opportunity: Application Kit at http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/ or see ADDRESSES and/or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

Each proposal should take into consideration all of the following criteria. Listed in order of importance, these criteria will be used by independent peer mail reviewers and an independent peer review panel to assist in their evaluations of proposals submitted to the OE Program:

The scientific and/or technical context and value of the work proposed, and the probability of success.

The capacity for the proposal to address and support Ocean Exploration's missions and objectives (see: Section II., Parts A, B, and C).

The anticipated or potential scientific and/or technical importance of project results.

All proposals must provide sufficient information to demonstrate the applicant's scientific and/or technical capability to successfully undertake the proposed work. All proposals must also provide a complete and detailed budget, which includes supporting narratives for unusual and/or unusually costly items.

The proposals will be judged, in accordance with these evaluation criteria, on a adjectival scale ranging in order of decreasing merit, as follows:

Excellent: Comprehensive, thorough and of exceptional merit, one or more major strengths, no major weaknesses, and any minor weaknesses easily correctable.

Very Good: Competent, one or more major strengths, strengths outweigh weaknesses, and major weaknesses correctable.

Good: Reasonable, may be strengths and/or weaknesses, weaknesses do not significantly detract from the proposal's viability, any major weaknesses are correctable.

Fair: One or more major weaknesses, weaknesses outweigh strengths, major weaknesses may possibly be corrected or minimized.

Poor: One or more major weaknesses which will be difficult to correct or may not be correctable.

Proposals will be evaluated by an independent peer mail review, i.e., each proposal will be reviewed, by three qualified scientific and/or technical peers drawn from government, academia, and/or industry (working independently). These reviewers will be required to certify that they do not have a conflict of interest and that they will maintain confidentiality concerning the application(s) they are reviewing. The peer reviewers will (1) assign adjectival ratings to each proposal based on the evaluation criteria described in section XI, and (2) compose written assessments.

Proposals and the accompanying written mail reviews will be sent to OE, who will make them available to the peer review panel. Panel members may include relevant NOAA and non-NOAA experts. As a group, the panel members will discuss the scientific merits of each proposal and the contents of the written assessments composed during the peer mail reviews process. After the discussion, each peer review panel member will individually rate each proposal using the evaluation criteria listed in this announcement. There will be no consensus advice or evaluation.

Following the panel meeting, the proposals, the written reviews, and ratings of each panelist then will be sent to the OE Program's Chief Scientist. The Chief Scientist will compile the individual ratings for each proposal, and, after taking into account the extent to which the proposals meet OE's funding considerations, will group all of the proposals into the following fundable categories: Highest Priority For Funding, Merits Funding, or Decline.

The Director of the NOAA OE Program will have the final authority and responsibility for decisions regarding proposal acceptance or rejection. The Director, in making his/her final decisions, will consider: (1) Individual peer reviews, (2) the peer review panel evaluations, ratings and Chief Scientist groupings; (3) the avoidance of duplication with other projects funded by NOAA or other Federal Agencies; (4) the extent to which the proposals meet the funding considerations in Section VIII; and (5) availability of funding. Therefore, the highest proposal rating may not ultimately determine funding. Investigators may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to approval of the award. Subsequent administrative processing will be in accordance with current NOAA grants procedures.

Other NOAA agencies and programs also have mission objectives which involve ocean research and technology development. Examples include, the National Undersea Research Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office's Arctic Research Office, NMFS and the National Ocean Service. The OE Program anticipates and encourages collaborative efforts between itself and these agencies and programs. Investigators who wish to work with the OE Program through any of these other entities should contact them directly. Prospective collaborative projects facilitated by these other programs will be subject to the OE Program's proposal review and decision-making process. For additional details about these other programs, see: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov.

If a proposed project might have an environmental impact, the proposal should furnish sufficient information to assist proposal reviewers in assessing the environmental consequences of supporting the project.

Where relevant, proposals with the potential to impact marine mammals and/or other protected species must comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), (16 U.S.C. 1361-1421h) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544).

For further information about permits, authorizations or viewing marine mammals and other protected species in the wild please visit the following NMFS websites:

Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and DOC policies, regulations and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards. Women and minority individuals and groups are encouraged to submit applications under this program.

DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the Nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs.

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

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

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

No Federal funds will be awarded to an applicant or to its subrecipients who have any outstanding debt until either:

1. The delinquent account is paid in full;

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

3. Other arrangements satisfactory to DOC are made.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as defined at 15 CFR Part 28, Section 105) are subject to the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions,” and the lobbying section of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more then $150,000, or the single family maximum mortgage limit for affected programs, whichever is greater; and

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

Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD-512. “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure form, SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to DOC. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to DOC in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.

Applicants under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

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

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administration Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.)

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This notice contains collection-of-information requirements which are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department has recovered $14,476 from the MDE in settlement of a 1992 audit disallowance under Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Chapter 1) (20 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (1988)). Under Chapter 1, funds were awarded, through SEAs, to local educational agencies to improve the achievement of educationally deprived children attending high-poverty schools.

The auditors found that, during the year ending June 30, 1992, the salaries of two employees of the MDE's Division of Finance's grants management accounting staff were charged in full to the Chapter 1 program, but they did not spend their entire time on activities directly benefiting the Chapter 1 program. The auditors noted that provisions in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Attachment B, section 10(b), required the salaries and wages of employees chargeable to more than one grant program or other cost objective to be supported by appropriate time distribution records. This resulted in questioned costs of $29,484 to Chapter 1. The Department upheld the auditors' finding and required the MDE to repay the amount of $29,484. The MDE appealed the determination and that appeal resulted in an agreement among the parties dated March 27, 1998 that reduced the questioned costs to $14,476. The State of Maine has repaid this amount to the Department.

Section 459(a) of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1234h) provides that, whenever the Secretary has recovered program funds following a final audit determination, the Secretary may consider those funds to be additional funds available for the program and may arrange to repay to the SEA or LEA affected by that determination an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the recovered funds. The Secretary may enter into this grantback arrangement if the Secretary determines that—

(1) The practices or procedures of the SEA or LEA that resulted in the audit determination have been corrected, and the SEA or LEA is, in all other respects, in compliance with the requirements of the applicable program;

(2) The SEA has submitted to the Secretary a plan for the use of the funds to be awarded under the grantback arrangement that meets the requirements of the program, and, to the extent possible, benefits the population that was affected by the failure to comply or by the misexpenditures that resulted in the audit exception; and

(3) Use of funds to be awarded under the grantback arrangement in accordance with the SEA's plan would serve to achieve the purposes of the program under which the funds were originally granted.

Pursuant to section 459(a)(2) of GEPA, the MDE has applied for a grantback of $10,857—75 percent of the principal amount recovered by the Department—and has submitted a plan for use of the grantback funds to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived children in programs administered under Title I, Part A, of ESEA, the successor program to Chapter 1.

According to the plan, the MDE will use the grantback funds under Title I to arrange for technical assistance in early literacy strategies to staff in schools designated as priority schools or schools identified as needing improvement. Specifically, the MDE will contract with the Gorham School Department for the purpose of providing a distinguished educator to provide the following services to identified schools in the State: (1) Presentations on best practices in literacy; (2) sessions to facilitate priority school staff as they develop plans for school reform in literacy; and (3) training sessions on topics related to parent involvement. In addition, the distinguished educator will conduct sessions to assist MDE staff in developing strategies to implement the Maine Learning Results. The $10,857 in grantback funds will be used to fund one-fifth of the distinguished educator's salary ($9,500) and travel expenses for site visits ($1,357).

The Secretary has carefully reviewed the plan submitted by the MDE. Based upon that review, the Secretary has determined that the conditions under section 459 of GEPA have been met. These determinations are based upon the best information available to the Secretary at the present time. If this information is not accurate or complete, the Secretary may take appropriate administrative action. In finding that the conditions of section 459 of GEPA have been met, the Secretary makes no determination concerning any pending audit recommendations or final audit determinations.

