Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet in Suite 4200E, Conference Room, Fourth Floor, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC on Monday, January 8, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, January 9, 2001, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions which may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the November 2000 Joint Board examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass score. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2001 pension actuarial examination and the May 2001 basic actuarial examinations will be discussed.

A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions which may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and review of the November 2000 Joint Board examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.

The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1 p.m. on January 8 and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3 p.m.. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should must notify the Executive Director in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and must submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All other persons planning to attend the public session must also notify the Executive Director in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be faxed, no later than December 30, 2000, to 202-694-1876, Attn: Executive Director. Any interested person also may file a written statement for consideration by the Joint Board and the Committee by sending it to the Executive Director: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal Revenue Service, Attn: Executive Director SC:DOP, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, has renewed the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), which will advise the Provincial Interagency Executive Committee (PIEC). The purpose of the PIEC is to facilitate the coordinated implementation of the Record of Decision of April 13, 1994. The PIEC consists of representatives of the following Federal agencies: the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division.

Ecosystem management at the province level requires improved coordination among governmental entities responsible for land management decisions and the public those agencies serve. The PACs provide advice and recommendations to promote integration and coordination of forest management activities between Federal and non-Federal entities. Each PAC will provide advice regarding implementation of a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy for Federal land within a province (provinces are defined in the Record of Decision at E-19).

The chairing responsibility of the PACs will alternate annually between the Forest Service's and the Bureau of Land Management's representative. When the Bureau of Land Management is not represented on the PIEC, the Forest Service representative will serve as chair. The chair, or a designated agency employee, will serve as the Designated Federal Official under sections 10(e) and (f) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

The renewal of the PACs does not require an amendment of Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service planning documents because the renewal does not affect the standards and guidelines or land allocations. The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service will provide further notices, as needed, for additional actions or adjustments when implementing interagency coordination, public involvement, and other aspects of the Record of Decision.

Equal opportunity practices are followed in all appointments to the advisory committees. To ensure that the recommendations of the PACs have taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Departments, membership will include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens.

Title: Payer's Request for Identifying Number.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0121.

Expiration Date: October 31, 2000.

Type of Request: Reinstatement and revision of a previously approved information collection.

Abstract: In order to provide the Internal Revenue Service with proper identification for the processing of tax returns, all producers who receive CCC and FSA program payments must provide FSA with a social security, employer, or IRS identifying number. Form CCC-343, Payer's Request for Identifying Number, will collect this information without regard to whether the payee is required to file a tax return or is covered by social security.

The county FSA office prepares a CCC-343 for each producer who has not furnished a producer ID number. Once the ID number is obtained and provided to the county FSA office, the producer is not requested to provide this information again.

FSA does not make any program payment until a producer furnishes a social security, employer, or IRS identifying number.

Identification of producers allows FSA to provide IRS with identifying numbers for tax collection purposes. Section 6676 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a penalty for failure to furnish an identifying number to a payer required to report such number to the Service.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .08 (5 minutes) per response.

Respondents: Producers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 250 hours.

Proposed topics for comment include: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the 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. Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to David Tidwell, Agricultural Program Specialist, Production, Emergencies, and Compliance Division, USDA, FSA, STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2415, (202) 720-4542.

Copies of the information collection may be obtained from David Tidwell at the above address.

Quotas for tobacco production are administered under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq. Where quotas for a kind of tobacco have been approved by producers of that kind of tobacco, price support is made available for that tobacco under the terms and conditions of Section 106 the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1421, et seq. Flue-cured tobacco is one of the kinds of tobacco for which quotas have been approved. Regulations for governing price support and quotas for tobacco are found at 7 CFR parts 723 and 1464.

Price support is made available through non-recourse loans to farmers through a designated producer-member association, which in the case of flue-cured tobacco is the Flue-Cured Tobacco Stabilization Corporation (Stabilization). As such, the loans do not have to be repaid, but rather the tobacco is placed in Stabilization's inventory and Stabilization then attempts to sell the tobacco for the highest price possible. Losses on inventory tobacco are covered by assessments levied against all producers (and buyers) of flue-cured tobacco, irrespective of, in the case of producers, whether that individual producer placed any tobacco under a price support loan.

The average loan rate for the tobacco is set for each crop year under a formula which is set out in Section 106 of the 1949 Act, but, in making those loans, variations for location and other factors are made in the loan amount which is available for an individual lot of tobacco. Such variations in the price support level are known as “differentials”. They are provided for explicitly in Section 403 of the 1949 Act, which is found at 7 U.S.C. 1423. That section was suspended for commodities other than tobacco for the 1996-2000 crops by Section 171 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA), Public Law 104-127, but remains in force for tobacco. Under the provisions of section 403 of the 1949 Act, the Secretary may (and the Secretary has done so consistently for many years) make appropriate adjustment in the support price for differences in grade, type, quality, location and other factors. The adjustments must, insofar as practicable, be made in such manner that the average support price for the commodity will, on the basis of the anticipated incidence of such factors, be equal to the national average level of support determined in accordance with section 106 of the 1949 Act. Using this authority, differentials are established each crop year for quota tobaccos, by kind.

This notice proposes to change the flue-cured tobacco price support differentials effective for the 2001 crop year to provide for differing valuations of tobacco based on the heat source of the barn in which the tobacco is cured. Specifically, it is proposed in this notice that the differentials for the upcoming crop year be adjusted so that flue-cured tobacco cured in barns which use a direct heat source would have a price support value of zero. For ease of reference, and for reasons which are explained below, those barns with a direct heat source will be referred to as “un-improved” barns and those with an indirect heat source will be identified as “improved” barns. However, those barns which have been built with an indirect heat source would, of course, be treated the same as those which have been converted, or “improved” by changing the heat source from a direct source to an indirect source.

The change in differentials set out in this notice is being proposed at the request of Stabilization, the producer-owned association. According to Stabilization, buyers in recent years have increasingly been concerned about flue-cured tobacco cured in barns with direct heat sources because of the desire of buyers to reduce nitrosamines which can form through direct heating. Due to those concerns and as part of a long-term effort to reduce nitrosamines, Stabilization has informed USDA that buyers will no longer, effective with the 2001 crop, buy tobacco cured using direct heat; that is, Stabilization has indicated that the market value of direct-heated tobacco is zero. Recently, however, by a joint enterprise between tobacco buyers and Stabilization, farmers have been provided funding to convert their barns from direct heat to indirect heat.

In the meantime, however, because of these buyer preference and demands, producers, through their association (Stabilization), have requested that the price support value of the tobacco produced in un-improved barns be zero because otherwise, it is feared, the tobacco will go into the price support inventory, will not be marketable, and will produce losses that must be borne by all producers together in the form of the higher “no net cost assessments,” referred to above, which, under the terms of the 1949 Act, are designed to help assure that the tobacco program is operated at no net cost to the public other than the costs associated with price support programs in general. Since there is no indication that the market price of the tobacco will be greater than zero, this notice proposes adopting the suggestion of the producer association. However, in proposing to set the differentials at zero for tobacco produced in un-improved barns, the Department is not making a determination about the benefits of, or need for, barn improvement, or even whether the general trends in barn improvement are a good idea or a bad idea. Rather, the differential determination is made on the expected actual market price for tobacco produced in the un-improved barns, taking into account the assessment of that price being made by the producer association itself. It is realized, however, that this determination may involve difficulty for some farmers who do not, or can not, make the improvements to their barns despite the incentives being offered in the industry to make that change. For that reason, comment on this proposal is requested. While all comments are welcome and solicited, respondents should, in particular, address the question of whether tobacco in un-improved barns will, in fact, have a market value for the upcoming crop year. It bears emphasizing that irrespective of the outcome of the proposal set out in this notice, tobacco produced in direct-heated barns will still be, at least technically, eligible for price support in that the tobacco will meet the minimum requirement that tobacco must meet to generate a price support loan as set out in part 1464. However, of course, this will not be of much value to the farmer, in terms of loan access since the loan value assigned the tobacco would be zero, or, perhaps, close to zero Because this is strictly a price determination, it does not appear that any change to program regulations, such as the regulation at 7 CFR 1464.8 dealing with tobacco eligibility standards, needs to be made on an emergency basis to make the change set forth in this notice. Likewise, whether or not the differential proposal is adopted, this action will not prohibit tobacco from un-improved barns from being marketed to buyers which of itself would mitigate an error in determining the market value of the tobacco given that if the market value of the tobacco is greater then zero, producers will be free to market the tobacco at whatever price the market will be bear. Such marketings, if they do produce a return greater than zero, will at least indirectly benefit from the price support system because that system aids the market price of all tobacco by lifting the price for competing producers of the same kind of domestic tobacco.

In order to assure that there are no loan losses, the proposal will require certifications by producers of whether their tobacco has or has not been produced in improved barns. For these purposes, an improved barn would be any barn which has been retrofitted under the association's program or which otherwise have been built with, or improved to include, the technology that produces the market-preferred tobacco. In making this proposal, the Department wished to emphasize that it would be preferable if accommodations could be made within the industry to allow disadvantaged farmers extra time to complete barn improvements or to provide greater funding so that this change in market arrangements will produce less harm. To that end, the comments, which would include comment from the associations, and others interested in this issue, on whether there will be efforts made to provide for such assistance and on whether such considerations should be taken in consideration in setting the differentials. However, it should be understood that if the market value of the tobacco is indeed zero and despite that market value, no change was made in the differentials, this would mean not only that there would likely be loan losses but that because of those losses it would be necessary to increase tobacco assessments immediately (that is, for the 2001 crop) to cover such losses, as required by the 1949 Act. Such assessments could be considerable.

Following the receipt of the comments, the Secretary will take such action as may be warranted, taking into account the comments and any other information as may be relevant.

Proposed Change in Differentials for Flue-Cured Tobacco: Accordingly, it is proposed with respect to the 2001 and subsequent crops of flue-cured tobacco that the differentials for such tobacco provide (1) that the price support low value of tobacco produced in a barn without an acceptable indirect heat source for curing should be zero and (2) that producers should be required to certify in a manner acceptable to CCC whether their tobacco which is presented for a price support loan has been cured in a barn with an acceptable heat source. Such certifications may be tied to a program of barn improvement implemented by Stabilization as needed to assure a proper valuation of the tobacco for price support purposes.

