Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25313

Authority

Issuance of permits and permit

modifications, as required by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on a

finding that such permits/modifications:

(1) Are applied for in good faith; (2)

would not operate to the disadvantage

of the listed species which are the

subject of the permits; and (3) are

consistent with the purposes and

policies set forth in section 2 of the

ESA. Authority to take listed species is

subject to conditions set forth in the

permits. Permits and modifications are

issued in accordance with and are

subject to the ESA and NMFS

regulations governing listed fish and

wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–226).

All statements and opinions

contained in the permit action

summaries are those of the applicant

and do not necessarily reflect the views

of NMFS.

Species Covered in this Notice

The following species, runs, and

evolutionarily significant units (ESU’s)

are covered in this notice:

Sea Turtles

Endangered leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea).

Fish

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha): Threatened Snake River

(SnR) fall, threatened SnR spring/

summer, endangered upper Columbia

River (UCR) spring.

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka):

Endangered SnR.

Steelhead (O. mykiss): Endangered

UCR.

Permits and Modifications Issued

Notice was published on

April 26, 1999 (64 FR 20266), that

OCFWRU had applied for a

modification to permit 1136.

Modification 1 to permit 1136 was

issued on April 13, 2000, and authorizes

OCFWRU to capture fish at two

additional locations: Little Goose Dam

on the Snake River and John Day Dam

on the Columbia River. Modification 1

also authorizes OCFWRU annual takes

of juvenile naturally produced and

artificially propagated UCR spring

chinook salmon. Lethal take and

indirect mortalities of juvenile naturally

produced and artificially propagated

UCR spring chinook salmon associated

with the research are also authorized. A

second notice of receipt was published

on May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25873)

because NMFS had received an

amended modification request seeking

an increase in the annual take of ESAlisted fish associated with the research.

The additional take is authorized to

accommodate expected increased

abundance of some species in 1999.

Modification 1 is valid for the duration

of permit 1136, which expires on

December 31, 2000.

Notice was published on March

25, 1999 (64 FR 14432), that GCPUD

had applied for a modification to

scientific research permit 1141.

Modification 1 to permit 1141 was

issued on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 25873)

but did not include annual takes of UCR

spring chinook salmon. Permit 1141

authorizes GCPUD annual takes of adult

and juvenile naturally produced and

artificially propagated UCR steelhead

associated with four scientific research

studies at or in the vicinity of Wanapum

and Priest Rapids Dams located on the

upper Columbia River in Washington.

The purpose of Study 1 is to monitor

outmigrating adult and juvenile

steelhead condition, survival, and travel

time relative to spill effectiveness at the

dams. The purpose of Study 2 is to

substantiate and document

hydroacoustic accuracy at Wanapum

Dam. The purpose of Study 3 is to

evaluate the relative abundance of the

fish fauna inhabiting the Priest Rapids

project area. The purpose of Study 4 is

to assess the survival of juvenile,

artificially propagated, UCR steelhead as

they migrate past Wanapum and Priest

Rapids Dams. Notice is hereby given

that NMFS issued an amendment to

permit 1141 on April 13, 2000. The

permit amendment authorizes GCPUD

annual takes of adult and juvenile

naturally produced and artificially

propagated UCR spring chinook salmon

associated with Studies 1 and 3. The

permit amendment also authorizes the

take of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead

associated with Study 3 annually for the

duration of the permit. The amendment

is valid for the duration of permit 1141,

which expires on December 31, 2002.

Notice was published on October 22,

1999 (64 FR 57069), that PD–SWFSC

had applied for a scientific research

permit. Permit 1227 was issued on April

18, 2000, and authorizes takes of

leatherback turtles in Monterey Bay, CA

as part of a stock identification and

movement study. Permit 1227 expires

on December 31, 2002.

Dated: April 23, 2000.

Wanda L. Cain,

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office

of Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10796 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request—Follow-Up

Activities for Product-Related Injuries

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35), the Commission announces

that it has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget a request for

an extension of the existing approval of

collections of information conducted

during follow-up activities for productrelated injuries.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before May 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be captioned ‘‘Product-Related Injuries’’

and mailed to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Attention:

Desk Officer for CPSC, 725 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20503. Copies of

comments also may be mailed to the

Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207; delivered to the

Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission, Room 502,

4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,

Maryland 20814, telephone (301) 504–

0800; telefacsimilied to (301) 504–0127;

or emailed to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CONTACT: Linda Glatz, Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20207; 301–504–0416

ext. 2226 or by email to lglatz@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

Section 5(a) of the Consumer Product

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2054(a)) requires

the Commission to collect information

related to the cause and prevention of

death, injury, and illness associated

with consumer products, and to conduct

continuing studies and investigations of

deaths, injuries, diseases, and economic

losses resulting from accidents

involving consumer products. The

Commission uses this information to

support rulemaking proceedings,

development and improvement of

voluntary standards, information and

education programs, and administrative

and judicial proceedings to remove

unsafe products from the marketplace

and consumers’ homes.