Section 459(d) of GEPA requires that, at least 30 days before entering into an arrangement to award funds under a grantback, the Secretary must publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to do so, and the terms and conditions under which payment will be made.

In accordance with section 459(d) of GEPA, notice is hereby given that the Secretary intends to make funds available to the MDE under a grantback arrangement. The grantback award would be in the amount of $10,857.

The MDE agrees to comply with the following terms and conditions under which payment under a grantback arrangement would be made:

(1) The funds awarded under the grantback must be spent in accordance with—

(a) All applicable statutory and regulatory requirements;

(b) The plan that the MDE submitted and any amendments to that plan that are approved in advance by the Secretary, and

(c) The budget that was submitted with the plan and any amendments to the budget that are approved in advance by the Secretary.

(2) All funds received under the grantback arrangement must be obligated by September 30, 2001, in accordance with section 459(c) of GEPA and the MDE's plan.

(3) The MDE will, not later than December 31, 2001, submit a report to the Secretary that—

(a) Indicates that the funds awarded under the grantback have been spent in accordance with the proposed plan and approved budget; and

(b) Describes the results and effectiveness of the project for which the funds were spent.

(4) Separate accounting records must be maintained documenting the expenditure of funds awarded under the grantback arrangement.

You may review this document, as well as other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF) on the World Wide Web at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister

To use the PDF you must first have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at the previous site. If you have any questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office, toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

The focus for funding is to: (a) Reduce the impact of in-home environmental asthma triggers on children and adults with asthma; (b) strengthen the capacity of individual households to control in-home environmental asthma triggers; and (c) assess the effectiveness and sustainability of strategies for in-home environmental asthma trigger management and education within communities.

Completed applications, including work plans and detailed budgets, are due to the Indoor Environments Division no later than October 23, 2001. If you intend to apply, you must send a letter of intent postmarked no later than September 18, 2001 to Attention: John Guevin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building (6609J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, or an e-mail to guevin.john@epa.gov by no later than 3 pm (EDT) on September 18, 2001, indicating the name of your organization, the name and phone number of a contact person in the organization, and if you would like to participate in the pre-award technical assistance conference call on September 25, 2001.

To be eligible for funding, an applicant must:

(1) Meet the standards for eligibility as identified in Section 103 (b)(3) of the Clean Air Act (page 1, paragraph 1);

(2) Demonstrate the ability to implement and track the results of an asthma education program which includes: in-home identification and assessment of potential indoor environmental asthma triggers for diagnosed asthmatics; and direct one-on-one education on asthma, asthma management, and mitigation of indoor environmental triggers in the home to which children and other household members with asthma may be sensitive;

(3) Request no more than $150,000.00 to accomplish pilot project objectives. Demonstrate that the project goals and objectives can be achieved given the amount of the grant;

(4) Properly complete and submit standard form SF-424 and a proposal no greater than nine pages (including supplemental biographical information) in length (in no smaller than 12 point type) by the established due date;

(5) Commit to complete the proposed pilot project activities within 18-24 months of grant award.

Applications will be ranked on the basis of the criteria listed below. Ranking for each criterion is based on a scale of 1 (does not meet the requirement) to 5 (exceeds the requirement).

(1) Applicant is currently performing community-based environmental health or public health education and demonstrates that it is achieving public health outcomes and results. (1-5 points)

(2) Applicant demonstrates the ability to implement an asthma education program (face-to-face instruction which can occur inside or outside the home, e.g., in a clinic or other community setting) which integrates indoor environmental trigger identification and mitigation approaches in the home into a comprehensive asthma management education program (i.e., medical management and the socio-economics of the target population are addressed). (1-5 points)

(3) Applicant proposal has goals and objectives which are clearly stated and will reduce the incidence and severity of asthma episodes in the target population, and create behavioral changes in the home as a result of its educational outreach activities. The grant budget is appropriate to accomplish the scope of the work (i.e., number of children with asthma, their parents and/or care-givers that will be reached). (1-5 points)

(4) Applicant proposed work targets low-income, urban and/or disproportionately impacted (with respect to asthma severity or incidence) populations, with an emphasis on children. (1-5 points)

(5) Applicant demonstrates the effectiveness of education strategies to varied populations and geographic locations in the United States, and contributes to an improved understanding of how to conduct asthma education programs that address asthma triggers in homes. Education materials and assessment tools selected for the pilot project reflect current standards for conducting environmental health or public health education and outreach activities, particularly with respect to motivating behavioral changes in low-literacy, low-income, and disproportionately impacted populations. (1-5 points)

(6) Applicant outlines educational materials and mitigation methods for environmental (secondhand) tobacco smoke, house dust mites, cockroaches, molds, and animal dander which are compatible with the guidance contained in EPA's asthma brochure, “Clear Your Home Of Asthma Triggers: Your Children Will Breathe Easier” (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/asthma.html) and the findings and recommendations contained in the January, 2000 National Academy of Sciences report on asthma, “Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures” (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9610.html). (1-5 points)

(7) Applicant staff have the knowledge and experience to successfully perform the proposed work. (1-5 points)

(8) Applicant describes methods that will be used to ensure sustained participant involvement throughout the life of the project. Applicant adequately describes mechanisms for obtaining feedback about program effectiveness from participants after the in-home education assessment visits. (1-5 points)

(9) Applicant describes a clear in-home asthma education and assessment of asthma triggers evaluation component, e.g., on-site, in-home visits or patient/family self-reporting, which is practical, reasonable, and sound. Assessment methods address established indoor environmental triggers of asthma including: environmental (secondhand) tobacco smoke, house dust mites, cockroaches, molds, and animal dander. Whichever assessment method is used, applicant must, at a minimum, report the number of homes visited, the number of children and adults with asthma educated, the number of homes in which indoor environmental triggers have been identified, and the number of households in which mitigation actions have been taken. Applicant agrees to provide quarterly performance reports to EPA which shall include, at a minimum, information about the above. (1-5 points)

(10) Applicant addresses the potential beyond the life of the EPA grant and the ability of this project to be replicated in other areas and with other populations. (1-5 points)

Applicants must complete standard form 424 (http://www.epa.gov/ogd/how_to_apply.htm) and submit a work plan no greater than nine pages in length, including any supplementary biographical information (in 12 point type). The work plan must include: (1) A aummary of specific objectives, expected outcomes, and deliverables; and (2) a discussion of the budget and how the budget relates to the objectives, outcomes, and deliverables in the work plan. The project work plan submitted with the completed application SF-424 should conform to the following outline:

(1) Title.

(2) Description of the applicant organization, experience in community-based environmental or public health education (especially with children and adults with asthma), results of existing in-home education efforts and/or existing indoor air quality/asthma activities, and the organization's infrastructure as it relates to its ability to do in-home asthma assessments and/or education programs.

(3) Project purpose.

(4) Description of basic structure of the in-home asthma education and assessment pilot project proposed, how many families will be reached, curricula and assessment tools to be used, and resource lists including references. Describe why the curricula and protocols were selected or created; what other materials you may have considered (including reasons for not selecting them); and, if possible, a discussion of how the asthma education approaches you wish to demonstrate compare or contrast to other known approaches.

(5) Project Period—beginning and ending dates. Budget. Indicate funds used for salaries, materials, equipment, contracted activities, travel, overhead, and other pertinent information.

(6) Description of target audiences, community, and any special asthma-related demographics of areas targeted for this work.

(7) Description of staffing and funding resources needed to implement proposed work plans, including number of staff and qualifications.

(8) Description of mechanisms for question resolution and follow-up with asthmatics and their families and/or primary care givers following in-home visit(s). Reasons for selecting or creating these mechanisms and, if possible, a discussion of how the selected mechanisms compare to other available mechanisms.

(9) Description of any types of follow-up materials or training that may be given to the households such as community resource lists, household repair and maintenance training, lessons on how to obtain services in the community, etc.