In 1995, the NEPA process for Horsethief began; knowing the main focus would be to re-introduce fire into the ecosystem with fuels reduction through timber harvest. A letter was sent to the public, requesting preliminary input in defining the characteristics of a healthy and viable ecosystem and to assist in planning projects that would achieve those characteristics. Two public field trips to Horsethief occurred in June 1995 and specialists began gathering information about existing condition. A conscious decision was made by the Forest Supervisor to defer planning efforts in order to better understand ecosystem management. An ecosystem management plan was prepared and signed in June of 1997. The Plan is titled Horsethief Ecosystem Analysis Plan. From this Ecosystem Analysis an Environmental Assessment titled Horsethief Environmental Assessment was completed and sent out for comments in December 1999; with the comments received and new scientific information it was decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. No additional public meetings are anticipated.

The proposed action is to reintroduce fire, improve forest health, manage stand structure and density for the survival and growth of conifer/oak seedlings and reestablish conifers while providing desired spotted owl habitat within Spotted Owl Habitat Area (SOHA #14, FR031).

The need is due to the high risk of stand replacing fire, the potential loss to the current investment (plantations) from fire and disease, and the potential for fires to exceed the boundaries of one watershed. A current fire risk analysis has shown this watershed to be at high risk for a stand replacing fire.

The need for forest health improvement is due to high tree densities are increasing tree stress, susceptibility to stand replacing fire, susceptibility of insect attack and disease; and plantations are at risk to increased infestations of mistletoe from infected mistletoe trees.

The need to improve the habitat conditions of SOHA #14 is due to lack of nesting habitat, excessive foraging habitat, vegetation conditions are not appropriate for increasing non-overlapping canopy cover, and previously harvested areas are not providing nesting or foraging habitat.

The proposed activities are consistent with the LRMP and the Horsethief Ecosystem Analysis Plan. The project prescriptions will be following California Spotted Owl (CASPO) guidelines (USDA 1993) and the recommended direction suggested in the Regional Forester's letter of May 1, 1998.

To comply with NEPA, the Forest Service will evaluate alternatives to the proposed action within the EIS, including No Action and other alternatives responding to public comments. Each alternative will be rigorously explored and evaluated, or rationale would be given for eliminating an alternative from detailed study. The range of alternatives to be considered would include, but not be limited to:

1. Fuels reduction and forest health—Fire is reintroduced through (1) thinning to prepare for burning; (2) the creation of DFPZs to assist in burning and to maintain fires to one watershed; (3) underburning conifer stands; (4) patch burning chaparral stands. Forest health is achieved through thinning and by removing mistletoe infested trees to reduce the risk of plantation loss from disease. The SOHA will not be entered under this alternative.

2. Fuels reduction, forest health and SOHA enhancement—Under this alternative all the activities listed above would occur and in SOHA #14 desired spotted owl habitat is created by (1) increasing canopy cover through conifer regeneration; and (2) maintaining potential nest trees. Stand structures within SOHA #14 are managed to provide desired spotted owl habitat while providing for the reintroduction of fire.

3. Fuels reduction, forest health and SOHA enhancement activities are conducted while maintaining or enhancing landscape level connectivity and stand level structure (denning, resting and foraging habitat) for the fisher.

The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process, and review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in preparation of the DEIS. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review and comment in March 2001 and a final environmental impact statement in June 2001. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215.

Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental state may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 409 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

On October 23, 2000, Taiho America requested that the Department revoke in part the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. Specifically, Taiho America requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium; less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. Taiho America is an importer of the product in question.

These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTSUS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are corrosion-resistant 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 are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this review are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this review are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. Also excluded from this review are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. Also excluded from this review are carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 millimeters in thickness and 43.6 millimeters or 16.1 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. Also excluded from this review are carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 millimeters in thickness and 20 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 1% zinc, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% PTFE, 3% to 5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2% other materials. Also excluded from this review are doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 millimeters (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 millimeters (1.25 inches) and 50.80 millimeters (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900-990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%; and the remainder of iron. Also excluded from this review are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys.

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( i.e. , a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the {relief provided by the} order, in whole or in part, or if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. In addition, in the event that the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.

In accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222(g), based on affirmative statements by domestic producers of the like product, Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Ispat Inland Steel; LTV Steel Company, Inc.; National Steel Corporation; and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation (“domestic producers”), of no further interest in continuing the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium; less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys ( see domestic producers' November 16, 2000 letter to the Department), we are initiating this changed circumstances administrative review. Furthermore, because petitioners have expressed a lack of interest, we determine that expedited action is warranted, and we preliminarily determine that continued application of the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products falling within the description above is no longer of interest to domestic interested parties. Because we have concluded that expedited action is warranted, we are combining these notices of initiation and preliminary results. Therefore, we are hereby notifying the public of our intent to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders with respect to imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the above-mentioned specifications from Japan.

If the final revocation in part occurs, we intend to instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the specifications indicated above, not subject to final results of administrative review as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222. We will also instruct Customs to pay interest on such refunds in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the above specifications will continue unless and until we publish a final determination to revoke in part.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties to the proceedings may request a hearing within 14 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than two days after the deadline for the submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to the issues raised in those comments, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing.

The Department will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

Applicable Statute: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

On February 18, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register the final results of the 1997-1998 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico (65 FR 8338). This review covered one producer of the subject merchandise, Altos Hornos de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (AHMSA) and the period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998. Following timely allegations by both AHMSA and petitioners, 1 the Department subsequently amended the final results of this administrative review. See Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 65830 (November 2, 2000). The amended final results yielded a weighted average margin for AHMSA of 21.75 percent.

On October 31, 2000, AHMSA submitted allegations of an additional ministerial error. AHMSA alleged that the Department incorrectly calculated the costs of certain raw materials supplied by affiliated parties by applying an incorrect adjustment factor to these material costs. This error had the effect of double counting the profit realized by the affiliates on these transactions. According to AHMSA, the correction of this error would cause certain home market sales to pass the cost test; therefore, AHMSA urged the Department to amend its model match computer programming language in order to permit these now above-cost home market sales to be matched to U.S. sales of identical merchandise.

We agree with AHMSA's allegation concerning our recalculation of AHMSA's direct material costs, and have made the suggested programming changes to permit matches of U.S. sales to above-cost sales of identical merchandise in the home market. Furthermore, in preparing these amended final results, we found and rectified an additional error in the treatment of indirect selling expenses in our cost-of-production test. See Memorandum to the File, “Analysis of Data Submitted by Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. (AHMSA) for the Second Amended Final Results of Review of Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico (A-201-809),” dated November 21, 2000. After the two mathematical corrections, however, all home market sales of model number “1,” the model identical to the U.S. model, continued to fail the cost test. As a result, for these amended final results, we continued to compare the U.S. model to the most similar home market model.

As a result of our analysis of AHMSA's allegations, we are again amending our final results of review to correct the error in calculating affiliated party profit identified by AHMSA, as well as to rectify the error involving indirect selling expenses we uncovered during our analysis, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e). The amended weighted average dumping margin for AHMSA for the period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998 is 25.02 percent.

Accordingly, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. Because there is only one importer of the subject merchandise, we have calculated an importer specific duty assessment rate for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of sales. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review for all shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate stated above; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 49.25 percent, the “All Others” rate in the less-than-fair-value investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico, 58 FR 44165 (August 19, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.224.

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

The antidumping dumping duty order for elemental sulphur from Canada was revoked, pursuant to the sunset procedures established by statute, effective January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping Finding: Elemental Sulphur From Canada, 64 FR 40553 (July 27, 1999). However, we are conducting this review to cover sales of the subject merchandise made in the United States by Husky and Petrosul during the 13-month period from December 1, 1998, until the effective date of the revocation.

On September 8, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on elemental sulphur from Canada (65 FR 54488) (“Preliminary Results”). As noted above, the Department did not receive comments from interested parties.

The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of elemental sulphur from Canada. This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) subheadings 2503.10.00, 2503.90.00, and 2802.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

The POR for Husky and Petrosul is from December 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999. See April 11, 2000 letters to Husky and Petrosul, in which the Department extended the POR to include December 1999. The POR for all other entries is December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999.

As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that the application of total adverse facts available with respect to Petrosul was appropriate. No parties have commented on this determination, and no new facts have been submitted which would cause the Department to revisit this decision. Therefore, for the reasons set out in the Preliminary Results, 65 FR 54489-90, we have continued to apply total adverse facts available to Petrosul for the purposes of this final results notice.

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999:

The Department will assess antidumping duties on all Petrosul entries at the same rate as the dumping margin ( i.e. , 40.38 percent) since the margin is not a current calculated rate for the respondent, but a rate based upon total adverse facts available pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. We will assess importer-specific antidumping duties on all appropriate Husky entries. Also, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Because the antidumping duty order on elemental sulphur from Canada has been revoked, effective January 1, 2000, no cash deposits are required for entries of elemental sulphur from Canada for entries on or after January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping Finding: Elemental Sulphur From Canada, 64 FR 40553 (July 27, 1999).

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

On August 17, 2000, the Department received a request from NIPPON Metalworking U.S.A., Inc., (NIPPON) for a changed circumstance review seeking revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) order on nickel clad stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan. The Department received a letter on September 6, 2000, from petitioners Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, Inc.), J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the Butler-Armco Independent Union, and the Zanesville Armco Independent Union, expressing no opposition to the request of NIPPON for revocation, in part, of the order pursuant to a changed circumstances review with respect to the subject merchandise defined in the Scope of the Review section below. Petitioners' request confirms that they have no objection to the retroactive application of the exclusion to the entries made from the date of the preliminary determination in the antidumping investigation, January 4, 1999, forward.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) we preliminarily determined that petitioners' affirmative statement of no interest constituted changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review and partial revocation of the order. Consequently, on October 27, 2000, the Department published an initiation of a changed circumstances review and preliminary results of review with an intent to revoke the order in part (65 FR 64424).