Persons who have been involved

with, or who have witnessed, incidents

associated with consumer products are

an important source of information

25314 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

about deaths, injuries, and illnesses

resulting from such incidents. From

consumer complaints, newspaper

accounts, death certificates, hospital

emergency room reports, and other

sources, the Commission selects a

limited number of accidents for

investigation. These investigations may

involve face-to-face or telephone

interviews with accident victims,

witnesses, or other persons having

relevant knowledge.

As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35) (PRA), the Commission

obtained the approval of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for this

collection of information (OMB control

No. 3041–0029). The current approval

expires May 31, 2000. The extension is

requested through May 31, 2003.

In the Federal Register of January 4,

2000 (65 FR 290), the Consumer Product

Safety Commission published a notice,

required by the PRA, to announce the

agency’s intention to seek extension of

approval of this collection of

information, through May 31, 2003. The

estimated burden of this collection of

information is 752 hours per year lower

than the burden estimated for the

currently approved collection. The

Commission received one comment,

from representatives of seven

manufacturers of all-terrain vehicles

(ATV’s). A summary of this comment,

and the Commission’s response, is

provided later in this notice.

2. Additional Details About the Request

for Approval of a Collection of

Information

Agency address: Consumer Product

Safety Commission, Washington, DC

20207.

Title of information collection:

Follow-Up Activities for ProductRelated Injuries.

Type of request: Extension of

approval.

Frequency of collection: One time for

each respondent.

General description of respondents:

Persons who have been involved in,

have witnessed, or otherwise have

knowledge of incidents associated with

consumer products.

Estimated number of respondents:

Total 8,500: 1,600 subjects of in-depth

investigations (IDI’s) to be interviewed

by telephone and 400 IDI’s to be

interviewed at the incident site; 2,500

persons who fill out forms on the

Commission’s internet web site or in

Commission publications; and 4,000

persons to be interviewed by CPSC’s

Hotline operators.

Estimated annual average number of

hours per respondent: 20 min. for each

telephone interview; 5.0 hours for each

on-site interview; 12 min. to fill out a

form; 10 min. for each Hotline

interview.

Estimated total annual number of

hours for all respondents: 3,700.

3. Comments on the Commission’s

Federal Register Notice Announcing its

Intention to Request an Extension of the

Approval of this Collection of

Information

As noted above, the Commission

received one comment, from

representatives of seven manufacturers

of all-terrain vehicles (ATV’s), on its

previous Federal Register notice

announcing its intention to request an

extension of the approval of this

collection of information. A summary of

this comment, and the Commission’s

response, is given below.

Comment 1. ‘‘The Proposed Extension

Notice Indicates CPSC Is Shifting Away

From In-Depth Investigations and

Increasingly Relying on Unverified

Information Submitted By Consumers or

Their Legal Representatives.’’

Response. The lower number of IDI’s

between the submissions to OMB in the

year 1997 and the year 2000 does not

reflect any basic change in CPSC’s

investigation philosophy.

In 1997, the clearance request covered

700 on-site and 2200 telephone

investigations, so that CPSC would have

clearance to follow up on every case

CPSC analysts determined required an

investigation. However, fewer cases

than estimated were actually conducted.

The 2000 clearance request (400 on-site

and 1600 telephone investigations) is

consistent with the actual number of

investigations now being conducted

annually and with the Commission’s

current resource allocations.

To broaden the scope of data

collection, the Commission continues to

use multiple data sources, including

some anecdotal sources. Newsclips,

consumer complaints, coroner reports,

and reports received through our

Hotline are examples of such anecdotal

data sources used by the Commission.

The addition of Internet sites to the data

collection sources reflects CPSC’s

continuing efforts to broaden the scope

of data collection efforts by identifying

and using additional sources as

appropriate.

Anecdotal data may help identify

hazard patterns that deserve further

attention. However, anecdotal data are

not used as the basis for product safety

determinations. Those determinations

use data provided by in-depth

investigations. Often, the extent to

which an incident is susceptible to

independent verification cannot be

determined until some follow up,

covered by this approval request, is

conducted.

Comment 2. ‘‘Information Submitted

to CPSC Through the Hotline or Over

the Internet Regarding Products Such as

ATVs is Unverified, Inherently Suspect

and Thus of No Practical Utility for

Hazard Identification or Analysis.’’

Response. Although anecdotal data

are collected and utilized by the

Commission, these data are not treated

as a scientific sample and are not used

to make safety determinations about

ATV’s. Except where states forbid

contact with next-of-kin or the initiation

of investigations when the source of

information is a death certificate, all

ATV-related death incidents reported to

the Commission are substantiated by

exhaustive IDI’s. Therefore, the number

of ATV investigations is directly related

to the number of reports received

through the various data sources

utilized by the Commission. For ATVrelated injuries, the Commission relies

upon the scientific sample provided by

its National Electronic Injury

Surveillance System (NEISS), a

stratified cluster sample of reports of

hospital emergency-room-treated

product-related injuries.

