Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 26859

Erie is based on two unit operation. As

a result of power uprate to 105 percent

of current licensed core power, there

will be a slight increase in the normal

heat loads rejected to the plant service

water system. For normal operation, the

maximum service water heat loads

occur during peak summer months. The

licensee calculates that the maximum

summer discharge temperature for the

service water system will be increased

by 0.34°F, or from 90.1°F to 90.44°F.

This increase in service water

temperature will not exceed the original

design discharge temperature.

The effect on cooling tower

evaporation, makeup, and blowdown

was evaluated and found to be

acceptable. An increase in steam and

condensate flow will result in a

corresponding increase in the net heat

rejection to the cooling tower. The

cooling tower evaporation is calculated

to increase from 14,554 gallons per

minute (gpm) to 15,587 gpm, whereas

the cooling tower drift and blowdown

temperature are predicted to remain

unchanged. In NUREG–0884 (Final

Environmental Statement Related to the

Operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

Units 1 and 2), the staff concluded that

cooling tower induced icing and fogging

with two cooling towers in operation

would not adversely affect driving

conditions, airports, shipping ports, or

waterways in the vicinity of the plant.

Considering that only one unit was

completed at the Perry site, any increase

in icing and fogging from the additional

cooling tower evaporation would be

bounded by the original two-unit

analyses. There are no state regulated

limits for cooling tower parameters.

FENOC determined that the effects of

power uprate on air and land resources

are negligible. The aesthetics of the

physical plant and plant site, as well as

actual land use, are not changed or

increased by power uprate. An increase

in operational consumption of natural

resources is negligible and below the

levels previously evaluated for two unit

operation. Finally, air quality and noise

levels remain the same as before the

power uprate.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not change the method of

operation at Perry or the methods of

handling effluents. No changes to land

use would result and the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. Therefore, no new or different

types of non-radiological environmental

impacts are expected. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts but would

reduce the operational flexibility that

would be afforded by the proposed

change. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are not significantly different.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for Perry.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 1, 2000, the staff consulted with

the Ohio State official, Ms. Carol

O’Claire, of the Ohio Emergency

Management Agency, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated September 9, 1999, as

supplemented on March 1 and March

13, 2000, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, The Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and accessible electronically through

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of May 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anthony J. Mendiola,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–11536 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Agency Information Collection Under

Review by the Office of Management

and Budget

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice of submission for OMB

review; comment request.

SUMMARY: The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has submitted the

information collection listed as

Appendix C at the end of this notice to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA), OMB, for review under

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). This new

form will be required by OMB Circular

A–21, ‘‘Cost Principles for Educational

Institutions,’’ for the submission of

facilities and administrative rate

proposals by educational institutions.

On September 10, 1997, (62 FR 47721)

OMB proposed the use of a standard

format for submitting of facilities and

administrative rate proposals by

educational institutions. OMB received

35 comments from Federal agencies,

universities and professional

organizations, all of whom favored the

development of such a form. Based

upon this information, OMB issued a

Federal Register notice on August 12,

1999, (64 FR 44062) which proposed to

revise Circular A–21 to incorporate a

new form. OMB received 40 comments

from Federal agencies, universities and

professional organizations. Most

commenters agreed with the concept of

a standard format that would streamline

the rate proposal submission process. In

addition, many commenters had

questions and requested clarifications

regarding data to be included in the

form or the format of the form. Changes

were made to the form as appropriate.

The comments and OMB responses are

summarized in the Comments and

Responses section.

Once this new form receives clearance

under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

OMB will issue a final revision to

incorporate the form in Circular A–21.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Ed

Springer, Desk Officer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA), OMB, 725 17th Street NW,

Room 10236, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, DC 20503. E-mail

comments may be submitted to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov. Please

include the full body of the comments

in the text of the message and not as an

26860 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

attachment. Please include the name,

title, organization, postal address, and

E-mail address in the text of the

message. (Comments should also be

addressed to the Office of Federal

Financial Management at the address

listed below.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial

Management, Office of Management and

Budget, (202) 395–3993 (e-mail Hai

_M._Tran@omb.eop.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 0348–XXXX.

Title: Standard Form for Facilities and

Administrative Rate Proposal.

Form No: N/A.

Frequency: On occasion.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Large universities.

Number of Responses: 282.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4

hours.

Needs and Uses: This provides a

standardized format for the submission

of facilities and administrative (F&A)

rate proposals that would assist

educational institutions in completing

their F&A rate proposals more

efficiently, and help the cognizant

agency review each proposal on a more

consistent basis. It will also facilitate the

Federal government’s effort to collect

better information regarding educational

institutions’ F&A costs that could be

useful in explaining variations in F&A

rates among institutions. Copies of the

above information collection proposal

can be obtained by calling or writing

Gilbert Tran at the address listed above.

Comments and Responses

General

Comment: Some commenters

suggested that the estimated time of four

hours needed to complete the standard

format is gravely underestimated. They

commented that the process of

collecting data for the preparation of an

institution’s rate proposal and

completing the standard format can take

several months.

Response: OMB agrees that the

process of collecting data and preparing

the facilities and administrative rate

proposal in accordance with Circular A–

21 can take several months to complete

depending on the size of the universities

and the complexity of its proposals. The

estimated four hours is only for the

filling of prepared data in the standard

format. Only three commenters

indicated that the completion of the

standard format will greatly increase

grantees’ workload. In addition, in

consideration of the comments that

cited some data requests as overly

cumbersome and difficult to collect,

OMB has reexamined all proposed data

requests, discussed them with the

Federal agencies and, consequently,

deleted much of the requested data in

the final version.

To further streamline and simplify the

proposal submission process, OMB will

work with the Federal agencies to

encourage the submission of the

standard format electronically.

Comment: Most commenters

applauded the concept of a standard

format that would streamline the rate

proposal submission process. However,

they requested that the implementation

date be delayed to allow them to adjust

to the new format requirements.