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under subheading 7219.90.00.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

The products covered by this exclusion request and changed circumstances review are nickel clad stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan. This nickel clad stainless steel sheet must satisfy each of the following specifications. The sheet must: (1) Have a maximum coil weight of 1000 pounds; (2) with a coil interior diameter of 458 mm to 540 mm; (3) with a thickness of .33 mm and a width of 699.4 mm; (4) fabricated in three layers with a middle layer of grade 316L or UNS 531603 sheet and strip sandwiched between the two layers of nickel cladding, using a roll bonding process to apply the nickel coating to each side of the stainless steel, each nickel coating being not less than 99 percent nickel and a minimum .038 mm in thickness. The resultant nickel clad stainless steel sheet and strip also must meet the following additional chemical composition requirement (by weight): The first layer weight is 14%, specification Ni201 or N02201, Carbon 0.009, Sulfur 0.001, Nickel 99.97, Molybdenum 0.001, Iron 0.01, Copper 0.001 for a combined total of 99.992. The second layer weight is 72%, specification 316L or UNS 513603, Carbon 0.02, Silicon 0.87, Manganese 1.07, Phosphorus 0.033, Sulfur 0.001, Nickel 12.08, Chromium 17.81, Molybdenum 2.26, Iron 65.856 for a combined total of 100. The third layer is 14%, specification Ni201 or N02201, Carbon 0.01, Sulfur 0.001, Nickel 99.97, Molybdenum 0.001, Iron 0.01, Copper 0.001 for a combined total of 99.993. The weight average weight is 100%. The following is the weighted average: Carbon 0.01706, silicon 0.6264, Manganese 0.7704, Phosphorus 0.02376, Sulfur 0.001, Nickel 36.6892, Chromium 12.8232, Molybdenum 1.62748, Iron 47.41912, and Copper is 0.00028. The above-described material sold as grade 316L and manufactured in accordance with UNS specification 531603. This material is classified at subheading 7219.90.00.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

In the preliminary results, we provided parties the opportunity to comment (65 FR 64424). On October 31, 2000, and again on November 1, 2000 we received comments from counsel for Fuel Cell, Inc. and NIPPON requesting that the scope description in specification number two read as “with a coil diameter of 458 millimeters to 540.” The Department received additional comments from the Petitioners regarding NIPPON's request agreeing to the proposed amendments of the scope exclusion on November 14, 2000.

The affirmative statement of no interest by petitioners concerning the nickel clad stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan and the fact that no interested parties objected to our preliminary results of review, constitute changed circumstances sufficient to warrant partial revocation of the order. Therefore, the Department is partially revoking the order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils with respect to the product described above, in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d) and 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i).

The Department will instruct the Customs Service (Customs) to proceed with liquidation, without regard to antidumping duties, of any unliquidated entries of the merchandise subject to this request, as specifically described in the “Scope of Changed Circumstance Review” section above, and entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after January 4, 1999. The Department will further instruct Customs to refund with interest any estimated duties collected with respect to unliquidated entries of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with section 778 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4).

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protection orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to timely notify the Department in writing of the return/destruction of APO material is a sanctionable violation.

This changed circumstances review, partial revocation of the antidumping duty order, and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d) and 782(h) of the Act and sections 351.216, 351.221(c)(3), and 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESU's) are included in the Plan and Permit application:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): threatened Snake River (SnR) spring, threatened(SnR) summer, endangered Upper Columbia river spring (UCR), threatened Upper Willamette River spring (UWR) (LCR), threatened lower Columbia River spring (LCR).

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened SnR, endangered naturally produced and artificially propagated UCR, threatened middle Columbia River (MCR), threatened LCR, threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR).

Sockeye Salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ): endangered SnR.

To date, protective regulations for threatened LCR chinook salmon under section 4(d) of the ESA have not been promulgated by NMFS. This notice of receipt of an application requesting takes of this species is issued as a precaution in the event that NMFS issues protective regulations that prohibit takes of threatened LCR chinook salmon. The initiation of a 30-day public comment period on the application, including its proposed takes of threatened LCR chinook salmon does not presuppose the contents of the eventual protective regulations.

Winter/spring/summer (w/s/s) season fisheries in the Columbia River have been managed since 1996 under provisions of the 1996-1998 Management Agreement for Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook, Summer Chinook and Sockeye. The Management Agreement modified provisions of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) to include additional provisions for newly listed species. The CRFMP, and thus the associated Management Agreement, expired by their own terms on December 31, 1998, but were extended by agreement of the parties and court order through July 31, 1999. Since NMFS was a signatory party to the CRFMP, and approval of the CRFMP was a Federal action subject to ESA section 7 consultation, incidental take associated with the ODFW and WDFW fisheries was authorized in biological opinions issued on the CRFMP. NMFS has advised the states that, with the expiration of the CRFMP, and absent any subsequent agreement among the parties to U.S .v. Oregon , there is no longer a Federal action that provides a nexus for ESA section 7 consultation. Because the immediate prospects for reaching an agreement remain uncertain, ODFW and WDFW have applied for a 1-year ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental takes of ESA-listed adult and juvenile salmonids associated with sport and commercial fisheries during the w/s/s season 2001 on non-listed species in the lower and middle Columbia River and its tributaries in the Pacific Northwest.

The Conservation Plan prepared by ODFW and WDFW describes measures designed to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids associated with some or all of the following fisheries which are expected to occur from January 1 through July 31, 2001, with approximate dates as specified:

Winter commercial sturgeon fishery: January and February 2001.

Winter commercial salmon fishery: February through April 2001.

Spring chinook commercial fishery - Select Areas: April through June 2001.

Smelt commercial fishery/test fishery: December 1 through March 31, 2001.

Anchovy and herring commercial bait fishery: Year round.

Shad commercial fishery - Area 2S: Mid-May through early August 2001.

Shad commercial fishery - Washougal Reef: May and June 2001.

Sockeye commercial fishery: June and July 2001.

Spring chinook sport fishery - mainstem Columbia River: January 1 through March 31, 2001.

Spring chinook sport fishery - Select Areas: Year round.

Steelhead/trout sport fishery - mainstem Columbia River: May 16 to October 31 below the I-5 Bridge and from June 16 to December 31 above the I-5 Bridge up to the Highway 395 Bridge at Pasco, Washington

Spring chinook/steelhead sport fishery - Ringold: January 1 through March 31, 2001.

Smelt recreational fishery

Shad recreational fishery: Late May and early July 2001.

Sockeye recreational fishery: June and July 2001.

Sturgeon recreational fishery: March through July 2001.

Warmwater recreational fishery: Year round

Spring chinook test fishery - Corbett: April 2001.

Sturgeon tagging stock assessment project: May through July 2001.

Spring chinook Indian subsistence fishery - Wanapum Tribe: May through July 2001.

ESA-listed fish incidental mortalities associated with the ODFW and WDFW fishery programs are requested at levels specified in the Permit application. ODFW/WDFW are proposing to limit state in-river fisheries such that the incidental impacts on ESA-listed salmonids will be minimized. Seven alternatives for the ODFW and WDFW fisheries were provided in the Plan, including: (1) historic baseline; (2) Columbia River Fish Management Plan; (3) Willamette subbasin Plan; (4) Willamette spring Chinook fishery Management and evaluation Plan; (5) 1996-99 Management agreement Limits;(6) 1996-99 Actual Harvest Rates; and (7) No action.

The EA package includes a draft EA and a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which concludes that issuing the incidental take permit is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Two Federal action alternatives have been analyzed in the EA, including: (1) the no action alternative; and (2) issue a permit with conditions.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10 of the ESA and the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the ESA. If it is determined that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The final NEPA and permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the Federal Register .

On August 16, 2000, NMFS published a document in the Federal Register (65 FR 49969) announcing the Secretary’s determination that the State of South Carolina was not in compliance with the Commission's ISFMP for Shad and River Herring for not implementing and enforcing the 10-fish creel limit contained in the ISFMP for American shad. In the document a moratorium was declared on fishing for American shad in South Carolina state waters that would be made effective on January 5, 2001, if South Carolina was not found to be in compliance by December 15, 2000. Details were provided in the August 16, 2000, Federal Register document and are not repeated here.

The Act specifies that, if, after a moratorium is declared with respect to a State, the Secretary is notified by the Commission that it is withdrawing the determination of noncompliance, the Secretary shall immediately determine whether the State is in compliance with the applicable plan. If the State is determined to be in compliance, the moratorium shall be terminated.

On November 7, 2000, the Secretary received a letter from the Commission prepared pursuant to the Act. The Commission's letter, dated November 6, 2000, stated that the State of South Carolina had taken corrective action to comply with the Commission’s ISFMP for Shad and River Herring, and, therefore, the Commission was withdrawing its determination of noncompliance.

Based on the Commission's November 6, 2000, letter, information received from the State of South Carolina, and the Secretary’s review of South Carolina’s revised regulations, the Secretary concurs with the Commission’s determination that South Carolina is now in compliance with the Commission's ISFMP for Shad and River Herring. The State has adopted a creel limit of 10 American shad in all watersheds except one. In that one watershed the 10-fish creel compliance requirement has been met through the imposition of management measures that provide conservation equivalency. Therefore, the moratorium on fishing for American shad in South Carolina waters is canceled.

Argo, a broad-scale global array of temperature/salinity profiling floats, is planned as a major component of the ocean observing system, with deployment scheduled to begin in 2000. Conceptually, Argo builds on the existing upper-ocean thermal networks, extending their spatial and temporal coverage, depth range and accuracy, and enhancing them through addition of salinity and velocity measurements. Argo is designed to have a strong complementary relationship with the Jason altimeter mission. For the first time, the physical state of the upper ocean will be systematically measured and assimilated in near real-time.

The objectives of Argo fall into several categories. Argo will provide a quantitative description of the evolving state of the upper ocean and the patterns of ocean climate variability, including heat and freshwater storage and transport. The data will enhance the value of the Jason altimeter through measurement of subsurface vertical structure (T(z), S(z)) and reference velocity, with sufficient coverage and resolution for interpretation of altimetric sea surface height variability. Argo data will be used for initialization of ocean and coupled forecast models, data assimilation and dynamical model testing. A primary focus of Argo is seasonal to decadal climate variability and predictability, but a wide range of applications for high-quality global ocean analyses is anticipated.

The initial design of the Argo network is based on experience from the present observing system, on newly gained knowledge of variability from the TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter, and on estimated requirements for climate and high-resolution ocean models. All Argo data will be publicly available in near real-time via the GTS, and in scientifically quality-controlled form with a few months delay. Global coverage should be achieved during the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE), which together with CLIVAR (CLImate VARiability and Predictability Program) and GCOS/GOOS, provide the major scientific and operational impetus for Argo. The design emphasizes the need to integrate Argo within the overall framework of the global ocean observing system.

International planning for Argo, including sampling and technical issues, is coordinated by the Argo Science Team. Nations presently having Argo plans that include float procurement or procurement, include Australia, Canada, France, Japan, U.K., and U.S.A., plus a European Union proposal. Combined deployments from these nations are expected to exceed 700 floats per year by 2002.

