30566 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR

Sections 300.600—300.615. The

Trustees are authorized to act on behalf

of the public under these authorities to

protect and restore natural resources

and resource services injured or lost as

a result of discharges or releases of

hazardous substances.

Paralleling the RI/FS process for the

Site, the Trustees have undertaken an

assessment of the natural resource

injuries and service losses resulting

from releases of hazardous substances

attributable to the Site and of the

restoration actions necessary to address

those losses. This assessment process

has been aided and supported by

Alcoa’s cooperation pursuant to a

Memorandum of Agreement between

Alcoa and the Trustees, which was

effective January 14, 1997. Both the

Draft DARP/EA and the Revised Draft

DARP/EA have been developed under

the cooperative assessment framework

outlined in the MOA.

The Draft DARP/EA was released for

public review on September 28, 1999.

That document described the

assessment procedures used to define

the recreational fishing service losses,

including to scale restoration actions,

and identified the restoration actions

preferred to compensate for those

service losses, based on the benefits of

restoration to both pier/shore-mode and

boat-mode anglers. None of the public

comments received on the Draft DARP/

EA raised any issue regarding the

assessment methodology described

therein or the restoration actions

proposed to compensate for pier/shoremode fishing losses. As such, these plan

elements will be included in the Final

DARP/EA. Significant public comments

were received, however, relating to the

restoration action proposed in the Draft

DARP/EA to address the boat-mode

fishing losses and, based upon these

comments, the Trustees found it

necessary to revise that portion of the

plan. The Revised Draft DARP/EA

summarizes the public comments

received, identifies the revised,

preferred restoration alternatives to

address the remainder of the

recreational fishing service losses, and

explains the basis and rationale for that

change. The Revised Draft DARP/EA is

being released to allow for public

review and comment on the preferred

restoration alternatives now identified

to restore or replace the remainder of

the recreational fishing services needed

to compensate the public for

recreational fishing losses due to the

closure.

The Revised Draft DARP/EA does not

address any other natural resource

injuries or service losses that may be

attributable to the Site. Other resource

injuries or losses are being considered

by the Trustees but will be addressed in

one or more subsequent damage

assessment and restoration plans.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information contact: Richard

Seiler at (512) 239–2523, email:

rseiler@tnrcc.state.tx.us or Tony Penn,

at (301) 713–3038 x197, email:

tony.penn@noaa.gov

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Captain Ted I. Lillestolen,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal Zone Management.

[FR Doc. 00–11512 Filed 5–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Docket No. [000411103–0103–01; I.D. No.

021400B]

RIN: [0648–ZA86]

Announcement of Funding

Opportunity for the Southeast Bering

Sea Carrying Capacity Research

Project.

AGENCY: Center for Sponsored Coastal

Ocean Research (CSCOR)/Coastal Ocean

Program (COP), National Ocean Service

(NOS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Solicitation of research

proposals for the Southeast Bering Sea

Carrying Capacity Research Project.

SUMMARY: The NOAA Coastal Ocean

Program announces an opportunity for

ecosystem dynamics studies on the

southeastern Bering Sea shelf as part of

the Southeast Bering Sea Carrying

Capacity (SEBSCC) project. This

announcement solicits 1-year and 2-year

proposals for synthesis and limited

monitoring to begin at the start of fiscal

year (FY) 2001 (October 1, 2000),

contingent upon the availability of

funds and facilities. This Phase III

announcement addresses years five and

six of SEBSCC. Funding for SEBSCC

will terminate at the end of Phase III

(September 30, 2002).

This notice solicits applications for

research projects from eligible nonFederal and Federal applicants. In an

effort to maximize the use of limited

resources, applications from nonFederal, non-NOAA Federal and NOAA

applicants will be competed against

each other. Research proposals selected

for funding from non-Federal

researchers will be funded through a

project grant. Research proposals

selected for funding from non-NOAA

Federal applicants will be funded

through an interagency transfer

provided legal authority exists for the

federal applicant to receive funds from

another agency. Research proposals

selected for funding from NOAA will be

funded through NOAA.