(10) Definition of success for the project and how success will be measured. Describe mechanisms for tracking program outputs (e.g., how many households were educated, how many homes were assessed, in how many homes actions were taken), and evaluating program outcomes (i.e., the effectiveness of the education and mitigation methods, the level of increased awareness).

(11) Description of experience implementing evaluation and tracking procedures and managing grants (e.g., submitting reports, budgets, etc.).

(12) Schedule—indicate tasks, quarterly report submission and final report submission dates.

(13) Identification of other localities, regions, or states that might benefit from the lessons you expect to learn as a result of your pilot project.

If you would like to apply for assistance under the Community Based In-Home Asthma Environmental Education and Management program, application materials are available at the web addresses listed below or by calling EPA's Indoor Environments Division at (202) 564-9370. The application kit contains the following information:

An original application and two copies must be received at the following address no later than close of business on Tuesday, October 23, 2001:

Mailing Address:Attn: John Guevin, In-Home Education Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building (6609J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Courier Address:Attn: John Guevin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, In-Home Education Program (6th floor), 501 3rd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001.

A pre-application assistance conference call has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 25, 2001 from 12 noon until 2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time to help prospective applicants. All applicants must submit a letter of intent by September 18, 2001. Those indicating a desire to participate in the pre-award assistance conference call will be mailed instructions for participating in the conference call.

In addition, prospective applicants may obtain a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 30 (and for State and local agencies, also see Part 31). This portion of the CFR includes regulations applicable to your assistance agreement. Copies of the CFR are available at your local U.S. Government Bookstore, the U.S. Government Printing Office or on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/how_to_apply.htm. Once at this site, select “Administrative Regulations and Policies/Subchapter B-Grants and Other Federal Assistance” and select Part 30 or Part 31.

Selected projects will be announced on or around December 30, 2001. If you have any questions regarding this grant notice, please contact John Guevin (202) 564-9370.

Question 1: The RFP states that grant awards will be for no more than $150,000. Is this per year for multiple years, or a one time grant?

Answer: This is a one time grant of up to $150,000.00.

Question 2: How many awards are anticipated and to how many organizations?

Answer: We anticipate awarding a total of two grants, i.e., one grant to each of two qualified organizations.

Question 3: If my organization has indirect costs, are they to be included within the $150,000?

Answer: Yes, all indirect costs are included within the $150,000.

Question 4: What is an indirect cost, and what if we don't have an indirect cost rate established?

Answer: Indirect costs are explained in the grant application forms, SF-424, found at this website (www.epa.gov/iaq/asthma). If your organization has an indirect cost rate established, include it where appropriate in your budget submittal. If your organization does not have an established indirect cost rate, you may submit your proposal with an estimated indirect cost rate. If this is the case, please state in your transmittal letter that you do not currently have an established rate, but that you will establish one by submitting the proper forms within 30 days of award. Include the name, phone number and fax number for your financial officer, and our Grants Administration Division will work with that individual to provide the necessary information.

Question 5: If we need help figuring out how to fill in the budget forms, is there someplace we can go to understand cost principles for a Federal grant?

Answer: Yes, go to www.epa.gov/ogd/how_to_apply/htm.

Question 6: Is there a cost-share requirement? Will proposals that include cost-sharing be reviewed more favorably?

Answer: No, cost-sharing is not required, and including a cost-share will not cause your proposal to be viewed more favorably.

Question 7: Where can I find the standard form 424 mentioned in eligibility criterion number (4), and can we submit a proposal greater than nine pages in length?

Answer: The EPA application for grant assistance, SF-424 can be found on our website www.epa.gov/iaq/asthma along with all of the required forms.

The work plan narrative must be no more than nine pages in length, including a detailed, itemized budget, and any supplementary biographical information you wish to provide. In particular, attention should be paid to the qualifications and experience of key personnel. There is no requirement that the information be double-spaced, only that it be no smaller than 12 point type.

Question 8: On SF-424, block 10, is a space for “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number.” What number should we use?

Answer: The correct number is 66-606.

Question 9: On SF-424, in block 16, it asks “Is application subject to review by State Executive Order 12372 process?'

Answer: To determine whether your state requires review prior to receiving a Federal grant award, and a point of contact if it does, check the Office of Management and Budget website, www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/spoc.html.

Question 10: What start date should we use on the form?

Answer: Use January 1, 2002, as the start date, although the actual award date may vary. No pre-award costs will be approved for this pilot project, so please do not incur any costs unless and until you receive an assistance agreement from EPA.

Question 11: Are we required to include a quality assurance narrative statement?

Answer: If you are making environmental measurements or collecting data, your proposal should include a statement about the quality assurance practices you will put in place to ensure the accuracy of your data. If there is a need for additional information, our Grants Administration Division will contact you prior to award.

Question 12: What rules will govern our grant?

Answer: Familiarize yourself with Code of Regulations 40 part 30 if you are a non-profit or higher education group, and in addition, with Part 31 if you are a State or local government entity. These rules can be found at www.epa.gov/epacfr40/chapt-l.info/chi.toc.htm. At that location, look under SUBCHAPTER B—GRANTS AND OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE (parts 30-49).” Please note that no cost share is required.

Question 13: Is the due date of October 23, 2001 flexible?

Answer: No. Mailed applications must bear an envelope postmark (or carrier such as FedEx, UPS, or DHL equivalent) of October 23, 2001 or be hand-delivered by messenger not later than close of business (5pm EDT) Tuesday, October 23, 2001 as directed in the Request for Proposals. Please note that our mailing address and direct delivery address are different.

Question 14: Can I include letters of recommendation, past project reports, etc. along with my proposal?

Answer: All elements of your submission should address the eligibility and ranking criteria outlined in the Request for Proposals. Your submission must be no more than nine pages in length (in no smaller than 12 point type), including the work plan, detailed budget and biographical information.

Question 15: Can grant funds be used to mitigate homes?

Answer: The Clean Air Act authority under which this project is being conducted provides for studies and demonstrations, not implementation. Mitigation is acceptable under this grant only to the extent that it is done as a way to teach occupants how to clean-up and/or prevent indoor environmental triggers of asthma in their home.

Question 16: Will our grant proposals be considered confidential?

Answer: While grant proposals are generally handled in a confidential manner, they may be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act unless they are marked “restricted” or “confidential.” If there is any information you wish to ensure remains confidential, please be sure to stamp “confidential” or “restricted” on each page on which such information occurs.

Question 17: Are we permitted to enter into contracts as part of the project we are proposing?

Answer: Yes, as long as the costs are allowable as defined under the Code of Federal Regulations 40 Part 30 and Part 31, which can be found at www.epa.gov/ogd/grants.htm.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0194.

Title: Section 74.21 Broadcasting emergency information.

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Hours Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Reporting, on occasion.

Cost to Respondents: $0.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1 hour.

Needs and Uses: In the event of an emergency, Section 74.21 requires that a licensee of an auxiliary broadcast station notify the FCC in Washington, DC, as soon as practicable, when that station is operated in a manner other than that for which is authorized. This notification shall specify the nature of the emergency and the use to which the station is being put. The licensee shall also notify the FCC when the emergency operation has been terminated. These notifications are used by FCC staff to evaluate the need and nature of the emergency broadcast to confirm that an actual emergency existed.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0316.

Title: Section 76.1700, Records to be Maintained Locally by Cable System Operators for Public Inspection.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 3,885.

Estimated Time per Response: 26 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.

Total Annual Burden: 101,010 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR Section 76.1700 requires cable television systems having 1,000 or more subscribers to maintain a public inspection file containing certain records. The records are used by FCC staff, local public officials, and the public to assess a cable television station's performance and to ensure that the system is in compliance with all of the Commission's applicable rules and regulations, i.e., when the FCC staff is conducting field inspections/investigations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0332.