This RFP is to implement the NOAA component of the U.S. contribution to Argo. Actual funding levels will depend upon the final FY 2001 budget appropriations. This Program Announcement is for a program to be conducted by investigators both inside and outside of NOAA, over a five year period. It is expected, though not certain, that a single program involving multiple investigators will be funded. In accordance with the NOPP, team efforts among academia, industry, and government participants with cost sharing proposals are very strongly encouraged. For Federal Government investigators, funding will be provided through intra- or interagency transfers, as appropriate. The funding instrument for extramural awards will be a grant unless it is anticipated that NOAA will be substantially involved in the implementation of the project, in which case the funding instrument should be a cooperative agreement. Examples of substantial involvement may include but are not limited to proposals for collaborative between NOAA or NOAA scientists and a recipient scientist or technician and/or contemplation by NOAA of detailing Federal personnel to work on proposal projects. NOAA will make decisions regarding the use of the a cooperative agreement on a case-by-case basis.

Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial organizations, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments and Federal agencies. Applicants from non-Federal and Federal applicants will be competed against each other. Proposals selected for funding from non-Federal applicants will be funded through a project grant or cooperative agreement under the terms of this notice. Proposals selected for funding from NOAA employees shall be effected by an intraagency fund transfer. Proposals selected for funding from a non-NOAA Federal agency will be funded through an interagency transfer. Please Note: Before non-NOAA Federal applicants may be funded, they must demonstrate that they have legal authority to receive funds from another federal agency in excess of their appropriation. Because this announcement is not proposing to procure goods or services from applicants, the Economy Act (31 USC 1535) is not an appropriate legal basis.

Evaluations of the proposals will use the following selection criteria:

1. Overall technical merits of the proposal, including (20%):

a. Deployment strategy, including how the proposed strategy complements and/or supplements other components of the observing system as they relate to operational predictions, as well as to the objectives of CLIVAR and GODAE;

b. Deployment logistics, including communications as well ad deployment; and

c. Data management.

2. Relevance of the proposed program to NOPP objectives of developing a better understanding of oceans and establishing U.S. leadership in oceanography through a formal partnership mechanism including (20%)

a. Data accessibility,

b. Broad participation within the oceanographic community,

c. Partners with a long-term commitment to the proposed objectives;

d. Resource sharing among partners, and

e. The degree of cost-sharing by partners with the requested Partnership funding.

3. The offeror's capabilities, related experience, and facilities or unique combinations of these that are critical to the program's objectives (20%).

4. The qualifications and experience of the proposed principal investigator(s) and key personnel (20%).

5. The degree of significant partnering among at least two of the following parties: Academia, industry or government (10%).

6. Realism of the proposed costs (10%).

All proposals, including those submitted by NOAA employees, will be evaluated and ranked using the criteria above by: (1) Independent peer mail review, and/or (2) independent peer panel review; both NOAA and non-NOAA experts in the field may be used in this process. The program officer will no be a voting member of an independent peer panel. The results of the peer reviews are provided to the NOPP Interagency Working Group. The NOPP Interagency Working Group determines the proposals to be funded, subject to the concurrence of the National Ocean Research Council (NORLC) for funding. The NORLC reviews and approves a NOPP program at a regular NORLC meeting. An award may be selected outside of the ranking order provided by the peer mail or peer panel reviewers. Reasons for an award outside of the ranking order are logistical ( e.g, access to deployment platforms) and timeliness ( e.g., it takes an unusually long time, for example, a couple of years from receipt of funding to full deployment of floats supported each year). The Program Manager will also determine the total duration of funding. Unsatisfactory performance by a recipient under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.

To prevent the expenditure of effort that may not be successful, it is in the best interest of applicants to submit letters of intent, however, it is not a requirement. Letters for Intent must be single- or double-spaced, typewritten in at least a 10-point font, and printed on metric A4 (210 x 297 mm) or 8 1/2 ″ x 11″ paper. The following information should be included:

(1) Title page: The title page should clearly identify the program area being addressed by starting the project title with “The Argo Project: Global ocean observations for understanding and prediction of climate variability.” Principal Investigators and collaborators should be identified by affiliation and contact information. The total amount of Federal funds and matching funds being requested should be listed for each budget period.

(2) A concise (2-page limit) description of the program including a brief summary of work to be completed, methodology to be used, approximate costs of the major elements (salaries and benefits; direct costs such as float acquisition and preparation, communications and data management; travel, including deployment costs; indirect costs) of the project. Evaluation will be by program management. It is in the best interest of applicants and their institutions to submit letters of intent; however, it is not a requirement. Facsimile and electronic mail are acceptable for letters of intent only. Projects deemed suitable during Letters of Intent (LOI) review will be encouraged to submit full proposals.

(3) Resumes (1-page limit) of the Principal Investigators.

Each full proposal must include the first seven items listed below; the standard forms included as Item 8 will only be required for proposal(s) selected for funding. All pages should be single- or double-spaced, typewritten in at least a 10-point front, and printed on metric A4 (210 x 297 mm) or 8 1/2 ″ x 11″ paper. Brevity will assist reviewers and program staff in dealing effectively with proposals, therefore, the Program Description may not exceed 15 pages. Tables and visual materials, including figures, charts, graphs, maps, photographs and other pictorial presentations are included in the 15-page limitation; literature citations and letters of support, if any, are not included in the 15-page limitation. Conformance to the 15-page limitation will be strictly enforced. All information needed for review of the proposal should be included in the main text; no appendices, other than support letters, if any, are permitted. Failure to adhere to the above limitations will result in the proposal being rejected without review.

(1) Signed Title Page: The title page should be signed by the Principal Investigator and the institutional representative and should clearly identify program by starting the title “The Argo Project: Global ocean observations for understanding and prediction of climate variability.” The Principal Investigator and institutional representative should be identified by full name, title, organization, telephone number, and address. The total amount of Federal funds being requested should be listed for each year of the program; the total should include all subrecipient's budgets on projects involving multiple institutions.

(2) Abstract: An abstract must be included and should contain an introduction of the problem, rationale and a brief summary of work to be completed. The abstract should appear on a separate page, headed with the proposal title, institution(s) investigator(s), total proposed cost and budget period.

(3) Program Description/Work Statement (15-page limit): The Program Description should include identification of the problem, objectives (both operational and scientific) of the work, relevance to the operational prediction mission, proposed implementation strategy, proposed methodology ( e.g., float acquisition, communications, deployment), and a transition plan for long-term data management. The following elements should be described in detail:

(a) Deployment strategy: The program should include a plan for interactions with the operational and research communities with regard to the deployment strategy for the U.S. contribution to the global 3-degree array. The program should describe with whom interactions will occur, and how their recommendations will be considered to determine the configuration of the array that you intend to deploy. The program should also address how the proposed deployment strategy complements and/or supplements other components of the observing system as they relate to operational predictions, as well as to the objectives of CLIVAR (CLImate VARiability program) and GODAE (Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment).

(b) Deployment logistics: All costs associated with the implementation of Argo should be included, including communications and deployment costs. The proposal should demonstrate that access to appropriate deployment platforms (ships, aircraft) is available to implement the strategy being proposed.

(c) Data Management: The proposal should also include a plan for continued inter-comparison of floats from different manufacturers within the consortium and within the international science group. It should illustrate how real-time (within 24 hour) delivery of data will be achieved. Since the implementation of the global Argo array will be the responsibility of several international groups that may change over time, the proposal must include a plan for maintaining the integrity of the data system (data flow and quality control) over the lifetime of the program.

(4) Budget and Budget Justification: There should be a separate budget for each year of the project as well as a cumulative annual budget for the entire project. Subcontracts should have a separate budget page. Matching funds must be indicated. Applicants should provide justification for all budget items in sufficient detail to enable the reviewers to evaluate the appropriateness of the funding requested. For all applications, regardless of any approved indirect cost rate applicable to the award, the maximum dollar amount of allocable indirect costs for which the Department of Commerce will reimburse the Recipient shall be the lesser of: (a) The Federal share of the total allocable indirect costs of the award based on the negotiated rate with the cognizant Federal agency as established by audit or negotiation; or (b) the line item amount for the Federal share of indirect costs contained in the approved budget of the award.

(5) Current and Pending Support: Applicants must provide the following information on the relationship between this project and other work planned, anticipated, or underway under Federal assistance: current and pending support for ongoing projects and proposals, subsequent funding in the case of continuing grants, and the number of person-months per year to be devoted by the principal investigator to each project.

(6) Vitae (2 pages maximum per investigator): Abbreviated curriculum vitae are sought with each proposal. Reference lists should be limited to all publications in the last three years with up to five other relevant papers.

(7) Results from prior research: The results of related projects supported by NOAA and other agencies should be described, including their relation to the currently proposed work. Reference to each prior research award should include the title, agency, award number, Principal Investigators, of award and total award. The section should be a brief summary and should not exceed two pages total.

(8) Standard Application Forms: For proposal(s) selected for funding, the following forms must also be submitted: (a) Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and 424B, Assurances-Non-Construction Programs, (Rev 4-88). Please note that both the Principal Investigator and an administrative contact should be identified in Section 5 of the SF424. For Section 10, applicants should enter “11.431” for the CFDA Number and “Climate and Atmospheric Research” for the title. The form must contain the original signature of an authorized representative of the applying institution.

(b) Primary Applicant Certifications. 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:

(i) Non-Procurement Debarment and Suspension. Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR part 26, § 26.105 105) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, “Non-Procurement Debarment and Suspension” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;

(ii) Drug-Free Workplace. Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR part 26, § 26.605) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, subpart F, “Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;

(iii) Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as defined at 15 CFR part 28, § 28.105) are subject to the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions”, and the lobbying section of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000; and

(iv) 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.

(c) Lower Tier Certifications. 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 the Department of Commerce (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.

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

(B) Past Performance—Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.

(C) Preaward Activities—If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation to the applicant on the part of Department of Commerce to cover pre-award costs.

(D) No Obligation of Future Funding—If an application is selected for funding, the Department of Commerce has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with the award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of the Department of Commerce.

(E) Delinquent Federal Debts—No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:

(i) The delinquent account is paid in full,

(ii) A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received, or

(iii) Other arrangements satisfactory to the Department of Commerce are made.

(F) Name and Check Review—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.

(G) Intergovernmental Review—This program is subject to the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-110, and 15 CFR part 14, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit and Commercial Organizations”, to State and Local Governments”, as applicable. Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

(H) False Statements—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.

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

(J) Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (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 Financial Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs. Institutions eligible to be considered HBCU/MSIs are listed at the following Internet website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/99minin.html.

(K) For awards receiving funding for the collection or production of geospatial data ( e.g., GIS data layers), the recipient will comply to the maximum extent practicable with E.O. 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access, The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 FR 17671 (April 11, 1994). The award recipient shall document all new geospatial data collected or produced using the standard developed by the Federal Geographic Data Center, and make that standardized documentation electronically accessible. The standard can be found at the following Internet website: ( http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/standards/html )

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

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act 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.