DATES: The deadline for receipt of

proposals at the COP office is 3 p.m.

local time on July 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit the original and 13

copies of your proposal to the COP

Office (SEBSCC 2001), SSMC#3, 9th

Floor, Station 9700, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. In

addition, submit an electronic copy of

the proposal in either WordPerfect or

MSWord format at time of initial

application. NOAA Standard Form

Applications with instructions are

accessible on the following COP Internet

Site: http://www.cop.noaa.gov under

the COP Grants Support Section, Part D,

Application Forms for Initial Proposal

Submission.

Further information on this program

and summaries and results of all

projects funded under Phases I and II of

SEBSCC are available from SEBSCC’s

web site at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/

sebscc and COP’s web site at http://

www.cop.noaa.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical Information: Allen Macklin at

Pacific Marine Environmental

Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way,

Seattle, WA, 98115-0070, 206–526-6798,

Internet: Allen.Macklin@noaa.gov, or

Elizabeth Turner, SEBSCC 2001

Program Manager, Coastal Ocean

Program Office, 301–713–3338/ext 135,

Internet: Elizabeth.Turner@noaa.gov.

Business Management Information:

Leslie McDonald, COP Grants Office,

301–713–3338/ext 137; Internet:

Leslie.McDonald@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Program Description

For complete program description and

other requirements criteria for the

Coastal Ocean Program, see COP’s

General Grant Administration Terms

and Conditions annual notification in

the Federal Register (64 FR 49162,

September 10, 1999) and at the COP

home page. It is anticipated that final

selections for funding will be made in

late fiscal year 2000.

The Bering Sea ecosystem experiences

interannual and climate variability.

Oceanographic conditions observed

during Phases I and II of SEBSCC

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices 30567

differed in several key respects. For

example, summer of 1997 brought warm

(+3 degree C) sea temperature

anomalies, unusually strong

stratification, a coccolithophorid bloom,

and reduced numbers of foraging sea

birds and returning salmon. The year

1999 brought cold sea temperatures that

have not been seen since the mid-1970s.

Strong contrasts in ocean conditions

provide a basis for synthesis and

comparison of the role of oceanic

conditions on the carrying capacity of

the Bering Sea. Specifically, proposals

are sought that examine existing data to

understand how oceanographic changes

affect the food web and food supply to

higher trophic level animals. Also,

proposals are sought that seek to test

whether selected biophysical indices

can be used to identify the state of the

ecosystem and the juvenile walleye

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma)

resource and to measure the predictive

capability of those indices.

The Bering Sea ecosystem is among

the most productive of high-latitude

seas and supports large populations of

marine fish, birds and mammals. This

productivity is important to the U.S.

economy in that fish and shellfish from

the region constitute almost 5 percent of

the world and 40 percent of the U.S.

fisheries harvest. Pollock, salmon,

halibut, and crab generate over 2 billion

dollars per year in fisheries revenue and

provide a major source of protein. The

overwhelming dominance of pollock in

the Bering Sea means that this species

currently plays a singularly important

role in this ecosystem. SEBSCC Phase I

and II research sought to understand the

processes controlling the Bering Sea

ecosystem. During those studies, several

indications of ecosystem change were

detected. The synthesis phase of

SEBSCC is designed to assimilate

research findings on biophysical

processes underlying the ecosystem

change in the Bering Sea.

Quantifying the relative importance of

natural variations and human-induced

variations in explaining upper trophic

level ecosystem changes is a key

management issue for the Bering Sea.

Differentiating trends in fish stock

abundance attributable to human

exploitation from trends due to natural

variations is difficult because the

fisheries and environmental time series

are often short or incomplete. Trends

are seldom stable and can be subject to

regional variation. Important lower

trophic level changes include those

natural and anthropogenic variations

that cause shifts in the production of

new organic matter and its vertical

distribution.

SEBSCC postulates that a large

fraction of the Bering Sea ecosystem

energy passes through the pollock

population. Juvenile pollock respond to

and potentially impact primary and

secondary production through grazing,

and influence the availability of food for

upper trophic level species, including

adult pollock, seabirds, and marine

mammals. Pollock provide an important

measure of the condition of the present

ecosystem, and may be an indicator of

changes in the Bering Sea over the last

three decades and in the future.