Response: OMB agrees. The

implementation date is changed to

apply to facilities and administrative

proposals submitted on or after July 1,

2001 (instead of July 1, 2000). Earlier

implementation of the revision is

permitted and encouraged.

Comment: The revision should

explicitly state that universities and

cognizant agencies could agree to

eliminate certain elements from the

standard format, when applicable,

particularly when a university uses the

standard 24 percent to claim

administrative costs, as allowed in

section G.9 of Circular A–21,

‘‘Alternative method for administrative

costs.’’

Response: OMB agreed. The final

revision allows the cognizant agencies

to grant exceptions, on an institutionby-institution basis, from all or portions

of Part II of the standard format. For

example, when a university uses the

standard 24 percent to claim

administrative costs as allowed in

section G.9 of Circular A–21, the

cognizant agency may waive all the

requirements for detailed data in the

administrative cost pools (i.e., general

administration, departmental

administration and sponsored project

administration). However, for

consistency in data collection and

reporting, information in Part I should

not be waived (unless the information is

not applicable to a particular

institution).

Comment: Several commenters raised

a concern about having to submit two

standard format proposals in one fiscal

year when they negotiate rates on a

‘‘fixed with carry-forward’’ basis. They

do not see the need to submit a standard

format proposal when the proposal is

used only to determine the carryforward amount.

Response: When an institution is

required to submit a historical/incurred

cost proposal solely to determine a

carry-forward amount, the cognizant

agency may waive all or part of the

requirements to submit the standard

format proposal as required in G.12 of

Circular A–21.

Part I, Schedule A

Comment: Some commenters

requested clarification of the

information related to students, faculty

and staff population in Part I, Schedule

A, item d of the standard format. Does

the population count include all affiliate

organizations associated with the

institution?

Response: The students, faculty and

staff population information requested

in Part I, Schedule A of the standard

format should be based on full-time

equivalents (FTE) for the institution

only.

Comment: Several commenters

suggested that the breakout of salaries

and wages (and fringe benefits) by

professional/professorial and other labor

(as required in Part I, Schedule A, item

h; and, Part II, ‘‘Rate Proposal Summary

by Major Function,’’ of the standard

format) is not always maintained at the

aggregate level by universities and may

require significant effort to compute.

Response: OMB agreed that the

requested data may not be readily

available on the aggregate level at many

universities. Therefore, this requested

data is removed from the standard

format in Part I (Schedule A, item h)

and Part II, ‘‘Rate Proposal Summary by

Major Function,’’ item 3.(d) of the

standard format. In addition, this

information is usually available on a

department-by-department basis with

the departmental administration

calculation schedules.

Comment: The breakout by salaries

classification (i.e., professorial/

professional and other labor) by major

functions, as required in item h of Part

I of the standard format, is difficult to

accumulate and would require

significant time and effort.

Response: This breakout requirement

is removed. Item h now only requires

the modified total direct costs for each

major function by salaries and wages/

fringes, and non-labor costs.

Comment: In item i of Part I, Schedule

A of the standard format, the schedule

seems to require information only on

the allocation percentage of overhead

pools to direct functions. Should crossallocation percentage to other overhead

pools be included? If cross allocations

are excluded, the ‘‘total’’ column should

be eliminated because the total

percentage will not be 100 percent.

Alternatively, another column (titled

‘‘Other’’) should be added to account for

all cross allocations.

Response: For simplicity, cross

allocation of an overhead pool to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 26861

another overhead pool (e.g., allocation

of interest expenses to buildings or

equipment) is excluded from this

schedule. The schedule will show only

the allocation of F&A cost pools to

major direct functions for which

amounts should be readily available

from the step-down allocation schedule.

This ‘‘total’’ column is, therefore,

eliminated. The ‘‘Other’’ column is used

to display overhead allocation to other

major institutional functions for which

F&A rates are computed (e.g., primate

centers and applied physics

laboratories).

Comment: In item i of Part I, Schedule

A of the standard format, what should

be included in the ‘‘other’’ column?

Response: The ‘‘other’’ column in

item i of Part I of the standard format

should reflect the percentage of the cost

pool allocated to major functions (other

than Instruction, Organized Research

and OSA) for which rates are developed

for billing purposes such as primate

centers or applied physics laboratories.

Part I, Schedule B

Comment: What is the definition of

the term ‘‘base year’’ used in Part I,

Schedule B of the standard format? Does

it refer to: (a) only historical (or

incurred) cost financial information or

(b) both historical and projected cost

information related to an F&A rate

proposal submission?

Response: The term ‘‘base year’’ refers

to only historical (or incurred) cost data

which is based on an institution’s

financial statements. To clarify this

matter, the ‘‘base (or data) year’’ phrase

at the beginning of Part I, Schedule B of

the standard format has been changed to

‘‘Historical Base Year.’’

Comment: What should be included

in ‘‘Land Improvements’’ line in Part I,

Schedule B of the standard format?

Response: Under this title, the

universities should report the

distribution of ‘‘land improvements’’

costs to the universities’ major functions

and the computed percentage point for

the overall F&A rates. ‘‘Land

improvements’’ costs are defined in

Circular A–21, section F.2.(b).4, as

‘‘depreciation or use allowances on

certain capital improvements to land,

such as paved parking areas, fences,

sidewalks, and the like, not included in

the cost of buildings.’’

Comment: Schedule B of Part I of the

standard format should include a line

for the utility cost adjustment of 1.3

percentage points, as allowed in section

F.4.c of Circular A–21 for certain

universities.

Response: OMB agreed. A line is

added in schedule B of Part I of the

standard format, under the ‘‘Operation &

Maintenance’’ item to allow the

applicable universities to report the

utility cost adjustment in order to reflect

all the rate components proposed in the

F&A proposal.