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

This notice contains collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0328-0043, 348-0040, and 0348-0046. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Currently, communications users require a number of different identifiers to be reachable through various communications networks and services. For example, a user might have an e-mail address, a telephone number, and a fax number, among others. The ENUM protocol, the result of work of the Internet Engineering Task Force's (IETF's) Telephone Number Mapping working group (<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/enum-charter.html>), is designed to allow communications users to be reachable using standard telephone numbers (E.164 numbers) as a universal communications identifier. The ENUM protocol uses the Internet domain name system (DNS) to resolve E.164 numbers into the specific routing information needed to connect users through a chosen communication path. E.164 is an International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Recommendation that provides the number structure used for international public telecommunication numbering plan. The ENUM protocol itself is defined in IETF document “E.164 number and DNS” (RFC 2916) (see website above).

As part of the its work, the IETF engaged the ITU to consider how number resolution using ENUM might be affected by public switched telephone network infrastructure and telephone numbering plans, such as the ITU E.164 standard. Work in the ITU has been undertaken in ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Study Group 2 (SG 2) Working Party 1 (WP1), which recently held a meeting in Berlin, Germany on October 16-26, 2000. Among other issues, SG2/WP1 meeting discussed issues raised by ENUM, and particularly, the method for administering and maintaining ENUM E.164-based resources in the DNS. The SG2/WP1 meeting resulted in the issuance of a liaison statement to the IETF that set forth a view on how E.164 resources should be administered, as well identifying other issues for further consideration (See <http://www.itu.int/infocom/enum/wp1-39_rev1.htm>).

The December 18 meeting intends to explore and stimulate discussion on issues raised by ENUM, including those raised by recent ITU work. To facilitate an exchange of views, the meeting will be structured as a roundtable discussion. The tentative agenda for the meeting (subject to change) is as follows:

1. Welcome.

2. Technical overview of ENUM and examples of possible services enabled by the ENUM protocol.

3. Exploration and discussion of issues raised by ENUM and ENUM numbering administration.

4. Discussion of ITU SG2/WP1 meeting results and possible US approaches to SG2/WP1 to the issue going forward.

5. Discussion on additional steps for progressing consideration of the issue.

6. Summary.

The meeting will be open to the public an is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals wishing to attend should send an e-mail with the participants name, organizational affiliation, and telephone number to <krose@ntia.doc.gov> with a subject line entitled ENUM ROUNDTABLE or call Ms. Rose at (202) 482-1866 with this information. To facilitate entry into the Department of Commerce building, please have a photo identification and/or a U.S. Government building pass, if applicable. Any member of the public wishing to attend and requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should contact Ms. Rose at least three (3) days prior to the roundtable at the above-listed e-mail address or telephone number.

In a notice published in the Federal Register on September 11, 1996 (61 FR 47892), CITA announced that Customs would be conducting investigations of transshipments of textiles produced in China and exported to the United States. Based on these investigations, the U.S. Customs Service has determined that textile products in certain categories, produced or manufactured in China and entered into the United States with the incorrect country of origin, were entered in circumvention of the Bilateral Textile Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 1, 1997 between the Governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Consultations were held between the Governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China on this matter on June 28-29, 2000 and October 30-31, 2000. In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to charge certain amounts to the 2000 quota levels.

U.S. Customs continues to conduct other investigations of such transshipments of textiles produced in China and exported to the United States. Any charges resulting from these investigations will be published in the Federal Register .

The U.S. Government is taking this action pursuant to the February 1, 1997 MOU between the Governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 69228, published on December 10, 1999.

The current limit for Categories 339/639 is being increased for special shift, reducing the limit for Categories 338/ 638 to account for the special shift being applied.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 50495, published on September 17, 1999.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Oman and exported during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish limits for the 2001 period.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Romania and exported during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 are based on the limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

These limits do not apply to goods entered under the Outward Processing Program, as defined in the notice and letter to the Commissioner of Customs published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1999 (see 64 FR 69746).

Any shipment for entry under the Outward Processing Program which is not accompanied by valid certification in accordance with the provisions established in the notice and letter to the Commissioner of Customs, published in the Federal Register on December 14, 1999 (see 64 FR 69744), shall be denied entry. However, the Government of Romania may authorize the entry and charges to the appropriate specific limits by the issuance of a valid visa. Also see 49 FR 493, as amended, published on January 4, 1984.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2001 limits.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Procedural Requirements for Requests for Interpretative, No-Action, and Exemptive Letters, OMB control number 3038-0049—Extension.

Commission Rule 140.99 requires persons submitting requests for exemptive, no-action, and interpretative letters to provide specific written information, certified as to completeness and accuracy, and to update that information to reflect material changes. The proposed rule was promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Section 8a(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (1994).

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

This estimate is based on the number of requests for such letters in the last three years. Although the burden varies with the type, size, and complexity of the request submitted, such request may involve analytical work and analysis, as well as the work of drafting the request itself.

The Corporation was established in 1993 to engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service to their communities. (See 42 U.S.C. 12501, et seq. ) The Corporation's national and community service programs provide opportunities for participants to serve full-time and part-time, with or without stipend, as individuals or as part of a team. Learn and Serve America integrates community service into the academic life or experiences of more than one and a half million youth from kindergarten through higher education in all 50 states, Indian Tribes and U.S. territories, through grants to state education agencies, community-based organizations, and higher education institutions and organizations. AmeriCorps*State, National, VISTA, and National Civilian Community Corps programs engage thousands of Americans on a full-time or part-time basis, at over 1,000 locations, to help communities meet their toughest challenges. The National Senior Service Corps utilizes the skills, talents and experience of over 500,000 older Americans to help make communities stronger, safer, healthier and smarter. For additional information on the national service programs supported by the Corporation, see the “Glossary of Terms” in Section VI of this Notice or go to http://www.nationalservice.org.

Public-sector agencies, non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian Tribes that: (1) Have extensive experience with administering library and/or Clearinghouse services, and (2) have knowledge of service-learning, are eligible to apply. Pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), which engages in lobbying, is not eligible to apply.

The successful applicant must be a strong administrative entity that offers Clearinghouse services to grantees and the public as “one-stop-shopping” through a single comprehensive website and a toll-free telephone line. It may be necessary, therefore, for applicants to consider planning to work in conjunction with a small number of other organizations to obtain needed expertise. The Corporation wants to minimize the administrative time, effort, and cost associated with managing multiple agreements in the operation of the Clearinghouse and, therefore, values concentration of duties in a minimum number of organizations. Whatever the number of organizations involved, the Corporation requires that the successful applicant and the other organizations present the Clearinghouse to the public as a single entity funded by and working with the Corporation.

A successful applicant must demonstrate an exemplary track record in all relevant areas outlined below, as well as the capacity to handle all tasks with or without contracting for needed services. An applicant that proposes to work in conjunction with others should outline a plan to select, monitor and administer those organizations, including assessing their expertise, and determining the role they will play in meeting the requirements of this Notice. For example (and this is only an example, not a recommendation or requirement), an applicant might have in-house exemplary expertise and capacity in library science and information technology, and may plan to select organizations with exemplary expertise and capacity in school-based service-learning (including tribal service-learning), higher education service-learning, and community-based service-learning. Alternatively, an applicant might have exemplary expertise and capacity in two or more of these areas, thereby reducing the number of organizations involved. In any case, an applicant must indicate in the application its intention to work with other organizations. We anticipate that the successful applicant will select any other organizations within three months of the award. All proposed arrangements with other organizations are subject to Corporation review and approval. Organizations may provide Clearinghouse services even if they are also receiving or applying for other Corporation funds.

Based on previous Clearinghouse competitions and our estimate of potential applicants, we expect fewer than ten applications to be submitted.

Section 118 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12551, authorizes the Corporation to establish a Clearinghouse with respect to information about service-learning. Section 198 of the same Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12653, authorizes the Corporation to provide training and technical assistance in support of activities under the national service laws.

The award made under this Notice will be in the form of a cooperative agreement. Administration of cooperative agreements is pursuant to Uniform Administrative Requirements in Corporation regulations, 45 CFR Part 2541 (for agreements with state and local government agencies) and 45 CFR Part 2543 (for agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals and other non-profit organizations). The awardee must comply with semi-annual program and fiscal reporting requirements, linking progress on deliverables to expenditures.

The Corporation expects that activities funded under the agreement awarded through this Notice will commence on or about April 1, 2001, following the conclusion of the selection and award process. The Corporation will make an award covering a period not to exceed three years. Applications must include a proposed budget and proposed activities for three years, with a line-item budget and detailed workplan for the first one-year budget period only. Of the funds available for this award $300,000 is presently available. We expect that the initial funding will represent roughly one-half of the first year's budget. If the Corporation approves an application and enters into a multi-year award agreement, at the outset it will provide funding based only on funds presently available for the first year's budget, with the balance of the funding for the first year's budget and the subsequent years pending the availability of funding from Congressional appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent years. Additional funding is contingent upon satisfactory performance, availability of funds, and any other criteria established in the award agreement.

To ensure that Clearinghouse library materials collected and generated with Corporation funding for training and technical assistance purposes remain available to the public and readily accessible to grantees and sub-grantees: (1) The awardee will be the custodian of the materials purchased or otherwise obtained for the Clearinghouse library of service-learning information and only for the duration of the cooperative agreement; and (2) the Corporation retains royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable licenses to use, reproduce, publish, or disseminate publications and materials, including data, produced under the agreement, and to authorize others to do so. The awardee must agree to make publications and materials available to the national service field as identified by the Corporation at no cost or at the cost of reproduction. All materials collected and developed for the Corporation must comply with Corporation editorial and publication guidelines. The Clearinghouse is required to make reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities who seek to access the Clearinghouse.

The organization selected under this Notice will provide service-learning Clearinghouse services to Corporation grantees and their sub-grantees, comprising Learn and Serve America programs, AmeriCorps and National Senior Service Corps programs, as well as the general public. This will include: (A) Overall Administration of the Clearinghouse activities; (B) Technology Management, which includes operation and staffing of toll-free telephone lines and assistance, databases, listservs, and a web site; and (C) Information Management, which includes library functions such as: collecting, organizing, analyzing, abstracting and disseminating information and materials about service-learning principles, programs, effective practices, resources, and research. Specific essential functions and deliverables include:

1. Library—Maintain, continuously expand and update the existing Clearinghouse library of high-quality service-learning program and training designs, supporting materials, videos, CD-Roms, curricula, models, effective practices, research and evaluation reports, books, monographs, and periodical literature (not necessarily all physically housed in one place) with web-accessible annotated bibliographies and abstracts.