The SEBSCC program is designed to

improve our understanding of the

Bering Sea ecosystem; the results of this

endeavor will directly assist fishery and

resource managers.

SEBSCC Goal and Phase III Objectives

The goal of SEBSCC is to increase

understanding of the southeastern

Bering Sea pelagic ecosystem. New

information will be used to develop and

test annual indices of pre-recruit (age–

0 and age–1) pollock abundance that

will support management of pollock

stocks and help determine food

availability to other species.

The specific objectives for Phase III

are to:

(1) Develop indices for pre-recruit

pollock in the Bering Sea by using

several complimentary approaches;

(2) Provide limited monitoring to test

proposed indices;

(3) Provide a synthesis of current

Bering Sea ecosystem research, as

documented in a special journal issue to

be published in 2001 and other sources,

for publication in the Coastal Ocean

Program Decision Analysis Series.

Structure of the Research Program

SEBSCC is a NOAA COP regional

ecosystem project begun in 1996. This

continuing effort is managed by the

University of Alaska Fairbanks, NOAA’s

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and

NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental

Laboratory. SEBSCC synthesis research

comprises three components: modeling

and index development, monitoring,

and synthesis/assessment of results of

process-oriented field studies.

(1) Modeling and index development:

This effort is designed to synthesize

results generated by SEBSCC or by other

programs and historical data, using

conceptual, theoretical, statistical, and

numerical models to investigate the

ecosystem, especially the role of

pollock. Proposals are encouraged that

will provide spatially explicit

biophysical models that quantify the

influence of ocean forcing on the

bioenergetics, life history, and age

structure of pollock populations in the

Bering Sea.

The time period should emphasize

information gained through process

studies and system observations during

the SEBSCC years 1995–1999 or a

broader retrospective period from the

1970s to the 1999s. SEBSCC anticipates

funding three or four parallel but

complementary approaches to synthesis

of information on the Bering Sea and

development of pollock recruitment

indices. These include, but are not

limited to:

(a) Fisheries modeling that

emphasizes a top-down approach, but

includes the impact of juvenile pollock

and some spatial and ecosystem

dependence;

(b) Coupled biophysical models that

contrast transport and food variability in

the different SEBSCC years 1995–1999,

and treat pollock to age 6 months;

(c) Conceptual/observationally based

studies to develop and test indices,

including, but not limited to,

retrospective analysis of the

performance of selected ecosystem

parameters that are leading indicators of

pollock production and/or ecosystem

change.

Investigators should demonstrate how

their research would improve our

understanding of the impacts of ocean

forcing on marine production and how

these findings can be used to improve

resource management of the eastern

Bering Sea. Efforts to quantify

uncertainty in model predictions are

highly encouraged.

(2) Monitoring: The aim of the

monitoring component is to provide the

basis for interannual comparison of the

population processes and their coupling

to the physical structure and variability

of the environment. Shipboard studies

help to determine the distribution and

abundance of target organisms in

relation to their physical environment.

SEBSCC suggests the continuation of the

biophysical mooring at Site 2 and a

spring biological cruise that measures

water properties, nutrients, zooplankton

and larval pollock at previous SEBSCC

sites. Funding is available for making

observations and data processing.

(3) Written synthesis/assessment of

results of process studies: Research

results from SEBSCC Phases I and II and

other programs are to be submitted to a

special journal issue by September

2000. Under this AO, there is an

opportunity for researchers to use the

content of the special issue, additional

SEBSCC material and other information

to produce a manuscript for inclusion in

a Coastal Ocean Program Decision

Analysis Series report. The manuscript

will review SEBSCC and other research

30568 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices

results, evaluate their importance in

meeting the goals of SEBSCC and

management needs, discuss progress in

understanding the ecosystem of the

southeastern Bering Sea, and make

recommendations for future research.

About Phases I and II

Proposals for Phase I studies were

requested in 1996 and funded in fiscal

years 1997 and 1998. Summaries and

results of all projects funded under

Phase I of SEBSCC are available from

the SEBSCC web site, see ADDRESSES.