Comment: What should be included

in the ‘‘Other’’ line under the ‘‘Modified

Total Direct Cost and F&A Rates’’ of Part

I, Schedule B of the standard format?

Response: The ‘‘Other’’ line under the

‘‘Modified Total Direct Cost and F&A

Rates’’ section of the standard format is

used when a special rate (other than OnCampus or Off-Campus) is developed

for any major functions included in the

F&A proposal. Examples of special rates

are research vessel rates and overseas

training rates.

Comment: Some commenters

suggested combining the categories of

‘‘Research Training Awards,’’ ‘‘Other

Awards,’’ and ‘‘Non-Federal Sources’’

under the ‘‘Composition of Rate Base’’

in Part I of Schedule B of the standard

format into one category called ‘‘Other

Awards (not based on negotiated rates).’’

They suggested that the requested

breakout is not necessary for the F&A

proposal review.

Response: OMB disagreed. The

breakout for the composition of rate

base is necessary in two ways. First, the

Federal Government wants to track the

percentage of awards that are not fully

reimbursed at the negotiated rates by

source of funding and by types of

awards. Secondly, the breakout is

important to verify the reasonableness

of space cost allocation to benefitting

activities.

Comment: Where is the cost sharing

amount reported under the

‘‘Composition of Rate Base’’ in Part I,

Schedule B of the standard format?

Response: The amount of cost sharing,

representing the costs on research

projects that are borne by the

universities, is reported under the

‘‘Organized Research’’ column on the

‘‘Non-Federal Sources’’ line item.

Comment: Under the ‘‘Miscellaneous

Statistics’’ section of Part I, Schedule B

of the standard format, data related to

facilities’ finance costs ( ‘‘percent of

ASF Financed’’) should not be required

if the university does not claim interest

expenses on the F&A cost proposal (as

some public universities do not). In

addition, this information should only

be requested for buildings that are more

than 50 percent dedicated to research

activities.

Response: OMB agreed that this

information is not necessary when the

university does not claim any interest

costs for its facilities on its F&A cost

proposal. The note (1) is changed to

allow such exemption. However, for

comparative analysis, data must be

collected for all buildings regardless of

their portion dedicated to research

activities. This information is helpful in

explaining the cost of research facilities

and any increase of F&A rates over a

period of time.

Part II—Standard Documentation

Requirements

Comment: Item 1 in the General

Information section of Part II of the

standard format contains the phrase

‘‘financial statements including any

affiliated organizations.’’ What is the

meaning of affiliated organizations and

why is this data needed?

Response: Many large institutions

provide administrative services to

various units within their corporate

structure. A school, for example, may

furnish certain administrative services

to an ‘‘affiliated’’ hospital. The school’s

financial statements would probably

exclude these costs and the hospital’s

financial statements would include

these costs. In this case, a review of

consolidated financial statements,

which include the affiliated unit, will be

needed to support (i) the total cost of the

shared services and (ii) the assignment

of costs on the financial statements of

the school and the hospital. The

affiliated organizations exclude nonmonetary relationships (e.g., teaching

rotation for medical students).

Comment: Under item 2 of the

General Information section of the

standard format, what does OMB mean

by ‘‘relevant detail supporting the

financial statement?’’ Does ‘‘detail’’

include all journal entries?

Response: In preparing an F&A

proposal, a university is expected to

start with its audited financial

statements, prepared under generally

accepted accounting principles (GAAP),

and reclassify the accumulated costs

into direct functions and cost pools as

defined in Circular A–21. A

reconciliation that includes all major

reclassifications and adjustments must

exist between these two documents to

explain the differences. For example, all

administrative costs are reported under

‘‘Institutional Support’’ on the

university’s financial statements. These

costs could be reclassified to the general

administrative, departmental

administrative and sponsored project

administrative cost pools for A–21

purposes. This provision requires that

the university report the reclassified

amounts along with a note to explain

the nature of the reclassification.

Detailed journal entries are not

necessary for this request. In the final

revision, the word ‘‘detail’’ is replaced

with the word ‘‘data.’’

26862 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

Comment: Several commenters

indicated that the organized research

base breakdown by college or school

into four categories: (a) Federal awards

receiving F&A cost based on the

negotiated rate agreement, (b) Federal

awards receiving less than the

negotiated rates, (c) non-Federal awards,

and (d) cost sharing (as requested in Part

II, ‘‘General Information,’’ item 5) is not

readily available and would require

extensive effort to produce. Some

suggested that the information, in a

summary level, is already available in

Part I, Schedule B, under the

‘‘Composition of Rate Base’’ section of

the standard format.

Response: In light of the possible

excessive effort to produce the level of

detail required for this request, OMB

deleted this data requirement. OMB also

agreed that similar data, in a summary

level, is available in Part I, schedule B,

‘‘Composition of Rate Base’’ of the

standard format.

Comment: Some commenters

suggested that the requirement for a

statement concerning the physical

inventory requirement (Part II, ‘‘General

Information,’’ item 9.d of the standard

format) be deleted because this

requirement duplicates those required

under section J.12.e, ‘‘Depreciation and

use allowances,’’ of the Circular.

Response: OMB agreed. The proposed

statement of assurance regarding the

physical inventory for equipment is

removed in the final revision. Section

J.12.e of Circular A–21 requires that

‘‘charges for use allowances or

depreciation must be supported by

adequate property records, and physical

inventories must be taken at least once

every two years to ensure that the assets

exist and are usable.’’ By completing the

‘‘Certificate of F&A Costs,’’ as required

in Section K.2.b of Circular A–21, the

university certifies that it complies with

the requirement of Section J.12.e of

Circular A–21 for a biannual equipment

physical inventory.

Comment: Some commenters

suggested that the assurance statements

regarding the compensation limits (Part

II, ‘‘General Information,’’ item 9.e of

the standard format) be deleted because

such assurance is already included in

the Certification of F&A costs (Part II,

‘‘General Information,’’ item 9.a of the

standard format). If required, can the

university include such an assurance

statement with other assurance

statements required under this section?