2. Web Site—Operate, maintain and improve a state-of-the-art, easily navigable World Wide Web site (the point of access for the majority of Clearinghouse users) providing service-learning resources including, but not limited to: a searchable database of abstracted archive holdings; on-line versions of available current printed materials (including papers, articles, essays and other media); a calendar of service-learning events; chat rooms or other web-based communication methods; a directory of Learn and Serve America grantee and subgrantee program information; and a user-friendly annotated list of links to other websites, thereby presenting the Clearinghouse as a primary resource for service-learning on the Web (current site: http://umn.edu/serve).

3. Toll-free telephone lines—Operate and maintain toll-free telephone lines and assistance, accessible nationwide.

4. Program Database—Maintain and update, in collaboration with the Corporation, the existing database of approximately 2,000 Learn and Serve America grantees and subgrantees, searchable through the Clearinghouse website, including program descriptions and aggregate program and participant characteristics.

5. Listservs—Manage listservs of grantees and others with regular postings to stimulate service-learning conversation, share information, and draw attention to upcoming events and new publications (including approximately six lists currently being hosted) and maintain a searchable archive.

6. Marketing—Develop and implement a proactive and cost-effective marketing plan and information dissemination plan for the Clearinghouse and build relationships with the client base. The Corporation expects the Clearinghouse provider to develop and execute effective strategies for working with key service-learning stakeholders, other federal initiatives, and the field.

7. Frequently Asked Questions—Produce at least bi-weekly “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) and answers focusing on pertinent issues and available related resources; publish FAQs on appropriate listservs and make them available in archives on the website and hardcopy.

8. Journal—Publish an annual service-learning journal or monograph with a circulation of at least 7,000, utilizing Learn and Serve America grantees as authors and editorial board members, focusing on themes around current issues in policy and practice in school-based, higher education, and/or community-based service-learning.

9. Collaboration—Collaborate with the National Service-Learning Exchange (the Exchange) and other Corporation-funded national training and technical assistance providers to develop and maintain a system for referring Clearinghouse clients whose needs require training or technical assistance beyond the scope of Clearinghouse responsibilities. In addition, collaborate with the Exchange and other experts to identify and address the field's information needs and resources.

10. Evaluation—Evaluate the impact of Clearinghouse services. Evaluation should focus on client satisfaction with both ease of access and usefulness of information. The evaluation should assess quality and quantity of Clearinghouse services provided, including, but not limited to: website effectiveness and use; on-line and telephone consultation; and materials dissemination in accordance with the essential functions and deliverables of this Notice.

11. Accessible Materials and Services—Provide materials that are accessible to persons with disabilities, and incorporate into all activities planning for needs of clients without Internet access, by using accessible technology, providing materials in alternate formats upon request, captioning videos, and not relying solely on a non-voice-over format, and, when indicating a telephone number, by including a non-voice telephone alternative such as TTY/TDD or e-mail.

12. Wide Range of Materials and Services—Design services that cover a range of basic to advanced topics that can reach and benefit clients who are at different levels of expertise and who may come from a variety of organizations, including remote programs and/or programs in rural areas.

13. Other Activities—Carry out such other activities as the Corporation and the provider reasonably determine to be appropriate.

1. Staff and Consultant Training—Train Clearinghouse staff and consultants as necessary in the background, approach, vocabulary, assets, needs, and objectives of the Corporation and each of its program streams and substreams. (See Section VI, “Glossary of Terms.”)

2. Independent Assessment—In addition to reviewing records submitted by the provider, the Corporation may conduct independent assessments of the provider's performance and expect the provider's cooperation with reasonable requests in this regard.

3. Corporation Meetings—Participate as requested by the Corporation in the planning and implementation of meetings and training events.

4. Collaboration with Others—Collaborate with and support the National Service-Learning Leader Schools program, and the President's Student Service Challenge program, wherever feasible and appropriate, and share effective practices with other providers through the training and technical assistance listserv and other mechanisms ( e.g., the National Service Resource Center see: http://www.etr.org/NSRC/index.html ), and coordinate with other providers in order to avoid duplication.

5. Communications with Corporation Staff—With the Corporation's Clearinghouse Program Officer, develop a plan for on-going communication with the Corporation regarding Clearinghouse activities and the needs of the field.

6. Attribution—Identify the Corporation for National Service as primary sponsor of all Clearinghouse materials and activities in all print, electronic and other communications.

7. Adherence to Circulars—Adhere to all applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars.

You must submit one (1) unbound, original proposal and two (2) copies. You must complete the Standard Form 424 (SF 424)—Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424A (SF 424A)—Budget Forms, and Standard Form 424B (SF 424B)—Assurances. These forms are available on the web at: http://www.nationalservice.org/whatshot/notices. An outline, which must be included, is limited to two pages, while the remainder of this section may be up to 20 additional double-spaced, single-sided, typed pages with at least one inch margins and no smaller than 12-point font. Proposals may not be submitted by facsimile. Proposals must include the following:

A one-to-two page outline of all proposed Clearinghouse activities and materials including a schematic diagram outlining the task and information flow for the proposed design.

Applications must include:

a. Proposed Strategy: The applicant's proposed strategy and supporting rationale for providing service-learning Clearinghouse services to a diverse national audience. The applicant should address the specific deliverables and requirements outlined in Section IV—Scope of National Service-Learning Clearinghouse Activities of this Notice. An application that proposes to work in conjunction with other organizations must outline a plan to select, monitor and administer these organizations, including assessing the organization's expertise, and determining the role they will play in meeting the requirements of this Notice.

b. Work Plan: A detailed one-year work plan and timeline for completing all Clearinghouse activities. The work plan should include all deliverables and the tasks leading to them. The work plan should account for necessary start-up activities, including the transfer of the Clearinghouse collection of print, video, and other library materials, as well as electronic files, from the current provider.

c. Evaluation Plan: A plan for regularly evaluating performance and reporting findings and proposed improvements to the Corporation.

a. Organizational Chart: An organizational chart that clearly shows the place of the Clearinghouse provider in its parent organization's structure, as well as that of other relevant units of the parent organization, and the proposed relationship of any organizations to the provider.

b. Organizational Capacity Narrative:

Describe your:

i. capacity to provide nationwide Clearinghouse services, as outlined in this notice, under the direction of a single administrative entity;

ii. capacity to collect and disseminate information and materials related to service-learning or plan to contract with organizations having specific recognized capacity to complement the provider's experience to address all essential functions effectively;

iii. capacity in modern information systems, including website design and management, listserv management, database management, fax on demand and print-scanning capacity, or a plan to contract with organizations having specific recognized capacity to provide these services;

iv. knowledge of and/or experience with service-learning in: K-12 schools; higher education institutions; community-based organizations; Tribes and U.S. territories, especially Learn and Serve America grantees and subgrantees; and AmeriCorps, National Senior Service Corps and other programs and projects involved in service-learning;

v. financial management capacity to operate the Clearinghouse; and

vi. staff strengths and backgrounds. (Resumes shall be included in an appendix; this information is not subject to the page limits that are otherwise applicable.)

Include a detailed, line-item budget for the first year with hours and costs organized by activities and deliverables outlined in the main strategy and work plan narrative, and a projected overall budget for the second and third years. Use Standard Form 424B for the first year budget information. This form does not count towards the 20-page limit. Financial reporting throughout the term of the cooperative agreement must be organized so that all costs are attributed to specific activities and deliverables. Costs in proposed budgets must consist solely of costs allowable under applicable cost principles found in OMB Circulars A-21, A-122, and/or A-87, as appropriate. [OMB website:— http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/Circulars/index.html ] Provider match is not required. The Corporation welcomes, however, any evidence that its funding leverages other resources.

Provide a budget narrative that is organized to parallel all items in the line-item budget and that includes the explanation and cost basis for all cost estimates that appear in the line-item budget. The narrative should clearly show how each cost was derived, using equations to reflect all factors considered, including unit costs of deliverables, where applicable.

Items may include:

i. A list of references that can be contacted related to this work;

ii. Referral to the address of an applicant-designed web site;

iii. A brochure or other publicity item, and/or

iv. Staff resumes.

(Do not submit video or cassette tapes.)

To ensure fairness to all applicants, the Corporation reserves the right to disqualify any proposal that fails to comply with the requirements relating to submission deadline, page limits, line spacing, margins and font size. The Corporation will assess qualified applications based on the criteria listed below. Staff may conduct interviews in person or through conference calls before recommending an organization for approval. Following the review process, we will notify applicants of their status in writing.

The Corporation will consider the quality of the proposed activities based on:

a. Soundness of Proposed Strategy: Evidence of the cost-effectiveness, comprehensiveness, and creativity of applicant's approach to providing services as described in this Notice.

b. Understanding of the Corporation's Programs: Evidence of the applicant's understanding and ability to meet the Corporation's service-learning Clearinghouse essential functions as outlined in this Notice, the goals of the Department of Service-Learning, and the goals of the Corporation for National Service (see Section VI. “Glossary” and the Corporation for National Service website: www.nationalservice.org ).

The Corporation will consider the organizational capacity of the applicant to deliver the proposed services based on:

a. Organizational and Staff Experience: Evidence of organizational and staff capability and experience in administration, delivery of high-quality information services in a flexible, responsive, collaborative and creative manner, and experience or knowledge of service-learning.

b. Grant Experience: Demonstrated ability either to manage federal funding or to otherwise apply sound fiscal management principles to grants and cost accounting.

The Corporation will consider how the applicant plans to evaluate its work based on:

a. Scope of Plan—Assessment of the effectiveness of—and need for—its services and products delivered under the award, which may include a review of stakeholder satisfaction, a survey of users, and/or a feedback section on the website.

b. Continuous Improvement—Plans to use assessments of its services and products to modify and improve subsequent services and products.

The Corporation will consider the budget based on:

a. Cost-effectiveness: Cost of each proposed activity in relation to the scope and depth of the services proposed. A demonstrated commitment to providing services in the most cost-effective manner possible will be a major consideration in the evaluation of proposals.

b. Scope: Comprehensiveness of the budget related to the proposed Clearinghouse activity ( e.g., publications, website improvements, listserv interventions, etc.).

c. Clarity: The thoroughness of the budget and budget narrative, including the basis for all cost estimates (see specifications under “Budget Narrative”).

The Corporation's Department of Service-Learning (DSL) long-term goals are to:

DSL 1. Identify, enhance, and promote the direct and demonstrable “getting things done” outcomes of student service and service-learning.

DSL 2. Identify, enhance, and promote the community-strengthening outcomes of student service and service-learning.