Title: Section 76.614, Cable Television System Regular Monitoring, and 76.1706, Signal Leakage Logs and Repair Records.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 10,080.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 7,056 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.614 requires cable television operators transmitting carriers in the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz to provide for a program of regular monitoring for signal leakage by substantially covering the plant every three months. Section 76.1706 requires cable operators to maintain a log showing the date and location of each signal leakage source pursuant to section 76.614, the date on which the leakage was repaired, and the probable cause of the leakage. The log must be kept on file for a period of two years and must be made available to authorized representatives of the FCC upon request. Originally, the requirement to maintain logs was included in section 76.614, but pursuant to the Commission's reorganization and renumbering of section 76 as part of the 1998 Biennial Review—Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service, this recordkeeping requirement was placed in section 76.1706.

In order to provide quantified data for the Government Performance and Results Act on how we are accomplishing our mission, and to provide stimulus for improving our training courses, the Emergency Management Institute initiated collection of information on the benefits or lack of benefits, for training conducted. As a result, a one page form titled “Follow-Up Evaluation Survey” is sent to people attending training, three months after they complete the training. The survey asks participants to answer three questions.

Title: Emergency Management Institute Follow-up Evaluation Survey.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved Collection.

OMB Number: 3067-0273.

Form Number(s): 95-56.

Abstract: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act Public Law 93-288, as amended authorizes training programs for emergency mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

This information collection is needed to provide quantified data for the Government Performance and Results Act on how we are accomplishing our mission, and to provide stimulus for improving our training courses. The survey asks participants to describe the benefits of training received and if there were no benefits, to describe any difference in course materials or instruction that would have made the training more useful. The information is used to prepare reports on the benefits or lack of benefits for training conducted, and it is used to initiate reviews to improve training courses.

Affected Public: Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 580 hours.

Estimated Cost: Estimated cost for participants would be $16.00 hourly rate X.25 per response = $4.00. Total annualized costs to the Federal Government is approximately $11,604. to include postage costs, contract staff, and reproducing reports.

Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

Public Law (PL) 106-390 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Stafford Act Amendments), Section 308, requires the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to conduct a study of participation by Indian tribes in emergency management and cost-sharing related activities.

Title: Participation and Cost-Share Capability of Indian Tribes in Emergency Management Programs.

Type of Information Collection: New Collection.

Abstract. Pursuant to PL-106-390 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Stafford Act Amendments), Section 308, FEMA will collect data from Indian tribes to: (1) Measure their level of participation in emergency management related activities, and (2) review and assess their capacity to participate in and manage cost-shared emergency management programs. Findings will be reported to Congress as mandated by law.

Affected Public: State and Tribal Government Officials.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours. 414 Hours.

Estimated Cost. $83,530.00.

Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now March 1, 2001, through and including August 9, 2001.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 12, 2001:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks to ensure that its programs and the activities they are designed to foster are effective and efficient, have broad impact on the intended clientele, and are readily accessible to them. To that end, HHS is examining its array of regulations with a view to identifying opportunities for reforms that will maintain or enhance program performance in selected mission areas and at the same time reduce burdens and costs on effected entities. The Secretary, therefore, is establishing an Advisory Committee on Regulatory Reform.

This Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation of advisory committees and implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3).

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Regulatory Reform will provide findings and recommendations to the Secretary regarding potential regulatory changes. As part of their responsibilities, the Committee will hold regional public hearings and solicit public comments regarding HHS regulations that involve health care delivery, operations, health and biomedical research as well as the development of pharmaceuticals and other medical products. The Committee shall (a) review candidate regulatory changes identified through the regional hearings, through solicitations of written comments from the public, or through consultation with HHS staff and (b) advise whether, if effected, these candidate changes would have beneficial results. As appropriate, the Committee shall consider the potentially most beneficial regulatory reforms further and advise the Secretary regarding their priority for implementation.

The Committee shall consist of not more than 20 members including the Chairperson or Co-Chairpersons. Appointments shall be made by the Secretary from authorities knowledgeable in the fields of health care delivery, health systems operations, advocacy for patients' interests, health insurance, development of pharmaceuticals and other medical products, and biomedical and health services research. Attention shall be given to equitable geographic distribution and to ethnic and gender representation.

The Committee shall meet three times unless, after consultation with the Chairperson or Co-Chairpersons, the Secretary determines that additional meetings are necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Committee. All meetings shall be at the call of the Chairperson or Co-Chairpersons. An official of the federal government shall be present at all meetings. Meetings shall be open to the public. Advance notice of all meetings shall be given to the public. Meetings shall be conducted and records of proceedings shall be kept in accordance with applicable laws and Departmental regulations.

Unless renewed by appropriate action prior to its expiration, the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Regulatory Reform shall terminate on [insert date one year from charter approval].

The fee schedule for sanitation inspections of passenger cruise ships currently inspected under the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) was first published in the Federal Register (52 FR 45019) on November 24, 1987, and CDC began collecting fees on March 1, 1988. Since then, CDC has published the fee schedule annually. This notice announces fees effective October 1, 2001.

The formula used to determine the fees is as follows:

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

The fee schedule is presented in Appendix A and will be effective October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. This fee schedule represents a 4.3% increase over the current fee schedule, which became effective October 1, 2000. The increase is primarily due to substantial increases in the cost of air transportation and personnel. If travel expenses continue to increase, it may be necessary to readjust the fees before September 30, 2002, since travel constitutes a sizable portion of the program's costs. If such a readjustment in the fee schedule is necessary, a notice will be published in the Federal Register 30 days before the effective date.

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

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

Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100-71. Subpart C of the Guidelines, “Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies,” sets strict standards which laboratories must meet in order to conduct urine drug testing for Federal agencies. To become certified an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection.

To maintain that certification a laboratory must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements expressed in the HHS Guidelines. A laboratory must have its letter of certification from SAMHSA, HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with Subpart C of the Guidelines, the following laboratories meet the minimum standards set forth in the Guidelines:

Section 244(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) states that at least 60 days before the end of a designation, or any extension thereof, the Attorney General must review conditions in the foreign state for which the designation is in effect. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). If the Attorney General does not determine under this section that the foreign state no longer meets the conditions for designation, the period of designation is automatically extended for 6 months pursuant to section 244(b)(3)(C) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C). The period of designation may, however, be extended for a period of 12 or 18 months at the Attorney General's discretion. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C). Such an extension makes TPS available only to persons who have been continuously physically present in, and who have continuously resided in, the United States from the effective date of the initial designation, in this case, since September 16, 1991.

Section 244 of the Act implicitly authorizes the Attorney General to redesignate a foreign state (or part of such foreign state) under the TPS program. Whereas extension of an existing TPS designation extends benefits only to those who previously registered for TPS under the earlier designation, redesignation broadens the potential class of TPS beneficiaries. Redesignation expands TPS eligibility to include both those who were present in the United States before the effective date of the earlier designation but failed to register during the earlier designation period and those who arrived in the United States after the effective date of the earlier designation, but on or before, the effective date of the re-designation. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A).

On September 16, 1991, the Attorney General designated Somalia under the TPS program. Since that time, the Attorney General and the Department of State have continuously examined conditions in Somalia. A recent Department of State report on conditions in Somalia found that “[o]pen conflict remains a fact of life in southern Somalia, where numerous actors compete for land and power. While northern regions of Somalia are relatively stable and peaceful, their security is jeopardized by the instability in the [S]outh.” The report further states that “[t]he current security situation in southern Somalia makes the return of Somalis from the United States dangerous. Major regions of the country are under the control of bandits and the population is beyond the reach of the rule of law. The country's nascent institutions are not able to adequately address the demands of a ravaged population, nor would they be able to document or accommodate a large volume of returns. Somalis within the country rely on family connections and collective security for survival. New arrivals, outside this network, would be vulnerable in the extreme.”

The Resource Information Center of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) recently prepared a report that concludes that “[f]ighting occurred in Mogadishu this March on the largest scale in years. Gunmen continue to ambush civilians and political figures alike.” According to the report, “[k]idnappings occur frequently, and with no functioning government-wide judicial system crimes are often ignored. Drought, malnutrition, and cholera continue to ravage the country.”