Response: The Certification of F&A

costs, as required by Section K. of the

Circular, does not currently provide any

assurance regarding the compensation

limits, established under separate

program statutes. Such assurances are

necessary to ascertain that costs charged

against Federal programs do not exceed

limits established by program statutes.

The assurance statement regarding

compensation limits can be (1) added to

the Certification of F&A costs, (2) issued

as a separate statement, or (3) combined

with other assurance statements

required by the Circular (e.g., lobbying

certification).

Comment: Some commenters

suggested that the reference to

‘‘voluntary cost sharing’’ in Part II,

‘‘Rate Proposal Summary By Major

Function,’’ item 3.(a) of the standard

format be deleted until the current

debate on the reporting requirements for

voluntary cost sharing is finalized.

Response: OMB agreed. The reference

to ‘‘voluntary’’ cost sharing is deleted.

The breakout between mandatory and

voluntary cost sharing is therefore not

required. Only the total cost sharing

amount, as it is computed and reported

on the institution’s F&A rate proposal,

is required for Schedule B of Part I,

‘‘Miscellaneous Statistics,’’ and item

3.(a) of Part II, ‘‘Rate Proposal

Summary’’ of the standard format.

Comment: Regarding the space survey

required in Part II of the standard

format, does it cover all buildings at the

university or just the research

buildings?

Response: The space survey should

include all buildings at the university.

An university’s total square footage

information by major functions is

necessary to allocate the space related

costs such as operation and

maintenance, building and equipment

depreciation (or use allowances), and

interest costs.

Comment: In Part II of the standard

format, under the ‘‘Operation and

Maintenance,’’ ‘‘General

Administrative,’’ ‘‘Departmental

Administration,’’ and ‘‘Sponsored

Projects Administration’’ sections, OMB

should delete the requirement for a

breakout of total costs by labor and nonlabor costs. Some commenters

questioned the usefulness of this

requirement for the cognizant agency’s

review, particularly when the

administrative rates are capped at 26

percent.

Response: The requirement for

breakout of total costs by labor and nonlabor costs for the ‘‘General

Administrative’’ and ‘‘Sponsored

Projects Administration’’ is deleted;

only total cost amounts are required for

these two cost pools. However, this

breakout is necessary for the review of

the ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ (e.g.,

analysis of various utility costs and

maintenance project costs) and the

‘‘Departmental Administration’’ cost

pools (e.g., analysis of the direct charge

equivalent computation).

Issued in Washington, DC, April 28, 2000.

Joshua Gotbaum,

Executive Associate Director and Controller.

OMB proposes to add the following

section and Appendix to Circular A–21.

1. Add Section G.12 to read as

follows:

12. Standard Format for Submission. For

facilities and administrative (F&A) rate

proposals submitted on or after July 1, 2001,

educational institutions shall use the

standard format, shown in Appendix C, to

submit their F&A rate proposal to the

cognizant agency. The cognizant agency may,

on an institution-by-institution basis, grant

exceptions from all or portions of Part II of

the standard format requirement. This

requirement does not apply to educational

institutions which use the simplified method

for calculating F&A rates, as described in

Section H.

2. Add Appendix C (shown below):

Appendix C

OMB Circular A–21 Documentation

Requirements for Facilities and

Administrative (F&A) Rate Proposals

Claiming Costs Under the Regular Method

The documentation requirements for F&A

rate proposals consist of two parts. Part I

provides a schedule of summary data on the

institution’s F&A cost pools and their

allocations, and the proposed F&A rates. For

illustration, an example of a completed Part

I is included. Part II describes the standard

documentation to be submitted with the

institution’s F&A rate proposal.

Part I: Summary Data Elements for F&A Rate

Proposal—Schedule A

Name of Institution: lllllllllll

Organization Number: (Federal Use Only)

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

a. Cognizant Federal Agency Rate

Setting:l Audit:

b. Type of Institution Private ( ) Public/

State ( )

c. Fiscal Year llll

d. Institution Population (FTE)

Students:

Faculty:

Staff:ll

e. Status of Disclosure Statement

Required to Submit (Y/N)? ll

Due Dates: Initial: ll Revised: ll

Date Submitted ll

Approved ( )Yes ( ) No Date: ll

f. Most Current F&A Rates (i.e., final,

predetermined, fixed) (Last three fiscal years)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 26863

Type of rate Fiscal year

covered

Date of rate

agreement

On-campus

instruction

On-campus

organized

Research

On-campus

OSA*

Off-campus

instruction

Off-campus

organized

research

Off-campus

OSA*

(*OSA= Other Sponsored Activities)

g. Base year costs associated with new buildings placed into service within the last five years (i.e., base year

and four preceding years) by major functions proposed (in thousands).

Instruction Organized

research OSA

Building Depreciation or Use Allowance ................................................................................................. .................... .................... ....................

Interest Expense ...................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

h. Dollar amounts by major functions

proposed—Base Year (in thousands)

Instruction Organized

research OSA

Salaries & Wages/Fringes ....................................................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

Non-labor Costs ....................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

Modified Total Direct Costs ..................................................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

i. Percentage of cost pool dollars allocated to major functions proposed—Base Year

Instruction Organized

research OSA Other*

Building Depreciation or Use Allowance ......................................................................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Equipment Depreciation or Use Allowance ..................................................................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Interest Expense .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... ....................

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Library .............................................................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... ....................