DSL 3. Identify, enhance, and promote the participant development outcomes of student service and service-learning.

DSL 4. Facilitate the progression from community service to quality service-learning within and across the sectors of Learn and Serve America, throughout the field of service-learning and within the streams of national service.

DSL 5. Increase the number of individuals who participate in service-learning including but not limited to all relevant stakeholders, and especially the participation of students in service-learning from kindergarten through higher education.

DSL 6. Foster, strengthen, and identify civic participation as an outcome of service-learning.

DSL 7. Improve the quality and practice of service-learning through professional and leadership development.

DSL 8. Engage, support, and recognize youth and students as leaders in the design and implementation of effective student service and service-learning initiatives.

While we refer to our participants as students, we encompass all youth, parents, educators and adult volunteers in our goals and priorities.

Entities funded directly by the Corporation. These include and are not limited to: state commissions; state education agencies; Indian Tribes and U.S. Territories; AmeriCorps National Direct parent organizations; institutions, consortia and organizations of higher education; local governments; and non-profit organizations. Many grantees also subgrant a significant portion of their funds to others ( e.g., a State Commission conducts a competition and review process and funds AmeriCorps programs throughout a State; a State Education Agency (SEA) conducts a competition and review process and funds school systems throughout a state). None of the 1,300 Senior Corps grantees is permitted to subgrant.

The National Service-Learning Exchange, led by the National Youth Leadership Council, supports service-learning programs in schools, institutions of higher education, and community organizations through peer-based training and technical assistance. The Exchange links programs with local peer mentors, refers programs to regional trainers, and informs programs of regional service-learning events and initiatives. http://www.lsaexchange.org/

The National Service Resource Center (NSRC) serves as a repository of information on all aspects of national service. The NSRC manages most of the Corporation's listservs and its web site includes a calendar of training events and links to all current providers. The NSRC also has a lending library. Training and technical assistance publications are posted or distributed by the NSRC. Providers must be required to submit copies of their training materials and training scripts to the National Service Resource Center. http://www.etr.org/NSRC/index.html.

The Corporation uses the definition provided in the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (section 101 (23); 42 U.S.C. 12511 (23)), which defines service-learning as an educational method:

• Under which students or participants learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of a community;

• That is coordinated within an elementary school, secondary school, institution of higher education, or community service program, and with the community;

• That helps foster civic responsibility;

• That is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the students, or the educational components of the community service program in which the participant is enrolled; and

• That provides structured time for the students or participants to reflect on the service experience.

Refers to the Corporation's three main programs: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America and National Senior Service Corps.

Many Corporation grantees competitively award a significant portion of their funds to other entities known as subgrantees. State Commissions, for example, subgrant to local non-profit organizations. Senior Corps programs do not subgrant (see “Grantees”).

Refers to the categories within each of the above streams and includes the following:

AmeriCorps: AmeriCorps*State; AmeriCorps*National Direct; AmeriCorps*VISTA; AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps.

Learn and Serve America: Learn and Serve America K-12 School-Based, Community-Based Programs and Tribal Programs; Learn and Serve America Higher Education Programs.

National Senior Service Corps: Foster Grandparent Program; Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP); Senior Companion Program.

Training and Technical Assistance Listserv: Currently managed by the National Service Resource Center, the training and technical assistance listserv is one of the ways providers share best practices with one another. Providers also share effective practices through the National Service Resource Center and the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Annual Performance Reporting Forms for National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Grantees (Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs), Rehabilitation Research Training Centers (RRTCs), Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs), Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs), Model Systems, Dissemination & Utilization Projects).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 193.

 Burden Hours: 3,088.

Abstract: This data collection will be conducted annually to obtain program and performance information from NIDRR grantees on their project activities. The information collected will assist federal NIDRR staff in responding to Government Performance and Results Act. Data will primarily be collected through an internet form.

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

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: America's Career Resource Network State Grant Annual Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 59.

 Burden Hours: 4,720.

Abstract: Section 118(e) of the Carl D. Perkins Act (PL 105-332) requires the Department of Education to report annually to Congress on specific activities carried out by States via grants under Section 118. This information can be obtained via the annual progress reports required of grantees by Section 74.51 Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).

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

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Evaluation of the Federal Class Size Reduction Program.

Frequency: On occasion.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 1,298.

 Burden Hours: 1,044.

Abstract: For the past two years, the federal government has supported an effort to promote the hiring of high quality teachers to reduce the size of classrooms in the early elementary grades. This evaluation looks at the early implementation of the program and assesses how the federal class size reduction (CSR) funds were spent, what issues arose in implementing the program, the impact of the program on class size, and the impact of the program on teaching.

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

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Jacqueline Montague at (202) 708-5359 or via her internet address Jackie_Montague@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Through Program Solicitation DE-PS26-01NT40951, the DOE is interested in applications from U.S. colleges and universities, as well as university-affiliated research centers submitting applications through their respective universities. Applications will be selected to complement and enhance research being conducted in related Fossil Energy Programs. Applications may be submitted individually ( i.e., by only one college/university or one college subcontracting with one other college/university) or jointly ( i.e., by “teams” made up of (1) three or more colleges/universities, or (2) two or more colleges/universities and at least one industrial partner. Collaboration, in the form of joint proposals, is encouraged but not required.

Eligibility. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation must address coal research in one of the key focus areas of the Core Program or as outlined in the Innovative Concepts Phase-I & Phase-II Programs.

Background. The current landscape of the U.S. energy industry, not unlike that in other parts of the world, is undergoing a transformation driven by changes such as deregulation of power generation, more stringent environmental standards and regulations, climate change concerns, and other market forces. Energy from coal-fired powerplants will continue to play a dominant role as an energy source, and therefore, it is prudent to use this resource wisely and ensure that it remains part of the sustainable energy solution.

Clean, efficient, competitively priced coal-derived products, and low-cost environmental compliance and energy systems remain key to our continuing prosperity and our commitment to tackle environmental challenges, including climate change. Technological advances finding their way into future markets could result in advanced co-production and co-processing facilities around the world, based upon Vision 21 technologies developed through universities, government, and industry partnerships.

This Vision 21 concept, in many ways is the culmination of decades of power and fuels research and development. Within the Vision 21 plants, the full energy potential of fossil fuel feedstocks and “opportunity” feedstocks such as biomass, petroleum coke, and other materials that might otherwise be considered as wastes, can be tapped by integrating advanced technology “modules.” To accomplish the program objective, to advance the science of coal R&D directed at resolving our energy and environmental issues, applications will be accepted in three program areas: (1) The Core Program and (2) the Innovative Concepts Phase-I Program, and (3) the Innovative Concepts Phase-II Program.

DOE has allotted $2 million to fund 8 to 10 projects in this program area. The goal of this area is to complement and enhance applied research conducted in related Fossil Energy Programs. Funding is contingent on the length of the project and varies from $80,000, $140,000, or $200,000 for a project performance period of 12, 13-24, or 25-60 months, respectively for institutions submitting a single application. Additionally, an institution teaming with two other colleges or universities or two colleges/universities teaming with at least one industrial partner is eligible to receive $400,000 in funding for a 36-month project. Joint University/Industry applications must specify a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) cost sharing of the total proposed project cost. At least one student must receive financial assistance throughout the duration of the grant.

Under the Core Program, research in this area is limited to the following six (6) Core Focus Areas and is listed numerically in descending order of programmatic priority.

1. Advanced Sensors for Vision 21 Systems —US DOE is interested in unique approaches in developing advanced sensors and control systems for advanced efficient energy production with zero emission, and related by-product production as envisioned in Vision 21 plans. Future energy production facilities may operate at high temperature environment, real-time temperature measurement (to 3000 °F) of flame, and surfaces (including slags) is needed. Miniaturized temperature sensors that can perform these tasks are a plus. Eliminating fine particulate is critical for gasification and for emission control. Grant applications are sought for proposals to develop particulate sensors capable of measuring concentration, size, and distribution of fine particulate. Particle sizes of interest are from a fraction of a millimeter down to microns. In addition, sensors for measuring trace contaminants in fuels and/or carbon dioxide from advanced gas separation processes would be needed to eliminate any interference with their utilization. Sensors using new mechanisms and with digital output that can be connected into control systems would be preferable. The intended applications are energy production related including advanced combustion facilities, gasifiers, turbines, flue gas cleanup and monitoring, fuel cells, and carbon sequestration, etc.

2. Materials Development for Advanced Systems Through Nanostructure Science and Technology —Nanostructured materials are believed to have the potential to revolutionize the way materials are created and used. Any material (metal, ceramic, polymer, glass, composite) created from nanoscale building blocks (clusters or nanoparticles, nanotubes, nanolayers, etc.) that are themselves synthesized from atoms and molecules, can be assembled to form novel structures with unique properties unlike those exhibited by materials composed of microstructures. Thus with the ability to synthesize and control materials in nanometer dimensions, new materials with unprecedented performance properties can be designed [1].

This focus area seeks proposals that will emphasize synthesis, characterization, or engineering development of nanoscale materials that have direct application to advanced power and ultra-clean fuels systems, such as those described in the Vision 21 Program. The DOE-NETL is particularly interested in those projects that seek a new and improved understanding of the relationships between nanostructures and properties and how these can be manipulated to improve efficiencies and performance. For example, nanostructured alloys may hold the potential to be competitors to some oxide dispersion-strengthened ferritic alloys currently being considered for high-temperature heat exchanger tubing, or ultrahigh temperature materials such as the Laves phases intermetallic alloys ( e.g., Cr-Cr 2 Nb or Cr-Cr 2 Ta).

Grant applications are sought for proposals to develop novel, ultrahigh temperature nanostructured alloys and that explores structure/property relationships would be of great interest. Other areas of programmatic interest include using nanostructured materials as advanced environmental barrier coatings, elucidating a better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms in plastic/elastic deformation and fracture of nanostructured materials, synthesizing, characterizing or using nanostructured carbons, or other similar derivatives, as hydrogen storage materials or in gas (H 2 , CO 2 , CO, CH 4 , etc.) separation processes.

3. Solid-Oxide Fuel Cells —Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) are a very promising energy conversion technology for utilization of fossil fuels. A new Department of Energy initiative the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) is currently focused on providing the technology to commercialize 400/kW SOFC systems by 2010. It is envisioned that this technology will provide a key component in an integrated coal based Vision 21 power plant. The high temperatures of operation (necessary for adequate ionic conductivity and kinetics) conventionally require layered ceramic materials in a solid state configuration. Research opportunities exist in making high power density SOFCs a commercial reality. Topics being considered for this solicitation are new compatible intermediate temperature material combinations (500-800 °C) for the cell structure, new sulfur and/or oxygen tolerant anode materials, and new cathode materials with good kinetics in the intermediate temperature range. In addition, research addressing the integration of SOFC's into a Vision 21 coal-based power plant is of interest.