Central Scientific issues for Phase I

included the following:

(1) Influence of climate variability on

the Bering Sea ecosystem: Was there

historical evidence for a biophysical

regime shift on the Bering Sea shelf?

How was this reflected in ecological

relationships and species mix? Are there

‘‘top-down’’ ecosystem effects

associated with climate variations as

well as with ‘‘bottom-up’’ effects?

(2) Limited population growth on the

Bering Sea shelf: Was there evidence of

a single species carrying capacity, e.g.

for pollock, or a more complex

structure? What is the ecological role of

pollock on the Bering Sea shelf, i.e. how

are pollock, forage fish, and apex

species linked through energetics and

life history? How important is

cannibalism?

(3) Influence of oceanographic

conditions of biological distribution on

the shelf: How do the separate mixing

domains, sea ice, and cold pool

influence the overlap or separation

between predators and prey?

(4) Possible influences on primary

and secondary production regimes:

What were the sources of nutrients to

the southeastern Bering Sea shelf, and

what processes affected their

availability? Has the variability in sea

ice extent and timing been the primary

factor influencing productivity? What

has determined the relative allocation of

organic carbon going to benthos versus

that remaining in the pelagic system?

What are the lower trophic level

structure and energetics on the shelf in

summer and winter, especially

regarding euphausiids? What is the role

of gelatinous organisms?

Proposals for Phase II studies were

requested in 1998 and funded in FYs

1999 and 2000. Summaries and results

of all projects funded under Phase II of

SEBSCC are available from the SEBSCC

web site, see ADDRESSES.

The specific objectives for Phase II

were to:

(1) Determine how changes in onshelf transport of nutrients impact

pelagic food webs. This includes

determination of how timing, duration,

magnitude, and species composition of

primary, secondary, and forage fish

production affect food availability for

higher trophic levels.

(2) Determine how climate variability

influences the spatial overlap of pollock

of different life stages, and how the

availability of juvenile pollock to

predators affects pollock survival rate.

Part I: Schedule and Proposal

Submission

The provisions for proposal

preparation provided here are

mandatory. Proposals received after the

published deadline or proposals that

deviate from the prescribed format will

be returned to the sender without

further consideration. This

announcement and additional

background information will be made

available on the COP home page.

Full proposals addressing Phase III,

objective (1), should cover a 2-year

project period, i.e., from date of award

through twenty-four (24) consecutive

months. Proposals addressing Phase III,

objective (2), should cover a 1-year

period, FY 2001. Proposals addressing

objective (3) should cover a 1-year

period commencing with acceptance of

manuscripts for the special journal issue

(approximately spring 2001).

Prospective investigators should

provide a full scientific justification for

their research and not simply reiterate

justifications laid out in this AO or in

previous documents.

Proposals should be written to allow

adequate review of the details of such

things as goals and objectives,

conceptual framework, methodological

approaches, integration with other

likely projects and syntheses. Variables

to be used as candidate indices are to be

directly mentioned and justified.

Successful proposers are strongly

encouraged to present preliminary

results at the Tenth Annual PICES

meeting planned for Victoria, B.C.,

Canada, in October 2001. Travel costs

for the meeting may be included in

prospective budgets. In addition, it

would be helpful if a statement is

included as to how proposed efforts are

related to efforts of other potential

investigators; interdisciplinary and

multi-trophic level coordination are

particularly encouraged. Because of an

8–page limitation for the project

description, individual proposals with

overly complex structure and large

numbers of investigators are

discouraged.

Full Proposals

Applications submitted to this

announcement require an original

proposal and 13 proposal copies at time

of submission. This requirement

includes color or high-resolution

graphics, unusually sized materials (not

8.5’’ x 11’’, or 21.6 cm x 28 cm), or

otherwise unusual materials submitted

as part of the proposal. For color

graphics, submit either color originals or

color copies. In addition, an electronic

copy of the proposal in either

WordPerfect or MSWord format is

requested at time of initial application.