* ‘‘Other’’ includes other major institutional functions for which F&A rates are computed such as primate centers or applied physics laboratories.

j. Proposed methodology for library costs: Standard Method: Special Study:

k. Procedure for claiming fringe benefit costs: Specific Identification:

Negotiated Rate:

Other (see attached)

Part I: Summary Data Elements for F&A Rate Proposal—Schedule B

—Name of Institution:

—Historical Base Year:

BASE YEAR RATE CALCULATION SUMMARY BY MAJOR FUNCTION (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

Instruction Organized

research OSA

FACILITIES GROUP

Depreciation/Use Allowance

• Buildings ...................................................................................................................................... $ $ $ %

• Equipment ................................................................................................................................... $ % $ $ %

• Land Improvements .................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

Interest Expense .................................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

Operation & Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

Utility Cost Adjustment ........................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

Library .................................................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

26864 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

BASE YEAR RATE CALCULATION SUMMARY BY MAJOR FUNCTION (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)—Continued

Instruction Organized

research OSA

ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP

General .................................................................................................................................................. $ % $ % $ %

Departmental .......................................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

Sponsored Projects ................................................................................................................................ $ % $ % $%

Student Services .................................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $ %

Adjustment for 26% Limitation ............................................................................................................... % % %

MODIFIED TOTAL DIRECT COST AND F&A RATES

On-Campus ............................................................................................................................................ $ % $ % $%

Off-Campus ............................................................................................................................................ $ % $ %

Other ...................................................................................................................................................... $ % $ % $%

Total MTDC ............................................................................................................................................ $ $ $

COMPOSITION OF RATE BASE

Federal Awards

On-Campus (negotiated rates) ....................................................................................................... $ $ $

Off-Campus (negotiated rates) ....................................................................................................... $ $ $

Research Training Awards .................................................................................................................... $ $ $

Other Awards (not based on negotiated rates) ..................................................................................... $ $ $

Non-Federal Sources ............................................................................................................................. $ $ $

Total ....................................................................................................................................................... $ $ $

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS

Cost Sharing in Rate Base .................................................................................................................... $ $ $

Reassignable Square Feet (ASF) by Major Function ........................................................................... $ $ $

Percent of ASF Financed (1) .................................................................................................................

Note (1): Ratio of ASF subject to financing

divided by total ASF. If 20% of a building’s

acquisition cost is financed, then 20% of the

ASF is considered ASF financed. This

information is not required if the institution

does not claim any interest costs on its F&A

proposal.

Part I—Example: Summary Data

Elements for F&A Rate Proposal—

Schedule A

Name of Institution: University of XYZ

Organization Number: (Federal, Use

Only)

Address: 100 Main St., Somewhere, ST

12345

a. Cognizant Federal Agency Rate

Setting: HHS Audit: HHS

b. Type of Institution Private ( )

Public/State (X)

c. Fiscal Year July 1, 1997–June 30,

1998.

d. Institution Population (FTE)

Students: 12,000

Faculty: 1,759

Staff: 2,798

e. Status of Disclosure Statement

Required to Submit (Y/N)? Yes

Due Dates: Initial: 06/30/98

Revised: 12/31/98

Date Submitted: 12/10/98

Approved (X) Yes ( ) No

Date: 06/13/ 99

f. Most Current F&A Rates (i.e., final,

predetermined, fixed) (Last three fiscal

years)

Type of rate Fiscal year

covered

Date of rate

agreement

On-campus

instruction

On-campus

organized

research

On-Campus

OSA*

Off-campus

instruction

Off-Campus

organized

research

Off-campus

OSA*

Pred 1999 09/15/96 78.0% 52.5% 38.3% 26.0% 26.0% 20.0%

Pred 1998 09/15/96 78.0% 52.5% 35.0% 26.0% 26.0% 20.0%

Pred 1977 09/15/96 76.0% 53.0% 35.0% 26.0% 26.0% 20.0%

(*OSA=Other Sponsored Activities)

g. Base year costs associated with new buildings placed into service within the last five years (i.e., base year

and four preceding years) by major functions proposed (in thousands).

Instruction Organized

research OSA

Building Depreciation or Use Allowance ................................................................................................. 729 2,639 0

Interest Expense ...................................................................................................................................... 0 1,794 0

Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 1,280 4,632 0

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 26865

h. Dollar amounts by major functions proposed—Base Year (in thousands)

Instruction Organized

research OSA

Salaries & Wages/Fringes ....................................................................................................................... 36,400 63,750 11,050

Non-labor Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 19,600 21,250 1,950

Modified Total Direct Costs ..................................................................................................................... 56,000 85,000 13,000

i. Percentage of cost pool dollars allocated to major functions proposed—Base Year

Instruction Organized

research OSA Other*

Building Depreciation or Use Allowance ......................................................... 40.0% 44.0% 2.5% 7.0%

Equipment Depreciation or Use Allowance ..................................................... 34.2% 27.7% 2.1% 10.0%

Interest Expense .............................................................................................. 29.9% 32.4% 1.9% 0.0%

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 32.8% 35.6% 2.1% 15.0%

Library .............................................................................................................. 75.3% 10.9% 0.9% 0.0%

* ‘‘Other’’ includes other major institutional functions for which F&A rates are computed such as primate centers or applied physics laboratories.

j. Proposed methodology for library

costs:

Standard Method: Yes

Special Study: No

k. Procedure for claiming fringe

benefit costs:

Specific Identification: No

Negotiated Rate: Yes

Other (see attached)——

Part I—Example: Summary Data

Elements for F&A Rate Proposal—

Schedule B

Name of Institution: University of XYZ

Historical Base Year: 07/01/97 to 06/30/

98

BASE YEAR RATE CALCULATION SUMMARY BY MAJOR FUNCTION (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

Instruction Organized

Research

OSA

($) (%) ($) (%) ($) (%)

FACILITIES GROUP

Depreciation/Use Allowance

—Buildings .................................................... 4,861 9.6 5,278 6.9 306 2.6

—Equipment ................................................. 3,082 6.1 2,496 3.3 194 1.7

—Land Improvements .................................. 1,992 4.0 133 0.2 17 0.1

Interest Expense .................................................. 1,944 3.9 2,111 2.8 122 1.0