The increase in the number of callers

to the Commission’s Hotline reflected in

the submission to OMB results, at least

in part, from Commission efforts to

expand and improve information

approaches in order to increase public

awareness about its role in product

safety. For the year 2000 request, CPSC

has used the number of incidents

expected to be reported to the Hotline

(4000) as the number of persons

expected to be interviewed by

telephone.

Incident reports received through the

Hotline are also an important source of

incidents assigned for investigation. The

decision whether to investigate a

product-related incident can involve a

number of factors, including the

perceived seriousness of the hazard and

the number of similar incidents

reported.

The Commission’s use of the Internet

as a data source is a fairly recent

example of efforts to expand data

collection efforts. The increase in the

number of incident reports gathered

from the Internet reflects increased use

of the Internet. The Internet is a new

source of very important incident data,

but very few of these reports pertain to

ATV’s.

These reports are never used as a

substitute for investigations. CPSC has

historically investigated every ATVrelated death. This practice has not

changed.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25315

Comment 3. ‘‘CPSC Must Be Careful

To Avoid Mischaracterization In Its IDIs

Regarding ATVs’’

Response. CPSC investigators are

trained to report the sequence of events

in ATV incidents, not just the

precipitating event. In each of the cases

cited by the commenters as examples of

mischaracterization, the investigator

correctly reported a collision. Any

overturn was reported as an action

subsequent to the collision. The

incidents are reflected in the database

accordingly. The CPSC staff is not aware

of any investigation being reported

solely as an overturn where it is

apparent that some other event

preceded the overturn.

Further, when these data are coded

for entering into the All-Terrain Vehicle

Death (ATVD) database, the first event

(such as a collision) is coded as the

primary hazard pattern, followed by any

subsequent events (such as rollover).

Discrepancies are often encountered

in various documents gathered during

an investigation. Investigators do their

best to resolve such discrepancies and

correctly note such information in the

investigation report.

4. Comments to OMB on This Request

for Extension

Comments on this request for

extension of approval of collection of

information should be submitted by

May 31, 2000, to the addresses given at

the beginning of this notice.

Copies of the request for extension of

the information collection and

supporting documentation are available

from Linda Glatz, Management and

Program Analyst, Office of Planning and

Evaluation, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 20207;

telephone: (301) 504–0416, ext. 2226,

email lglatz@cpsc.gov.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–10833 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Closed Meeting of the Board of

Visitors for the Department of Defense

Centers for Regional Security Studies

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of

Public Law 92–463, the ‘‘Federal

Advisory Committee Act,’’ notice of a

meeting of the Board of Visitors for

Department of Defense Centers for

Regional Security must be published.

The Board will meet in closed session

at the Pentagon on April 26 from 0900

to 1330.

The purpose of the meeting is to allow

the Board of Visitors to provide advice

on the role the Centers for Regional

Security play in the broader U.S.

national security context. The Board

will hold classified discussions on

various national security policies to be

handled by the regional centers as

outlined in the Defense Planning

Guidance and related to the Theater

Engagement Plans of the Commandersin-Chief of the Unified Commands. This

notice is being published less than

fifteen days prior to the meeting because

of a scheduling oversight.

In accordance with section 10(d) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

Public Law 92–463, as amended (5

U.S.C. App. II (1982), it has been

determined that this meeting concerns

matters listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552b

(c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this

meeting will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Berry, (703) 695–6386.

Dated: April 21, 2000.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–10749 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–10–V

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 9000–0114]

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request Entitled Right of First Refusal

of Employment

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of request for public

comments regarding an extension to an

existing OMB clearance (9000–0114).

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Secretariat will be submitting to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a request to review and approve

an extension of a currently approved

information collection requirement

concerning Right of First Refusal of

Employment. This OMB clearance

currently expires on August 31, 2000.

Public comments are particularly

invited on: Whether this collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of the FAR,

and whether it will have practical

utility; whether our estimate of the

public burden of this collection of

information is accurate, and based on

valid assumptions and methodology;

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways in which we can

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through the use of appropriate

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on

or before June 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments including

suggestions for reducing this burden,

should be submitted to: FAR Desk

Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB,

Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to

the General Services Administration,

FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035

1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC

20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph DeStefano, Office of Federal

Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202)

501–1758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

Right of First Refusal of Employment

is a regulation which establishes policy

regarding adversely affected or

separated Government employees

resulting from the conversion from inhouse performance to performance by

contract. The policy will enable these

employees to have an opportunity to

work for the contractor who is awarded

the contract.

The information gathered will be used

by the Government to gain knowledge of

which employees, adversely affected or

separated as a result of the contract

award, have gained employment with

the contractor within 90 days after

contract performance begins.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Number of Respondents: 130.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 130.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

3.

Total Burden Hours: 390.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals

Requester may obtain a copy of the

proposal from the General Services