The stated requirements for the number

of original proposal copies provide for

a timely review process because of the

large number of technical reviewers.

Facsimile transmissions and electronic

mail submission of full proposals will

not be accepted.

Required Elements

All recipients are to follow closely the

instructions and requirements in the

preparation of the standard NOAA

Application Forms and Kit requirements

listed in Part II: Further Supplementary

Information, paragraph (10) of this

document. Each proposal must also

include the following eight elements:

(1) Signed summary title page: The

title page should be signed by the PI and

the institutional representative. The

summary title page identifies the

project’s title starting with the acronym

SEBSCC 2000, a short title (<50

characters), and the lead principal

investigator’s name and affiliation,

complete address, phone, FAX, and Email information. The requested budget

for each fiscal year should be included

on the summary title page. Multiinstitution proposals must include

signed summary title pages from each

institution.

(2) One-page abstract/project

summary: The Project Summary

(Abstract) Form, which is to be

submitted at time of application, shall

include an introduction of the problem,

rationale, scientific objectives and/or

hypotheses to be tested, and a brief

summary of work to be completed. State

whether you are proposing modeling

and index development, monitoring, or

synthesis/assessment of process studies.

For modeling and index development,

describe the method(s) to be used, the

relation to potential pollock indices,

and the hypothesis to be tested. For

monitoring, state the relationship to

existing observations and to

development of a pre-recruit index. The

prescribed COP format for the Project

Summary Form can be found on the

COP Internet site under the COP Grants

Support Section.

The summary should appear on a

separate page, headed with the proposal

title, institution(s), investigator(s), total

proposed cost, and budget period and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices 30569

should be written in the third person.

The summary is used to help compare

proposals quickly and allows the

respondents to summarize these key

points in their own words.

(3) Statement of work/project

description: The project description

section should not exceed eight pages of

text and five figures. It is important to

provide a full scientific justification for

the research; and not to simply reiterate

justifications presented in this

document. Page and figure limits are

inclusive of figures and other visual

materials, but exclusive of references

and milestone chart. This section

should include:

(a) The objective for the period of

proposed work and its expected result

and significance;

(b) The relation to the present state of

knowledge in the field and relation to

previous work and work in progress by

the proposing principal investigator(s);

(c) A discussion of how the proposed

project lends value to the program goals

and provides synthesis and support for

selection of indices, if applicable;

(d) A project management statement

that clearly identifies the functions of

each PI within a team;

(e) A potential coordination with

other investigators;

(f) An intent to adhere to NOAA’s

specific requirements that

environmental data be submitted to the

National Oceanographic Data Center;

adherence to the data policy that is

posted on SEBSCC’s home page; and

(g) References cited: Reference

information is required. Each reference

must include the names of all authors in

the same sequence in which they appear

in the publications, the article title,

volume number, page numbers, and

year of publications. While there is no

established page limitation, this section

should include bibliographical

information only and should not be

used to provide parenthetical

information outside of 8–page project

description.

(4) Milestone chart: Time lines of

major tasks covering the 12– to 24-

month duration of the proposed project.

(5) Budget: At time of proposal

submission, all applicants shall submit

the Standard Form, SF–424 (Rev 7–97),

Application for Federal Assistance, to

indicate the total amount of funding

proposed for the whole project period.

In lieu of the Standard Form 424A,

Budget Information (Non-Construction),

at time of original application, all

proposers are required to submit a COP

Summary Proposal Budget Form for

each fiscal year increment (i.e., 2001,

2002). Multi-institution proposals must

include budget forms from each

institution.

This budget form, compatible with

forms in use by other agencies that

participate in joint projects with COP,

will provide a detailed annual budget

and the level of detail required by the

COP program staff to evaluate the effort

to be invested by investigators and staff

on a specific project. The COP budget

form can be found on the COP home

page under COP Grants Support, Part D,

or may be requested from the COP

Grants Administrator listed under

FURTHER INFORMATION.

All applicants shall include a budget

narrative/justification that supports all

proposed budget object class categories.