Operation & Maintenance .................................... 8,532 16.9 9,264 12.1 536 4.6

Utility Cost Adjustment ......................................... 0 0.0 994 1.3 0 0.0

Library .................................................................. 7,910 15.7 1,146 1.5 96 0.8

ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP

General ................................................................ 1,535 2.7 2,330 2.7 356 2.7

Departmental ........................................................ 11,991 21.4 17,239 20.3 2,797 21.5

Sponsored Projects .............................................. 89 0.2 2,693 3.2 412 3.2

Student Services .................................................. 4,166 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Adjustment for 26 Limitation ................................ ...................... ¥5.7 ...................... ¥0.2 ...................... ¥1.4

MODIFIED TOTAL DIRECT COST AND F&A RATES

On-Campus .......................................................... 50,400 82.2 76,500 54.2 11,700 36.8

Off-Campus .......................................................... 5,600 26.0 8,500 26.0 1,300 26.0

Other .................................................................... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total MTDC .......................................................... 56,000 ...................... 85,000 ...................... 13,000

COMPOSITION OF RATE BASE

Federal Awards

On-Campus (negotiated rates) ..................... 1,000 ...................... 46,000 ...................... 900 ......................

Off-Campus (negotiated rates) ..................... 120 ...................... 5,000 ...................... 400 ......................

Research Training Awards ........................... 0 ...................... 0 ...................... 0 ......................

Other Awards (not based on negotiated

rates) ......................................................... 1,680 ...................... 8,500 ...................... 2,600 ......................

Non-Federal Sources ........................................... 53,200 ...................... 25,500 ...................... 9,100 ......................

Total ..................................................................... 56,000 ...................... 85,000 ...................... 13,000

26866 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

BASE YEAR RATE CALCULATION SUMMARY BY MAJOR FUNCTION (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)—Continued

Instruction Organized

Research

OSA

($) (%) ($) (%) ($) (%)

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS

Cost Sharing in Rate Base .................................. (10,000) ...................... 10,000 ...................... 0 ......................

Assignable Square Feet (ASF) by Major Function .................................................................... 83,611 ASF ...................... 90,778 ASF ...................... 5,256 ASF ......................

Percent of ASF Financed (1) ............................... 7.0 ...................... 20.0 ...................... 30.0 ......................

Note (1): Ratio of ASF subject to financing

divided by total ASF. If 20 of a building’s

acquisition cost is financed, then 20 of the

ASF is considered ASF financed. This

information is not required if the institution

does not claim any interest costs on its F&A

rate proposal.

Part II

Introduction

This Part contains the standard

documentation requirements that are

needed by your cognizant agency to

perform a review of your institution’s

F&A rate proposal. This documentation

supports the development of proposed

rates shown in Part I and will be

submitted with your F&A rate proposal.

This listing contains minimum

documentation requirements.

Additional documentation may be

needed by your cognizant agency before

completing a proposal review.

If there are any questions about these

requirements, please contact your

cognizant agency.

Documentation requirements would

be cross-referenced to appropriate

schedule(s) within the submitted F&A

rate proposal.

General Information

Reference:

__ 1. Copy of audited financial

statements including any affiliated

organizations. The statements must be

reconciled to the F&A base year cost

calculation. Copy of most recently

issued Circular A–133 audit reports

__ 2. Copy of relevant data supporting

the financial statement, including a

reconciliation schedule for each cost

pool and rate base in the F&A base year

cost calculation. A reconciliation

schedule will show each reclassification

and adjustment to the financial

statements to arrive at the cost pools

and rate bases in F&A base year cost

calculation. Each reclassification and

adjustment must be explained in notes

to the reconciliation schedule

__ 3. Cost step-down schedule

showing allocation of each F&A cost

pool to the Major Functions and other

cost pools

__ 4. Explanation for each proposed

organized research rate component

which exceeds the prior negotiated rate

component by 10%

__ 5. Schedules clearly detailing

composition and allocation base(s) of

each F&A cost pool in base year cost

calculation. If the institution has filed a

Disclosure Statement (DS–2)

submission, specific references (rather

than narrative descriptions) from the

DS–2 may be used

__ 6. Narrative description of

composition of each F&A cost pool and

allocation methodology. If the

institution has filed a DS–2 submission,

specific references (rather than narrative

descriptions) from the DS–2 may be

used

__ 7. Narrative description of changes

in accounting or cost allocation methods

made since the institution’s last F&A

submission. If the institution has filed a

DS–2 submission, specific references

(rather than narrative descriptions) from

the DS–2 may be used

__ 8. Copy of reports on the conduct

and results of special studies performed

under Section E.2.d, when applicable

__ 9. Copy of the following:

(a) The Certificate of F&A Costs

(b) Lobbying Certification

(c) Description of procedures used to

ensure that awards issued by the

Federal Government do not subsidize

the F&A costs allocable to awards made

by non-Federal sources (e.g., industry,

foreign governments)

(d) Assurance Certification—for those

institutions listed on Exhibit A—

concerning disposition of Federal

reimbursements associated with claims

for depreciation/use allowances

(e) Assurance statement that

institution is in compliance with

Federal awarding agency limitations on

compensation (e.g., NIH salary

limitation, executive compensation)

__ 10. If applicable, reconciliation of

carry-forward amounts from prior years

used in the current proposal

__ 11. Transmittal letter stipulating

the type(s) of rates proposed, the fiscal

year(s) covered by the proposal and the

base year used

Rate Proposal Summary by Major

Function

__ 1. Summary of F&A base year rates

calculated by Major Function and

special rates (e.g., vessel rates) if

applicable by component. These would

be grouped by Administrative

Components and Facilities Components.