Grant applications are sought for proposals to develop intermediate temperature material sets for Solid-Oxide Fuel Cells or addressing SOFC integration issues in Vision 21 coal-based power plants. The intermediate temperature range of interest is 500°C to 800°C although an individual concept does not have to be applicable to the entire range. The concepts and materials proposed must be compatible as part of a fully functional SOFC stack with a lifetime of 40,000 hours. The concepts and materials must be economically compatible with a 2010 SECA cost goal of $100/kW for the fuel cell stack and a $400/kW total system cost. Proposals can address one or all of the research issues, as well as the stated lifetime, compatibility, and economic criteria.

4. Modeling of Molecule-surface Interactions —Recent advances in modeling algorithms and computational capabilities have permitted some development of highly detailed computational models of molecule-surface interactions. Such models are of great interest to those developing catalytic materials because the models may suggest more fruitful directions and eliminate unproductive pathways. Further development will permit predictive models that may be able to chemically describe the ideal catalyst for a desired reaction pathway. Grant applications are desired for application and validation of such models to catalytic systems that would produce synthetic fuels or chemicals from coal based synthesis gas.

5. Liquid Transportation Fuels/hydrocarbon Reformulation —Fuel cell power may provide a viable pathway for the transportation industry to deploy high efficiency, ultra-low emissions vehicles. Two sources for the hydrogen fuel include centralized production or on-board production of hydrogen through reforming of liquid hydrocarbon mixtures. The latter route could enable nearer-term utilization of fuel cell power until a hydrogen distribution infrastructure is established. Coal-derived Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) liquids are candidate hydrogen carriers for the vehicle's refoming units because of their favorable hydrogen to carbon ratio and near-zero sulfur content. Other chemicals such as methanol or chemical mixtures other than F-T liquids may also have advantages as hydrogen sources. However, the chemistry involved in reforming these hydrocarbons needs to be better understood, particularly the nature of the by-products.

Grant applications are sought for proposals to investigate the kinetics and thermodynamics of the reforming chemistry associated with converting a selected hydrocarbon (other than methane) or hydrocarbon mixture to hydrogen and byproduct species. A combination of modeling and laboratory research is also needed to provide the basis for more comprehensive evaluations of the merits of utilizing selected hydrogen carriers for fuel cell applications.

6. Modeling of Refractory Materials in Coal Gasification Systems —Refractories represent a critical material for the commercial operation of future Vision 21 Systems. Refractories for public utility systems constitute less than 1 percent of all refractories produced, with coal gasification systems comprising only a small part of this total. Much of the research for coal gasification systems was conducted in the 1980s and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Refractory manufacturers have little incentive to develop materials for a coal gasifier market that may exist 10-15 years in the future.

Specific examples of refractory needs in fossil fuel power generation include higher temperature applications in slagging gasifiers, materials able to withstand both oxidizing and reducing environments, high thermal conductivity materials for use in areas where rapid heat transfer is necessary (to increase operating efficiency), and materials with sufficient thermal shock resistance to withstand both scheduled and non-scheduled shut downs. Grant applications are sought for proposals to develop refractory material models which consider the combined effect of chemical or phase changes in the material and thermal cycling on the stress state of the refractory.

DOE has also allotted $0.25 million to fund up to five, $50,000 12-months Innovative Concepts Phase-I projects. The goal of this area is to solicit unique approaches to address fossil energy-related issues that represent “out-of-the-box” thinking and not simply incremental improvements to accelerate solutions to energy and environmental problems. Like the Core Program Area, single and joint applications are invited, however, no additional funding is provided for team applications. Unlike the Core Program, student participation in the IC Phase-I proposed research is strongly encouraged, however, not required.

Innovative research in the coal conversion and utilization areas will be required if coal is to continue to play a dominant role in the generation of electric power. Technical topics like the ones identified below are potential examples of research areas of interest, however, the areas identified were not intended to be all-encompassing. Therefore, it is specifically emphasized that other subjects for coal research would receive the same evaluation and consideration for support as the examples cited in the following Innovative Concepts Phase-I Technical Topics:

Mercury and Other Trace Emissions in Advanced Power Systems —Attractive features of Advanced Power Systems include the ability to accommodate a wide variety of fuel and waste feedstocks and converting the hydrocarbon-based input to simple nonhazardous byproducts. Gasification Systems, in addition, can produce consistent high-quality synthesis gas products that can be used as a building block for chemical manufacturing processes. Laboratory measurements and development of sampling techniques for mercury in reduced gasification conditions, provide first steps to understanding partitioning and removal of mercury and other trace matter in such environments. A recent study indicated that gasification could convert hazardous materials to nonhazardous gases and ashes, and as such justifies a separate treatment relative to incineration in the context of environmental protection and economics.

Grant applications are sought to further understand partioning and removal of mercury and other trace metal and organic substances in Advanced Systems and possible effects due to hot-gas cleanup devices on such trace matter. Objectives of understanding processes involving mercury and other trace matter must intend to ultimately help in minimizing and controlling trace emissions.

Thermodynamic Measurements for Mixtures of Asymmetric Hydrocarbons —Knowledge of the thermodynamics and phase behavior of mixtures of short-chain and long-chain ( i.e., those C 20 and higher) alkanes is central to the understanding and comprehensive modeling of three-phase, Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) reactors. Subsequent process operations and reactor performance is strongly dependent on the composition of the wax phase, whose composition is constrained by the vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) that exists in the reactor. Knowledge of such vapor-liquid equilibrium values is also necessary for an understanding of retrograde condensation for examining wax precipitation in natural gas reservoir pipelines and many applications in petroleum processing, such as propane deasphalting.

Thermodynamic models ( i.e., equations of state) developed for hydrocarbon mixtures, and used for years, are poor predictors of VLE data when the mixtures contain alkanes longer than C 20 . Attempts to circumvent this problem by use of equations of state developed for polymer-solvent systems have also been inadequate for modeling these asymmetric mixtures of hydrocarbons. Clearly, there is a need for a generalized thermodynamic model that can be applied to these systems.

Grant applications are desired for measurement of vapor-liquid equilibria for mixtures of light and heavy hydrocarbons, under appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure, so as to provide the basis for a comprehensive equation-of-state that would address such mixtures and their applications to hydrocarbon processing.

Carbon Sequestration —The potential effects of increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels are of major worldwide concern. If left unabated, increasing anthropogenic CO 2 emissions are expected to double atmospheric CO 2 levels by the middle of the century. One alternative for managing CO 2 emissions, which maintains the many benefits of coal-fired power, is carbon sequestration: the capture and secure storage of CO 2 before it is emitted to the atmosphere. However, major challenges must be overcome before suitable carbon sequestration technologies can be developed. These technologies must be environmentally benign, economically viable, safe and effective. They must also provide permanent containment to avoid creating negative environmental legacies for future generations.

Carbon dioxide sequestration as a carbonate mineral (CO 2 mineral sequestration) is an attractive candidate technology, as it can provide permanent, environmentally benign CO 2 disposal. The carbonates produced ( e.g., MgCO 3 and CaCO 3 ) already exist in vast quantities in nature and have proven stable over geological time. The major challenge is economically viable process development. Novel methods that address the cost concerns of CO 2 mineral sequestration need to be studied.

Grant applications are sought to investigate key aspects of CO 2 mineral sequestration process development. Methods that have the potential to substantially reduce worldwide CO 2 emissions are of particular interest. Considerations of interest to reduce overall process cost include, but are not limited to, (i) improving process efficiency, e.g., reaction rates and conditions, (ii) use of inexpensive feedstock materials, and (iii) the generation of marketable process products. Emphasis should be placed on approaches that are technically, economically, and environmentally feasible.

The Innovative Concepts Phase-II Program is the principal R&D effort under the IC Program. DOE has budgeted $600,000 to fund three, three-year $200,000 projects. The goal of the IC Phase-II Program is to solicit additional research in areas previously included in the Phase-I Program. Phase-II awards are expected to be made during fiscal year 2001 to institutions with approaches that offer sufficient promising from Phase-I efforts. Consequently, only winners of a one-year Phase I grant awarded in FY99 will be considered eligible for a phase II grant. It is anticipated that at least 2-3 institutions submitting an application with approaches that appear sufficiently promising from the Phase-I efforts could receive a Phase-II award in 2001. Similar to the Core Program, student participation is required throughout the duration of the grant.

DOE/NETL intends to select a group of projects programmatically balanced with respect to : (1) Technology category (equipment end uses, envelopes and whole buildings); (2) building type (residential and/or commercial); and (3) time of commercialization (short-term or long-term market potential of the technology). The solicitation will cover research and development on materials, components and systems applicable to both residential and commercial buildings. The solicitation will not support demonstration projects to deploy the technology on a large scale but will support proof of concept projects. The research and development areas of interest are as follows: Building Equipment—energy conversion and control equipment supplying lighting, space conditioning (heating, cooling, dehumidification and ventilation), water heating, refrigeration, and appliance services to building occupants and commercial operations; Building Envelope—materials, components and systems for windows, walls, roofs, foundations and other elements which comprise building exteriors and provide thermal integrity and daylighting; and Whole Building Technologies—the integration of components and systems which govern overall energy use and indoor environmental quality in a building.

The solicitation covers research in four technology maturation stages. Technology Maturation Stage 2 involves applied research; Technology Maturation Stage 3 involves exploratory development (non-specific applications and bench-scale testing); Technology Maturation Stage 4 involves advanced development (specific applications and bench-scale testing); and Maturation Stage 5 involves engineering development (pilot-scale and/or field testing). For projects spanning more than one maturation stage, continuation decision points will be inserted at the completion of each stage. Multiple awards are expected regardless of the technology maturation stage(s) proposed.

It is DOE's desire to encourage the widest participation, including the involvement of small business concerns and small disadvantaged business concerns. In order to gain the necessary expertise to review applications, non-Federal personnel may be used as evaluators or advisors in the evaluation of applications, but will not serve as members of the technical evaluation team. This particular program is covered by Section 3001 and 3002 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), 42 U.S.C. 13542 for financial assistance awards. EPAct 3002 requires a cost share commitment of at least 20 percent from non-Federal sources for research and development projects. Not all of the necessary funds are currently available for this solicitation; the Government's obligation under any cooperative agreement awarded is contingent upon the availability of appropriated FY2002 and FY2003 funds.