Based on these findings, the Attorney General has determined that conditions in Somalia warrant both the extension and redesignation of Somalia under the TPS program. This order will extend TPS for those nationals of Somalia (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Somalia) who registered under the initial designation of TPS, while also opening the program to both those who failed to register during the intial designation period and those who arrived in the United States after the effective date of the earlier designation, but on or before the effective date of redesignation. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A).

Yes. If you currently have TPS through the Somalia TPS program, your status will expire on September 17, 2001. Accordingly, you must reregister for TPS in order to maintain your status through September 17, 2002. See the reregistration instructions below.

All persons previously granted TPS under the Somalia program who wish to maintain such status must apply for an extension by filing the following: (1) A Form I-821, without the $50 filing fee, (2) a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and (3) two identification photographs (11/2 inches × 11/2 inches). See Chart 1 below to determine whether you must submit the $100 filing fee with a Form I-765. Children who are beneficiaries of TPS and who have reached the age of 14, but who were not previously fingerprinted, must pay the $25 fingerprint fee upon their next application for extension.

Submit the completed forms and applicable fee, if any, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service district office having jurisdiction over your place of residence during the 90-day reregistration period that begins on September 4, 2001 and ends on December 3, 2001 (inclusive of such end date).

If you fail to reregister during the 90-day reregistration period, you may apply for TPS under the redesignation, as described below.

Applicants who are not currently registered for TPS may register under the redesignation by submitting:

(1) A Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, with the $50 processing fee or a request for a fee waiver;

(2) A Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization;

(3) Two identification photographs (11/2 x 11/2 inches);

(4) Supporting evidence, as provided in 8 CFR 244.9 (describing evidence necessary to establish eligibility for TPS benefits); and

(5) For every applicant who is 14 years of age or older, a $25 fingerprint fee. 8 CFR 244.6.

Although a complete application must include the fingerprint fee for every applicant who is 14 years of age or older, applicants should not submit a completed fingerprint card (FD-258, Applicant Card) with the application package. The application will be accepted without the fingerprint card attached. After the Service receives the application, the Service will mail an appointment letter with instructions to appear for fingerprinting at a Service-authorized site. See Chart 2 below to determine what fees must be submitted with the application package and to obtain information on requesting a fee waiver(s).

Submit the completed forms and applicable fees to the Service district office having jurisdiction over your place of residence during the registration period that begins September 4, 2001 and ends September 17, 2002 (inclusive of such end date).

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, has practical utility, reporting burden (time and cost) is minimized, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is correct. Currently, OSHA is soliciting comments concerning the information collection requirements contained in the series of regulations establishing requirements for the initial approval, continuing approval, final approval, monitoring and evaluation of OSHA-approved State Plans:

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OSHA's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on participating States, for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting OMB approval of the collection-of-information requirements associated with its State Plan regulations. Specifically, OSHA is requesting approval of a total burden-hour estimate of 9,874 hours affecting the 26 States that currently operate OSHA-approved State plans:

The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice. OSHA will then include this summary in its request to OMB to approve these information collection requirements.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Title: State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of Standards.

OMB Number: 1218-0NEW.

Agency Number: Docket Number ICR-1218-TWOW (2001).

Affected Public: Designated State government agencies which have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards.

Number of Respondents: 26.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; quarterly; annually.

Average Time Per Response: Varies from 1 hour to respond to an information survey to 80 hours to document State annual performance goals.

Estimated total burden hours: 9,874.

Estimated Cost: 0. There are no capital or start-up costs.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).

The proposed 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 discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

1. Date: September 19, 2001.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Regional Humanities Centers, Implementation Phase, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the August 1, 2001 deadline.

2. Date: September 21, 2001.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Regional Humanities Centers, Implementation Phase, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the August 1, 2001 deadline.

Title of Collection: “eRecruitment” System.

OMB Number: 3145-NEW.

Expiration Date of Approval: Not applicable.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to carry out a new information collection.

National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Human Resources (HRM), as part of its Workforce Planning efforts, is reengineering its business processes. Part of this reengineering effort is devoted to making the application and referral process for both internal and external applicants easier to use, more efficient and timely. Applicants will apply on-line using a web-based resume, which will prompt them to provide pertinent personal data necessary to apply for a position.

The information will be used by NSF to provide applicants with the ability to apply electronically for NSF positions and receive notification as to their qualifications, application dispensation and to request to be notified of future vacancies for which they may qualify.

In order to apply for vacancies, applicants will be required to submit certain data in order to receive consideration. Users only need access to the Internet for this system to work. This information will be used to determine which applicants are best qualified for a position, based on applicant responses to a series of job related “yes/no” or “multiple choice” questions. The resume portion requires applicants to provide the same information they would provide were they were submitting a paper OF-612. The obvious benefit being that the applicant may do so on-line, 24 hours a day/seven days a week and receive electronic notification about the status of their application or information on other vacancies for which they may qualify. Staff members of the Human Resource Division and the selecting official(s) for specific positions for which applicants apply are the only ones privy to the applicant data. The most significant data is not the applicant personal data such as address or phone number but rather their description of their work experience and their corresponding responses to those questions, which determine their overall rating, ranking, and referral to the selecting official.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less than 30 to 45 minutes to create the on line resume and potentially less than 10 to 15 minutes to apply for jobs on-line.

There is no financial burden on the applicant, in fact this should relieve much of the burden the current paper-intensive process puts on applicants.

Individuals. Approximately 4800 applicants apply for NSF vacancies a year. This number could potentially double based on evidence from other agencies that use electronic recruitment systems; the estimated number of responses is 6500.

Approximately 25 responses per job opening.

Approximately 45 minutes per respondent total time is all that will be needed to complete the on-line application, for a total of 4,875 hours annually.

Applicants need only complete the resume one time, and they may use that resume to apply as often as they wish for any NSF job opening.

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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

On July 17, 2001, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of Waste Management permit applications received. A Waste Management permit was issued on August 28, 2001 to the following applicant: Lars Wikander, Quark Expeditions, Inc.; Permit No.: 2002 WM-001.

The Trust, as lead agency, released and circulated for review to the public and commenting agencies the draft EIS for the PTIP on July 25, 2001. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on July 27, 2001 (66 FR 39161). The Trust published a notice in the Federal Register on July 26, 2001 (66 FR 39058-59) regarding the availability of the draft EIS, where and how it could be reviewed, and the date and location of public hearings to comment on the document. The EPA notice and Trust notice initially provided for a 60-day comment period for the draft EIS ending September 25, 2001. In response to several requests for commenting organizations and other parties, the Trust is now extending this period by 30 days to October 25, 2001. The Trust is providing this longer 90-day review period to further enhance the opportunities for public and agency participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process for the PTIP.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. TD, a Canadian chartered bank, offers a range of financial services directly and through its affiliates, including brokerage and investment advisory services.

2. TD intends to establish Partnerships from time to time for the benefit of eligible current and former key employees, officers, directors, partners and persons on retainer (“Eligible Employees”) of TD and its affiliates (as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)) (collectively, the “TD Group”) as part of a program designed to create an in-house employee investment program similar to those offered by other financial institutions to their employees to recognize their contributions to the TD Group and retain these Eligible Employees and to facilitate the recruitment of high caliber employees. The investment objectives and policies for each Partnership may vary from Partnership to Partnership. Participation in a Partnership will be voluntary.

3. Each of the Partnerships will be a limited partnership, or alternatively, a limited liability company, business trust or other entity organized under the laws of the State of Delaware or another state or non-U.S. jurisdiction. The Partnerships will be operated in accordance with their respective limited partnership agreements or other organizational documents (each, a “Partnership Agreement”). Each partnership will be formed as an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act, and will operate as a closed-end management investment company which may be diversified or nondiversified.