The program office will review the

proposed budgets to determine the

necessity and adequacy of proposed

costs for accomplishing the objectives of

the proposed grant. The SF–424A,

Budget Information (Non-Construction)

Form, shall be requested from only

those recipients subsequently

recommended for award to the NOAA

Grants Management Division after the

competitive review process has been

completed.

(6) Biographical sketch: An

abbreviated curriculum vitae, two pages

per investigator, is sought with each

proposal. Include a list of up to five

publications most closely related to the

proposed project and up to five other

significant publications, not related to

the project. Include a list of all persons

(including their organizational

affiliation), in alphabetical order, who

have collaborated on a project, book,

article, or paper within the last 48

months. If no collaborators exist,

indicate their absence. Disclose

students, post-doctoral associates, and

graduate and postgraduate advisors of

the PI because this information is used

to help identify potential conflicts of

interest or bias in the selection of

reviewers.

(7) Current and pending support:

Describe all current and pending

support for all PIs, including subsequent

funding in the case of continuing grants.

List all current support from whatever

source (e.g., Federal, state or local

government agencies, private

foundations, industrial or other

commercial organizations). Include the

proposed project and all other projects

or activities requiring a portion of time

of the PI and other senior personnel

even if they receive no salary support

from the project(s). Show the total

award amount for the entire award

period covered (including indirect

costs) should be shown as well as the

number of persons or months per year

to be devoted to the project, regardless

of source of support.

(8) Proposal format and assembly:

Clamp the proposal in the upper lefthand corner, but leave it unbound. Use

one inch (2.5 cm) margins at the top,

bottom, left and right of each page. Use

a clear and easily legible type face in

standard 12 point size.

Part II: Further Supplementary

Information

(1) Program authorities: For a list of

all program authorities for the Coastal

Ocean Program, see COP’s General

Grant Administration Terms and

Conditions annual document in the

Federal Register (64 FR 49162,

September 10, 1999) and at the COP

home page. Specific authority cited for

this Announcement is 33 U.S.C. 883(d)

for Coastal Ocean Program.

(2) Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Numbers: 11.478 for the

Coastal Ocean Program.

(3) Program description: For complete

COP program descriptions, see the

annual COP General Document (64 FR

49162, September 10, 1999).

(4) Funding availability: Funding is

contingent upon receipt of fiscal years

2001–2002 Federal appropriations. The

anticipated maximum annual funding

for SEBSCC is $700,000 in FYs 2001 and

$300,000 in FY 2002. It is anticipated

that $450,000 in FYs 2001 and $200,000

in FY 2002 will be available to fund

three or four modeling and index

development projects addressing Phase

III objective (1). Further, it is projected

that approximately $150,000 will be

available for monitoring in FY 2001 to

address Phase III objective (2). In 2001,

one month of ship time is expected

during spring for monitoring work. Joint

work with other research institutions on

their vessels is a possibility.

Approximately $40,000 will be available

for synthesis/assessment of results of

process studies. This component will

begin when all submissions to the

special journal issue are accepted,

probably spring 2001.

It is recognized that resources are

limited; therefore, potential

investigators are encouraged to consider

leveraging their proposals with support

from other sources, although this is not

a requirement. Investigators interested

in the Bering Sea may also consider

becoming no-cost collaborators; ship

time and modest travel support would

be available.

If an application is selected for

funding, NOAA has no obligation to

provide any additional prospective

funding in connection with that award

in subsequent years. Renewal of an

award to increase funding or extend the

30570 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices

period of performance is based on

satisfactory performance and is at the

total discretion of the funding agencies.

Publication of this document does not

obligate any agency to any specific

award or to any part of the entire

amount of funds available. Recipients

and subrecipients are subject to all

Federal laws and agency policies,

regulations, and procedures applicable

to Federal financial assistance awards.

(5) Matching Requirements: None.

(6) Type of funding instrument:

Project Grants for non-Federal

applicants; interagency transfer

agreements or other appropriate

mechanisms other than project grants or

cooperative agreements for Federal

applicants.

(7) Eligibility criteria: For complete

eligibility criteria for the Coastal Ocean

Program, see COP’s General Grant

Administration Terms and Conditions

annual notification in the Federal

Register (64 FR 49162, September 10,

1999) and at the COP home page.