Total base year calculated rates would

be disclosed, as well as allowable rates

after the 26 percent limitation on

Administrative Components

__ 2. A breakout of Modified Total

Direct Cost (MTDC) rate base figures for

each major function (and special rates,

if applicable) by:

(a) On-Campus and Off-Campus

amounts

(b) Federal awards

—Based on Negotiated Rates—OnCampus

—Based on Negotiated Rates—OffCampus

—Research Training Awards

—Other Awards (not based on

negotiated rates)

(c) Non-Federal Sources

__ 3. Miscellaneous Statistics

including:

(a) Cost Sharing in the Rate Base

(b) Assignable Square Feet (ASF) by

Major Function

(c) Percentage of ASF which is

financed (by Major Function)

(d) A breakout of MTDC by Direct

Salaries and Wages/ fringe benefits and

non labor costs by major functions

__ 4. Future rate adjustments, if

necessary, related to material changes

since the base year. A clear description

of the justification for each of the

following:

(a) Changes by cost pool by year

(b) Changes in MTDC base by year

(c) Changes in F&A rates for future

years

__ 5. Summary of future F&A rates, if

necessary, by Major Function and

special rates (e.g., vessel rates) which

lists each administrative and facilities

component by year.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 26867

Building Use Allowance and/or

Depreciation

__ 1. Reconciliation of building cost

used to compute use allowance and/or

depreciation with the financial

statements. If depreciation is claimed in

the F&A proposal and disclosed on the

financial statements, provide a

reconciliation of depreciation amounts

with the financial statements.

Note: If an institution’s financial

statements do not disclose depreciation

expense (e.g., those subject to GASB), a

reconciliation of claimed depreciation

expense to the financial statements is not

possible.

__ 2. A schedule showing amount by

building of use allowance and/or

depreciation distributed to all functions

__ 3. If a method different from the

standard allocation method, described

in section F.2.b, was used, describe

method. Provide justification for its use

and a schedule of allocation. If the

institution has filed a DS–2 submission,

claimed allocation methodology may be

referenced to specific section of the DS–

2

__ 4. If depreciation is claimed,

describe what useful lives by group and

component have been used

Equipment Use Allowances and/or

Depreciation

__ 1. Reconciliation of equipment cost

used to compute use allowance and/or

depreciation with the financial

statements. If depreciation is claimed in

the F&A proposal and disclosed on the

financial statements, provide a

reconciliation of depreciation amounts

with the financial statements.

Note: If an institution’s financial

statements do not disclose depreciation

expense (e.g., those subject to GASB), a

reconciliation of claimed depreciation

expense to the financial statements is not

possible.

__ 2. A schedule showing amount by

building of use allowance and/or

depreciation distributed to all functions

__ 3. If a method different from the

standard allocation method, described

in section F.2.b, was used, describe the

method. Provide a justification for its

use and a schedule of allocation. If the

institution has filed a DS–2 submission,

claimed allocation methodology may be

referenced to specific section of the DS–

2

__ 4. If depreciation is claimed,

describe what useful lives by asset class

and component have been used

Interest

__ 1. Reconciliation of interest cost

used in the F&A base year calculation to

the financial statements

__ 2. A schedule showing amount of

interest cost assigned to each building

and a distribution to all benefitting

functions within each building for each

proposed ‘‘Major Function’’

Space Survey

__ 1. A summary schedule of square

footage by school, department, building

and function

__ 2. The same schedule should then

be sorted by school, building,

department, and function

__ 3. Copies of space inventory

instructions, forms, and definitions

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

__ 1. A summary schedule of each

major activity (or subpool) in O&M cost

pool. It must show the costs by S&W/

fringe benefits and all non-labor cost

categories

__ 2. A schedule showing amount of

O&M costs distributed to all functions

General Administration (G&A)

__ 1. A summary schedule of each

activity (or subpool) in the G&A cost

pool

__ 2. A schedule of costs in the

modified total costs (MTC) allocation

base

__ 3. If a method different from the

standard MTC allocation method was

used, describe the method. Provide a

justification for its use and a schedule

of allocation. If the institution filed a

DS–2 submission, claimed allocation

methodology may be referenced to

specific section of the DS–2

Departmental Administration (DA)

__ 1. Schedules of the DA summary

by school, department and allocated to

Major Functions by department

__ 2. Schedule identifying costs by

S&W/fringe benefits and non-labor costs

by department for the following

functions:

(a) Direct (Major Functions)

—Instruction

—Organized Research

—Other Sponsored Activities

—Other

(b) Departmental Administration

(excluding Deans)

(c) Dean’s office

(d) Other, as appropriate

S&W/fringe benefits shall be further

identified as follows:

(a) Faculty and other professional

(b) Administrative (e.g., business

officers, accountants, budget analysts,

budget officers)

(c) Technicians (e.g., lab technicians,

glass washers)

(d) Secretaries and clerical

__ 3. Complete description of

allocation method, bases and allocation

sequences (e.g., direct charge

equivalent, 3.6 percent allowance). If a

method different from the standard

MTC allocation method was used,

describe the method. Provide a

justification for its use and a schedule

of allocation. If the institution filed a

DS–2 submission, claimed allocation

methodology may be referenced to

specific section of the DS–2

__ 4. Show a detailed example (i.e.,

illustration of your Direct Charge

Equivalent (DCE) methodology) of the

allocation process used for one

department which has Instruction and

Organized Research functions from each

of the following schools: Medicine, Arts

& Sciences and Engineering, as

applicable

Sponsored Projects Administration

(SPA)

__ 1. A summary schedule for each

activity (or subpool) included in SPA

cost pool

__ 2. A schedule of the sponsored

projects direct costs in the MTC

allocation base

__ 3. If a method different from the

standard sponsored projects MTC

allocation method was used, describe

method. Provide justification for its use

and a schedule of allocation. If the

institution filed a DS–2 submission,

claimed allocation methodology may be

referenced to specific section of the DS–

2

Library

__ 1. A summary schedule for each

activity included in library cost pool. It

would show costs by salaries and wages,

books, periodicals, and all other nonlabor cost categories

__ 2. Schedule listing all credits to

library costs

__ 3. A schedule of Full Time

Equivalents (FTE) and salaries and

wages in the bases used to allocate

library costs to users of library services

__ 4. If the standard allocation

methodology was not used, describe the

alternative method and provide

justification for its use. Provide

schedules of allocation statistics by

function. If school filed a DS–2

submission, claimed allocation

methodology may be referenced to

specific section of the DS–2

Student Services

__ 1. If the proposed allocation base(s)

differs from the stipulated standard

allocation methodology provide:

(a) Justification for use of a

nonstandard allocation methodology;

(b) Description of allocation

procedure; and

(c) Statistical data to support

proposed distribution process

26868 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

If the institution filed a DS–2

submission, claimed allocation

methodology may be referenced to

specific section of DS–2.