4. Each Partnership will be managed, operated and controlled by its general partner, managing member or other similar entity (the “General Partner”). Each General Partner will be an entity in the TD Group. An entity in the TD Group will be appointed General Partner to the initial Partnership, and will be (a) registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), (b) exempt from Advisers Act registration requirements by virtue of section 203(b)(3) thereof, or (c) excluded from the definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act because it is a bank or a bank holding company.

5. Interests in the Partnerships (“Limited Partnership Interests” or “Interests”) will be offered without registration in reliance on Section 4(2) or Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”) and will be sold only to (a) Eligible Employees of the TD Group, (b) spouses, parents, children, spouses of children, brothers, sisters and grandchildren of Eligible Employees (“Qualified Family Members”), or (c) trust or other investment vehicles established solely for the benefit of Eligible Employees or Qualified Family Members (“Qualified Investment Vehicles” and, collectively with Qualified Family Members, “Qualified Participants”). Those Eligible Employees and Qualified Participants who acquire Interests in a Partnership are hereinafter referred to as “Limited Partner(s).”

6. Qualified Investment Vehicles must meet the standards for an “accredited investor” under rule 501(a) of Regulation D. Eligible Employees and their Qualified Family Members will be individuals who satisfy certain financial and sophistication standards, will be able to make investment decisions on their own without the protection of the regulatory safeguards intended to protect the public, will be capable of understanding and evaluating the merits and risks of participation in a Partnership and able to bear the economic risk of such participation, including a complete loss of his or her investment. Eligible Employees and Qualified Family Members will meet the standards for an “accredited investor” under rule 501(a)(6) Regulation D, except that a maximum of 35 Eligible Employees who are sophisticated investors but who do not meet the definition of an accredited investor may become Limited Partners if each of them falls into one of the following categories: (a) Eligible Employees who (i) have a graduate degree in business, law or accounting, (ii) have a minimum of five years of consulting, investment banking or similar business experience, and (iii) will have had reportable income from all sources (including any profit shares or bonus) in the calendar year immediately preceding the Eligible Employee's admission as a Limited Partner in excess of $120,000 and will have a reasonable expectation of reportable income of at $150,000 in the years in which the Eligible Employee invests in a Partnership;1 or (b) Eligible Employees who are “knowledgeable employees” of the Partnership as defined in rule 3c-5 under the Act (with the Partnership treated as through it were a “covered company” for purposes of the rule).

7. The specific investment objectives and strategies for a particular Partnership will be set forth in the private placement memorandum relating to the Interests offered by the Partnership, and each Eligible Employee and Qualified Participant will receive a copy of the private placement memorandum and the Partnership Agreement. The terms of a Partnership will be fully disclosed to each Eligible Employee at the time they are offered the right to subscribe for Interests in such Partnership. Each Partnership will send audited financial statements to the Limited Partners as soon as practicable after the end of its fiscal year. In addition, a report will be sent to each Limited Partner setting forth the information with respect to his or her share of income, gains, losses, credits and other items for federal and state income tax purposes, resulting from the operation of the Partnership during that year.

8. Interests in a Partnership will be non-transferable except with the express consent of the General Partner and then only to Eligible Employees or Qualified Participants or an entity within the TD Group, as described below. No fee of any kind will be charged in connection with the sale of Interests.

9. TD or an entity within the TD Group, or any Eligible Employee or Qualified Participant designed thereby, may have the right but not the obligation, to acquire the Interest of a Limited Partner upon the termination of the Limited Partner's employment with an entity within the TD Group with or without cause, including as a result of the death, disability or voluntary resignation of the Limited Partner, or upon the Limited Partner's bankruptcy. Each private placement memorandum will describe whether the TD Group will be required, or Eligible Employees or Qualified Participants will have the option to, acquire the Interest of a Limited Partner upon the termination of the Limited Partner's employment, whether for cause or not, or upon his or her bankruptcy or adjudication of incompetence. In this regard, the purchase price for the Interest will be equal to the lesser of (a) the amount of such Limited Partner's capital contributions less prior distributions from the Partnership (plus interest, as determined by the General Partner) or (b) the fair market value of the Interest, as determined by the General Partner in good faith as of the date of termination and in accordance with its customary valuation procedures.

10. An entity within the TD Group may purchase Interests, which it may offer to new Eligible Employees joining the TD Group. These Interests will be acquired from the Partnership in the same manner of payment, at the same time, and at the same purchase price as Interests purchased by Limited Partners. The General Partner may sell the Interest it has so acquired to any Eligible Employee or Qualified Participant at any time during the life of the Partnership at a price no greater than the net asset value of the Interests on the previous appraisal date as defined in the Partnership Agreement after the date of sale. An entity within the TD Group may instead award Interests so acquired at any time during the life of the Partnership to Eligible Employees as a bonus or similar compensation.

11. In an investment program that provides for vesting provisions, all or a portion of an Eligible Employee's Interest at the commencement of the program will be treated as being “invested,” and “vesting” will occur either through the passage of a specified period of time or upon the occurrence of a specified event. The portion of an Interest that is unvested at the time of an Eligible Employee's employment termination, and the portion that is vested in the event of certain specified events, may be subject to repurchase by a TD Group entity or reallocated to other Limited Partners in the relevant Partnership.

12. A Partnership will not acquire any security issued by a registered investment company if the Partnership immediately after such purchase or acquisition will own in the aggregate more than 3% of the total voting stock of such investment company.

13. The General Partner of a Partnership may charge the Partnership an annual management fee, a flat administrative charge or a “carried interest.” 2 A Partnership will not borrow from any person if the borrowing would cause any person not named in section 2(a)(13) of the Act to own securities of the Partnership (other than short-term paper). If an entity within the TD Group makes loans to any Partnership or Limited Partner, the lender will be entitled to receive interest at the rate obtainable on an arm's length basis. Any indebtedness of the Partnership will be the debt of the Partnership and without recourse to the Limited Partners.

1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider, in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure, the persons owning and controlling its securities, the price of the company's securities and the amount of any sales load, how the company's funds are invested, and the relationship between the company and the issuers of the securities in which it invests. Section 2(a)(13) defines an employees' securities company, in relevant part, as any investment company all of whose securities are beneficially owned (a) by current or former employees, or persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers, (b) by immediate family members of such persons, or (c) by such employer or employers together with any of the persons in (a) or (b).

2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) provides that, in connection with any order exempting an investment company from any provisions of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons dealing with the company as though the company were registered under the Act. Applicant requests an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Act exempting the Partnerships from all provisions of the Act, except section 9, section 17 (other than certain provisions of paragraphs (a), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (j)), section 30 (other than certain provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (e), and (h)), sections 36 through 53 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder.

3. Section 17(a) generally prohibits any “affiliated person” (as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of that person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or purchasing any security or other property to or from that company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to permit the Partnerships to (a) purchase portfolio investments from or sell portfolio securities to TD, or any other affiliated person of a Partnership, or an affiliated person thereof (an “Affiliated Entity”), on a principal basis; (b) purchase interests or property in a company or other investment vehicle in which TD, or an Affiliated Entity, already owns securities, or, where such company or other investment vehicle is otherwise affiliated with TD or a Partnership; (c) sell, put or tender, or grant options in securities or interests in a company or other investment vehicle back to such entity, where that entity is affiliated with TD or an Affiliated Entity; (d) participate as a selling security holder in a public offering that is underwritten by TD or an Affiliated Entity or in which TD or an Affiliated Entity acts as a member of the underwriting or selling group; (e) invest in companies, partnerships or other investment vehicles offered, sponsored or managed by TD or an Affiliated Entity (referred to hereinafter collectively as “TD Sponsored Vehicles” and individually as a “TD Sponsored Vehicle”), or to purchase securities from TD Sponsored Vehicles; (f) invest in securities of, or lend money to entities with which TD or an Affiliated Entity has performed investment banking or other services and from which they may have received fees; and (g) purchase securities that are underwritten by TD and or Affiliated Entity (including a member of a selling group) on terms at least as favorable to the Partnership as those offered to investors other than affiliated persons of TD.