Federal researchers in successful multiinvestigator proposals will be funded

through NOAA. Proposals deemed

acceptable from Federal researchers will

be funded through a mechanism other

than a grant or cooperative agreement,

where legal authority allows for such

funding. Non-NOAA Federal applicants

are required to submit certification or

documentation which clearly shows

that they can receive funds from the

Department of Commerce (DoC) for

research (i.e., legal authority exists

allowing the transfer of funds from DoC

to the non-NOAA Federal applicant’s

agency).

(8) Award period: Full Proposals

should cover a project period of 1 or 2

years, FYs 2001–2002. Multi-year

funding will be funded incrementally

on an annual basis. Therefore, each

annual award shall require a Statement

of Work that is clearly severable and can

be easily separated into annual

increments of meaningful work which

represent solid accomplishments if

prospective funding is not made

available.

(9) Indirect costs: If indirect costs are

proposed, the following statement

applies: The total dollar amount of the

indirect costs proposed in an

application must not exceed the indirect

cost rate negotiated and approved by a

cognizant Federal agency prior to the

proposed effective date of the award.

(10) Application forms: For complete

information on application forms for the

Coastal Ocean Program, see COP’s

General Grant Administration Terms

and Conditions annual document in the

Federal Register (64 FR 49162,

September 10, 1999), Part (9)

Application Forms and Kit; and at the

COP home page, under Grants Support,

Part D, Application Forms for Initial

Proposal Submission; and the

information given earlier in this

document under Required Elements,

paragraph (5) Budget.

With the exception of the Standard

Form 424 (Rev July 1997) Application

for Federal Assistance, the other

standard NOAA forms required as part

of a complete application package may

be submitted at time of application, or

at a later date if the applicant is

subsequently notified of selection for

funding.

(11) Project funding priorities: For

description of project funding priorities,

see COP’s General Grant Administration

Terms and Conditions annual document

in the Federal Register (64 FR 49162,

September 10, 1999) and at the COP

home page. Those priorities are in

addition to the priorities listed in this

document.

(12) Evaluation criteria: For complete

information on evaluation criteria, see

COP’s General Grant Administration

Terms and Conditions annual document

in the Federal Register (64 FR 49162,

September 10, 1999) and at the COP

home page.

(13) Selection procedures: For

complete information on selection

procedures, see COP’s General Grant

Administration Terms and Conditions

annual document in the Federal

Register (64 FR 49162, September 10,

1999) and at the COP home page.

(14) Other requirements:

Intergovernmental Review: Applications

under this program are not subject to

Executive Order 12372,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs’’. For a complete description

of all other requirements, see COP’s

General Grant Administration Terms

and Conditions annual document in the

Federal Register (64 FR 49162,

September 10, 1999) and at the COP

home page.

(15) 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, Hispanic

Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges

and Universities in its educational and

research programs. The DOC/NOAA

vision, mission and goals are to achieve

full participation by Minority Serving

Institutions (MSIs)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.

(16) Applicants are hereby notified

that they are encouraged, to the greatest

practicable extent, to purchase

American-made equipment and

products with funding provided under

this program.

(17) This notification involves

collection-of-information requirements

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A,

424B, and SF-LLL has been approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under control numbers 0348–

0043, 0348–0044, 0348–0040 and 0348–

0046.

The COP Grants Application Package

has been approved by OMB under

control number 0648–0384 and includes

the following information collections: a

Summary Proposal Budget Form, a

Project Summary Form, standardized

formats for the Annual Performance

Report and the Final Report, and the

submission of up to 20 copies of

proposals. Copies of these forms and

formats can be found on the COP Home

Page under Grants Support section, Part

F.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to, nor shall any person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, unless that collection

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Dated: May 8, 2000.

Ted I. Lillestolen,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, National

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–12033 Filed 5–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–JS–F

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of an Import Limit for

Certain Man-Made Fiber Textile

Products Produced or Manufactured in

Belarus

May 9, 2000.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs increasing a

limit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 2000.