[FR Doc. 00–11540 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the Government in the

Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the

Securities and Exchange Commission

will hold the following meeting during

the week of May 8, 2000.

A closed meeting will be held on

Thursday, May 11, 2000 at 11 a.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the

Commissioners, the Secretary of the

Commission, and recording secretaries

will attend the closed meeting. Certain

staff members who have an interest in

the matters may also be present.

The General Counsel of the

Commission, or his designee, has

certified that, in his opinion, one or

more of the exemptions set forth in 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10),

permit consideration for the scheduled

matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed

meeting scheduled Thursday, May 11,

2000 will be:

• Institution and settlement of

injunctive actions; and

• Institution and settlement of

administrative proceedings of an

enforcement nature.

At times, changes in Commission

priorities require alterations in the

scheduling of meeting items. For further

information and to ascertain what, if

any, matters have been added, deleted

or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202)

942–7070.

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11668 Filed 5–5–00; 1:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Notice Seeking Exemption Under

Section 312 of the Small Business

Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

Notice is hereby given that TD Javelin

Capital Fund, LP (‘‘TD Javelin’’), 2850

Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham,

Alabama 35223, a Federal Licensee

under the Small Business Investment

Act of 1958, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), TD

Javelin Capital Fund II, LP (‘‘TD Javelin

II’’), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240,

Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a Federal

Licensee under the Act, and TD

Lighthouse Capital Fund, LP (‘‘TD

Lighthouse’’, and together with TD

Javelin and TD Javelin II, the ‘‘Funds’’),

303 Detroit Street, Suite 301, Ann

Arbor, Michigan 48104, an applicant for

a Federal license under the Act, in

connection with the financing of a small

concern, are seeking an exemption

under section 312 of the Act and section

107.730, Financings which Constitute

Conflicts of Interest of the Small

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) rules

and regulations (13 CFR 107.730

(2000)). The Funds propose to provide

equity financing to t-Breeders, Inc. (‘‘tBreeders’’), One Innovation Drive,

Worcester, Massachusetts 01605. The

financing is contemplated for product

development and working capital.

The financing is brought within the

purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the

Regulations because TD Javelin, an

Associate of the Funds, currently owns

greater than 10 percent of t-Breeders and

therefore t-Breeders is considered an

Associate of each of the Funds as

defined in Sec. 107.50 of the

regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any

interested person may submit written

comments on the transaction to the

Associate Administrator for Investment,

U.S. Small Business Administration,

409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC

20416.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Don A. Christensen,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 00–11496 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Notice Seeking Exemption Under

Section 312 of the Small Business

Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

Notice is hereby given that TD Javelin

Capital Fund, LP (‘‘TD Javelin I’’), 2850

Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham,

Alabama 35223, a Federal Licensee

under the Small Business Investment

Act of 1958, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),

and TD Javelin Capital Fund II, LP (‘‘TD

Javelin II’’, and together with TD Javelin

I the ‘‘Funds’’), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite

240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a

Federal Licensee under the Act, in

connection with the financing of a small

concern, have sought an exemption

under section 312 of the Act and section

107.730, Financings which Constitute

Conflicts of Interest of the Small

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) rules

and regulations (13 CFR 107.730

(2000)). The Funds propose to provide

equity financing to Prolinx, Inc.

(‘‘Prolinx’’), 22322 Twentieth Avenue

South East, Bothell, Washington 98021.

The financing is contemplated for

product development and working

capital.

The financing is brought within the

purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the

Regulations because TD Javelin I and its

associate, Tullis-Dickerson Capital

Focus II, LP, currently own greater than

10 percent of Prolinx, and therefore

Prolinx is considered an Associate of

each of TD Javelin I and TD Javelin II

as defined in Sec. 107.50 of the

regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any

interested person may submit written

comments on the transaction to the

Associate Administrator for Investment,

U.S. Small Business Administration,

409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC

20416.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Don A. Christensen,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 00–11498 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Notice Seeking Exemption Under

Section 312 of the Small Business

Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

Notice is hereby given that TD Origen

Fund, L.P. (‘‘TD Origen’’), 150

Washington Avenue, Suite 201, Santa

Fe, New Mexico 87501, a Federal

Licensee under the Small Business

Investment Act of 1958, as amended

(‘‘the Act’’), TD Javelin Capital Fund, LP

(‘‘TD Javelin I’’), 2850 Cahaba Road,

Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223,

a Federal Licensee under the Act, and

TD Javelin Capital Fund II, LP (‘‘TD

Javelin II’’), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite

240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223

(collectively ‘‘the Funds’’), in

connection with the financing of a small

concern, have sought an exemption

under section 312 of the Act and section

107.730, Financings which Constitute

Conflicts of Interest of the Small

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) rules

and regulations (13 CFR 107.730

(2000)). The Funds propose to provide

equity financing to Phase-1 Molecular

Toxicology, Inc. (‘‘Phase-1’’), 2904

Rodeo Park Drive East, Santa Fe, New

Mexico 97505. The financing is

contemplated for product development

and working capital.

The financing is brought within the

purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the