4. Applicants submit that an exemption from section 17(a) is consistent with the policy of the Partnerships and the protection of investors. Applicants state the Limited Partners in each Partnership will be fully informed of the extent of the Partnership's dealings with affiliated persons and, as professionals employed in the investment banking and financial service businesses, will be able to understand and evaluate the attendant risk. Applicant asserts that the community of interest among the Limited Partners and TD Group will provide the best protection against any risk of abuse. Applicant acknowledges that the requested relief will not extend to any transactions between a Partnership and any affiliated subadviser or an affiliated person of the unaffiliated subadviser, or between a partnership and any person who is not an employee, officer or director of TD or is an entity outside of the TD Group and is an affiliated person of the Partnership as defined in section 2(a)(3)(E) of the Act (“Advisory Person”) or any affiliated person of such person.

5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, acting as principal, from participating in any joint enterprise, or other joint arrangement, unless approved by the Commission. Applicant requests relief to permit affiliated persons of each Partnership, or affiliated persons of such persons, to participate in any joint arrangement in which the Partnership or an entity controlled by the Partnership is a participant. Applicant acknowledges that the requested relief will not extend to any transaction in which an unaffiliated sub-investment adviser or an Advisory Person or an affiliated person of either has an interest.

6. Applicants submit that any joint investments will not involve abuses of the type section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 were designed to prevent. Applicants believe that the flexibility to structure co-investment and joint investments in the manner described above will not involve abuses of the type section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 were designed to prevent. Applicants note that a company will primarily be organized for the benefit of the Limited Partners, and that any investments by a Partnership made concurrently with an Affiliated Co-Investor will be on the same terms (but not necessarily in the same amount) as the investments by such Affiliated Co-Investors.

7. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17e-1 thereunder limit the compensation an affiliated person may receive when acting as agent or broker for a registered investment company. Applicant requests an exemption from section 17(e) and rule 17e-1 to the extent necessary to permit TD or any entity within the TD Group, acting as agent or broker, to receive placement fees, financial advisory fees or other compensation in connection with the purchase or sale by a Partnership of securities, subject to the requirement that placement fees, financial advisory fees or other compensation is deemed “usual and customary.” Applicant states that for the purposes of the application, fees and other compensation that is being charged or received by TD or any entity within the TD Group will be deemed “usual and customary” only if (a) the Partnership is purchasing or selling securities with other unaffiliated third parties, (b) the fees or other compensation being charged to the Partnership are also being charged to the unaffiliated third parties, and (c) the amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Partnership does not exceed 5% of the total amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Partnership and unaffiliated third parties. Applicant asserts that compliance with section 17(e) would prevent a Partnership from participating in a transaction in which TD or an entity within the TD Group, for other business reasons, does not wish it to appear as if the Partnership is being treated in a more favorable manner (in terms of lower fees) than unaffiliated third parties also participating in the transaction. Applicant asserts that fees or other compensation paid by a Partnership to TD or an entity within the TD Group will be the same as those negotiated at arm's length with unaffiliated third parties and the unaffiliated third parties will have as great or greater interest as the Partnership in the transaction as a whole.

8. Rule 17e-1(b) requires that a majority of directors who are not “interested persons” (as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the Act) take actions and make approvals regarding commission, fees, or other remuneration. Applicant requests an exemption from rule 17e-1 to the extent necessary to permit each Partnership to comply with the rule without having a majority of the directors of the General Partner who are not interested persons take actions and make determinations as set forth in rule. Applicant states that because all of the directors of a General Partner will be affiliated persons, without such relief requested, a Partnership could not comply with rule 17e-1. Applicant states that Partnership will comply with rule 17e-1(b) by having a majority of the directors of the General Partner take actions and make approvals as set forth in rule 17e-1. Applicant states that each Partnership will otherwise comply with the requirements of rule 17e-1.

9. Section 17(f) designates the entities that may act as investment company custodians, and rule 17f-1 imposes certain requirements when the custodian is a members of a national securities exchange. Applicant requests an exemption from section 17(f) and subsections (a), (b) (to the extent such subsection refers to contractual requirements), (c) and (d) of rule 17f-1 to the extent necessary to permit a member of the TD Group to act as custodian without a written contract. Applicant also requests an exemption from the rule 17f-1(b)(4) requirement that an independent accountant periodically verify the assets held by the custodian. Applicant believes that because of the community of interest of all the parties involved, compliance with these requirements would be unnecessary. Applicant states that it will comply with all other requirements of rule 17f-1.

10. Section 17(g) and rule 17g-1 generally requires the bonding of officers and employers of a registered investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule 17g-1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested persons take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to fidelity bonding. Applicant requests relief from rule 17g-1(d), (e) and (g) to the extent necessary to permit the General Partner or an entity controlling the General Partner to take the actions and make the determinations set forth in the rule, regardless of whether or not they are interested persons. Applicant states that, because all the directors of the General Partner will be affiliated persons, Applicants could not comply with rule 17g-1 without the requested relief. Applicant also states that each Partnership will comply with all other requirements of rule 17g-1.

11. Section 17(j) and paragraph (b) of rule 17j-1 make it unlawful for certain enumerated persons to engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or sale of security held or to be acquired by a registered investment company. Rule 17j-1 also requires that every registered investment company adopt a written code of ethics and that every access person of a registered investment company report personal securities transactions. Applicant requests an exemption from section 17(j) of the Act and the provisions of rule 17j-1, except for the anti-fraud provisions of paragraph (b), because they are burdensome and unnecessary as applied to Partnerships. The relief requested will extend only to entities within the TD Group and is not requested with respect to any unaffiliated sub-investment adviser or Advisory Person.

12. Applicant requests an exemption from the requirements in sections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(e), and the rules under those sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports and financial statements. Applicant contends that the forms prescribed by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the Partnerships and would entail administrative and legal costs that outweigh any benefit to the Limited Partners. Applicant requests exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit each Partnership to report annually to its Limited Partners.

13. Applicant also requests an exemption from section 30(h) to the extent necessary to exempt the General Partner of each Partnership and any other person who may be deemed to be a member of an advisory board of a Partnership from filing Forms 3, 4, and 5 under section 16(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to their ownership of Interests in a Partnership. Applicant asserts that, because there will be no trading market and the transfers of Interests will be severely restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of investors and burdensome to those required to make them.

Applicant agrees that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. Each proposed transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder (the “Section 17 Transactions”) will be effected only if the General Partner determines that: (a) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to the Limited Partners and do not involve overreaching of the Partnership or its Limited Partners on the part of any person concerned; and (b) the transaction is consistent with the interests of the Limited Partners, the Partnership's organizational documents, and the Partnership's reports to its Limited Partners. In addition, the General Partner will record and preserve a description of the Section 17 Transactions, the General Partner's findings, the information or materials upon which the General Partner's findings are based, and the basis for those findings. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Partnership and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.3

2. In connection with the Section 17 Transactions, the General Partner will adopt, and periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that reasonable inquiry is made, prior to the consummation of any such transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of principal underwriter for the Partnerships, or any affiliated person of such a person, promoter, or principal underwriter.

3. The General Partner will not invest the funds of any Partnership in any investment in which an “Affiliated Co-Investor” (as defined below) has acquired or proposes to acquire the same class of securities of the same issuer, where the investment involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement within the meaning of rule 17d-1 in which the Partnership and an Affiliated Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Affiliated Co-Investor, prior to disposing of all or part of its investment; (a) gives the General Partner sufficient, but not less than one day's notice, of its intent to dispose of its investment, and (b) refrains from disposing of its investment unless the Partnership has the opportunity to dispose of the Partnership's investment prior to or concurrently with, on the same terms as, and pro rata with the Affiliated Co-Investor. The term “Affiliated Co-Investor” means any person who is: (a) an “affiliated person,” as such term is defined in the Act, of the Partnership; (b) TD or any entity with the TD Group; (c) an officer or director of TD or entity within the TD Group; (d) a company, partnership, or other investment vehicle offered, sponsored, or managed by TD or by any other entity within the TD Group; (e) an entity with respect to which TD or another entity within the TD Group provides management, investment or similar services as manager, investment manager, or general partner or in a similar capacity, and for which it may receive compensation, including without limitation, management fees, performance fees, carried interest entitling it to share disproportionately in income and capital gains or similar compensation; or (f) a company in which an officer, director or member of a General Partner acts as an officer, director, or General Partner, or has a similar capacity to control the sale or other disposition of an entity's securities. The restrictions contained in this condition, however, shall not be deemed to limit or prevent the disposition of an investment by an Affiliated Co-Investor: (a) To its direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary, to any company (a “Parent”) of which the Affiliated Co-Investor is a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary, or to a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of its Parent; (b) to Qualified Family Members of the Affiliated Co-Investor or a trust established for any Affiliated Co-Investor or any such family member; (c) when the investment is comprised of securities that are listed on any exchange registered as a national securities exchange under section 6 of the Exchange Act; (d) when the investment is comprised of securities that are national market system securities pursuant to section 11A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act and rule 11Aa2-1 thereunder; (e) when the securities are government securities as defined in section 2(a)(16) of the Act; (f) when the investment is comprised of securities that are listed on or traded on any foreign securities exchange or board of trade that satisfies regulatory requirements under the law of the jurisdiction in which such foreign securities exchange or board of trade is organized similar to those that apply to a national securities exchange or a national market system for securities; or (g) when any entity with respect to which TD or any other entity with the TD Group provides management, investment management or similar services as manager, investment manager, or general partner or in a similar capacity, if TD or such entity does not have the actual investment discretion over the sale or disposition of the entity's securities.

4. Each Partnership and its General Partner, and its investment adviser, if any, will maintain and preserve, for the life of each such Partnership and at least two years thereafter, such accounts, books, and other documents as constitute the record forming the basis for the audited financial statements that are to be provided to the Limited Partners, and each annual report of the Partnership required by the terms of the applicable Partnership Agreement to be sent to the Limited Partners, and agree that all such records will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.4

5. The General Partner will send or cause to be sent to each Limited Partner who had an Interest in a Partnership, at any time during the fiscal year then ended, Partnership financial statements that have been audited by independent accountants. At the end of each fiscal year, the General Partner will make a valuation or have a valuation made of all of the assets of the Partnership as of such fiscal year in a manner consistent with customary practice with respect to the valuation of assets of the kind held by the Partnership. In addition, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year of each of the Partnerships, the General Partner of each Partnership shall send or cause to be sent a report to each person who was a Limited Partner at any time during the fiscal year then ended, setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the preparation by the Limited Partner of his or her federal and state and income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of the Partnership during that year.

6. In any case where purchases or sales are made by a Partnership from or to an entity affiliated with the Partnership by reason by a 5% or more investment in such entity by a TD Group director, officer, or employee, such individual will not participate in the General Partner's determination of whether or not to effect the purchase or sale.

Title: Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations For Federal and Federally Assisted Programs.

OMB Control Number: 2105-0508.

Affected Public: Federal Government State, Local or Tribal Government, individuals, business, farms and not-for-profit institutions.

Annual Estimated Burden: 29,043.

Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for Colorado Springs Airport, effective August 7, 2001. Under 49 U.S.C. 47504(a) an airport operator who has previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing noncompatible land uses and prevention of additional noncompatible land uses within the area covered by the noise exposure maps. 49 U.S.C. 47503(a)(1) requires such a program to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including the state, local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.

Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval of disapproval of FAR part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations:

a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR part 150.

b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses;

c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and

d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.

Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute a FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Denver, Colorado.

The Director of Aviation for Colorado Springs Airport submitted to the FAA the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted at Colorado Springs Airport. The Colorado Springs noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements of February 8, 2001. Notice of this determination was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001.

The Colorado Springs Airport noise compatibility program contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from the date of study completion to the year 2002. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described in 49 U.S.C. 47504(a). The FAA began its review of the program on February 8, 2001, and was required by a provision of 49 U.S.C. 47504(b) to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.

The submitted program contained seven proposed actions for noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of 49 U.S.C. 47504(b) and FAR 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the the Associated Administrator for Airports effective August 7, 2001. These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval endorsed by the Associate Administrator for Airports on August 7, 2001. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the Colorado Springs Airport.

Title: National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes & Behaviors—2001

OMB Number: 2127—New.

Type of Request: New information collection requirement.

Abstract: An agency goal is to reduce the number of alcohol related fatalities from 15,786, in 1999, to 11,000 by the year 2005. In support of this goal, NHTSA has conducted over past decade a series of bi-annual surveys of the driving-aged public (aged 16 or older) to identify patterns and trends in public attitudes and behaviors towards drinking and driving and public reaction to alcohol countermeasures aimed at reducing the occurrence of drinking and driving and alcohol related crashes. The proposed study, to be administered in the 3rd quarter of 2001, and the sixth in this series of biennial survey's will collect data on topics included in the first five studies (and several additional topics), including: frequency of drinking and driving and of riding with an impaired driver, ways to prevent drinking and driving, enforcement of drinking and driving laws including the use of sobriety checkpoints, understanding of BAC levels and legal limits, and crash and injury experience.

Affected Public: Randomly selected members of the general public aged sixteen and older in telephone households.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,680.

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

On July 17, 2001, we published a Federal Register Notice (66 FR 37253) requesting comments on our consumer braking information program for light vehicles that are currently subjected to the NCAP program. We also announced a public workshop for September 26, 2001, to discuss some of the technical issues about this braking information program. This notice provides additional details of the workshop, including the location, time, agenda and goals of the workshop.

In the July 17, 2001 notice, the agency provided an extensive discussion of the history of the program, the research conducted to date, a discussion of some of the issues that the agency feels have been resolved, and a detailed description of the draft test protocol. This previous notice can be found in the subject docket (see instructions on how to access the docket below under Availability of Relevant Documents below).

The workshop will be held Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at the Department of Transportation headquarters building (also known as the Nassif Building), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Room 6332-6336. The meeting will be from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to obtain more technical information and discuss some of the outstanding issues related to the consumer braking information program. The specific issues that we would like to focus on include:

If possible the presentations will be scheduled by the primary subject of the presentations, as listed in the agenda. However, speakers are encouraged to make their entire presentation at one time.

The meeting will be moderated by a NHTSA representative.

After each presentation, there will be a ten-minute opportunity to address questions from the agency panel and from the audience.

To facilitate communication, we will provide auxiliary aids (e.g., sign-language interpreter) to participants as necessary, during the meeting. Any person desiring assistance of auxiliary aids should contact Mr. Woods no later than 10 days before the meeting. For any presentation that will include slides, motion pictures, a computer projector, or any other visual aids, the presenters should bring at least two paper copies of the presentation to the meeting so that we can provide a copy to the court reporter and readily include the material in the public record. In addition, we will make a verbatim record of the public meeting and place a copy in the docket.

The July 17, 2001, Request for Comments notice for the NCAP Braking program has been placed in the docket. To obtain that notice, you may either visit the docket in Washington, DC, or query the Department of Transportation docket website.

The docket is located at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Docket hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Docket Management System website is http://dms.dot.gov/. You should search for Docket No. 6583.

If you wish to submit written comments on the issues discussed at the meeting, please submit them by the comment closing date of October 15, 2001. Comments must refer to the Docket and Notice numbers cited at the beginning of this Notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to view instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number (6583) of this program.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is, by statute, responsible for the economic regulation of surface transportation carriers operating in the interstate and foreign commerce. The form is for use by applicants who wish to open an account with the STB. Charges to the account would be posted for services rendered. The account holder would be billed on a monthly basis for payment of accumulated fees. The form requests information as required by OBM and Treasury regulations for the collection of fees.