31584 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

more abundantly expressed in tumor

cells than in normal cells. Historically,

scientists have tried to capitalize upon

this overexpression and have attempted

to inhibit TS activity with the goal of

shrinking tumors and/or killing tumor

cells. For example, fluorouracil and

floxuridine have been used to treat

breast, colon, pancreas, stomach,

ovarian and head/neck carcinomas, but

the effectiveness of these approaches

have been limited because many tumors

are inherently resistant to these

treatments, and even those that are

initially sensitive, develop resistance

during the course of treatment. It was

subsequently shown, that a strong

correlation exists between resistance

and high level expression of TS.

The inventors have proceeded along

another route, again, attempting to

capitalize upon the high levels of TS in

tumor cells. Instead of trying to inhibit

TS activity, they have proposed the

introduction of uridine analogue

prodrugs into cancer cells. These

prodrugs would then be converted to

more toxic thymidine analogues. This

approach seems to avoid the observed

problems of TS inhibition and shows

great promise.

Detection and diagnostic applications

for this technology are also possible. In

particular, the success of this type of

strategy would be contingent upon the

extent of prodrug incorporation into

DNA and therefore, the analysis of a

tumor cell’s DNA could provide

diagnostic information regarding the

optimal therapy for a specific tumor

type. Traditionally, methods to

determine growth rates have been

invasive, but this technology would

provide for non-invasive external

imaging methods which would avoid

the need for biopsies as well as

providing for the capability of scanning

larger areas of the body.

Thymidine is an excellent probe for

monitoring growth/DNA synthesis, but

it cannot be used in these situations

because it is quickly degraded in the

body. Analogues of thymidine would

obviate this problem and could be

produced upon conversion of the

contemplated uridine analogue

prodrugs.

The prospective exclusive license will

be royalty-bearing and will comply with

the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C.

209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective

exclusive license may be granted unless

within sixty (60) days from the date of

this published notice, the NIH receives

written evidence and argument that

establish that the grant of the license

would not be consistent with the

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37

CFR 404.7.

Applications for a license in the field

of use filed in response to this notice

will be treated as objections to the grant

of the contemplated exclusive license.

Comments and objections submitted to

this notice will not be made available

for public inspection and, to the extent

permitted by law, will not be released

under the Freedom of Information Act,

5 U.S.C. 552.

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Jack Spiegel,

Director, Division of Technology Development

and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer.

[FR Doc. 00–12548 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4570–N–02]

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing; Notice of

Funding Availability for Fair Share

Allocation of Incremental Voucher

Funding Fiscal Year 2000;

Amendments to NOFA and Reopening

of Application Period

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of Fund Availability

(NOFA); Amendments and Reopening of

Application Period.

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2000, HUD

published its FY 2000 NOFA for Fair

Share Allocation of Incremental

Voucher Funding (‘‘Fair Share NOFA’’).

This document amends the selection

criteria of this NOFA primarily to better

reflect the appropriate weight in points

that should have been assigned to the

‘‘housing needs’’ selection criterion so

that need is the most important basis for

allocating incremental voucher funding.

As discussed in more detail in the

Supplementary Information section of

this notice, the points of other selection

criteria are also revised to better reflect

their appropriate weight, and the

separate criterion for portability is

removed. This notice also explains that

HUD will substitute the number of

‘‘contracted units’’ for ‘‘HUD-approved

budget’’ the number of certificates and

vouchers on the latest HUD-approved

budget when the number of a PHA’s

contracted units is higher than the

number of a PHA’s budgeted units.

The application period for the Fair

Share NOFA closed on April 24, 2000.

This notice reopens the application

period for an additional 30 day period.

DATES: Applications are due on June 19,

2000.

Applicants that already submitted

applications by the April 24, 2000,

application due date, need not resubmit

a new application, and need not amend

their applications. Applicants that

already submitted applications,

however, may submit new or amended

applications if they so choose.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background—March 10, 2000 NOFA

If you are interested in applying for

funding under the Fair Share NOFA,

and did not apply earlier, please review

the entire Fair Share NOFA, published

on March 10, 2000 (65 FR 13222).

Except for the reopening of the

application period and the revisions

made by this document, all other

provisions of the Fair Share NOFA are

unchanged and remain applicable.

The March 10, 2000 Fair Share NOFA

will provide you with detailed

information regarding the submission of

an application, Section 8 program

requirements, the application selection

process to be used by HUD in selecting

applications for funding, and other

valuable information relative to a PHA’s

application submission and

participation in the program covered by

this NOFA. The March 10, 2000 Fair

Share NOFA is also available on HUD’s

internet site at http://www.hud.gov

under ‘‘Funds Available.’’ This Federal

Register notice amending the March 10,

2000 Fair Share NOFA is also available

at the same HUD web site.

Reopening of Application Period

Application Due Date. Your

completed application (an original and

two copies) or any amendment to an

earlier submitted application (also an

original and two copies) is due on or

before June 19, 2000 at the addresses

shown below.

As noted earlier, applicants that

already submitted applications by the

April 24, 2000, application due date,

need not resubmit a new application,

and need not amend their applications.

Applicants that already submitted

applications, however, may submit new

or amended applications if they so

choose.

Submission of new or amended

applications should clearly identify the

name of the applicant, the applicant HA

code (e.g. CA002), and whether the

information submitted is new and

replaces a previously submitted

application in its entirety or is an

addendum to the previously submitted

application.

Address for Submitting Applications.

Submit your original application or your

original application amendment and

one copy to Michael E. Diggs, Director

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices 31585

of the Grants Management Center,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 501 School Street, SW,

Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024.

Submit the second copy of your

application or application amendment

to the local HUD Field Office Hub,

Attention: Director, Office of Public

Housing, or to the local HUD Field

Office Program Center, Attention:

Program Center Coordinator.

The Grants Management Center is the

official place of receipt for all

applications in response to this NOFA.

Delivered Applications. If you are

hand delivering your application, or

application amendment, it is due on or

before 5:00 pm, Eastern time, on the

application due date to the Office of

Public and Indian Housing’s Grants

Management Center (GMC) in

Washington, DC. A copy is also to be

submitted by the applicant to the local

HUD Field Office Hub or local HUD

Field Office Program Center.

This application deadline in this

notice is firm as to date and hour. In the

interest of fairness to all competing

PHAs, HUD will not consider any

application or application amendment

that is received after the application

deadline. Applicants should take this

practice into account and make early

submission of their materials to avoid

any risk of loss of eligibility brought

about by unanticipated delays or other

delivery-related problems. HUD will not

accept, at any time during the NOFA

competition, application materials sent

via facsimile (FAX) transmission.

Mailed Applications. Applications

sent by U.S. mail will be considered

timely filed if postmarked before

midnight on the application due date

and received within ten (10) days of that

date.

Applications Sent by Overnight

Delivery. Applications sent by overnight

delivery will be considered timely filed

if received before or on the application

due date, or upon submission of

documentary evidence that they were

placed in transit with the overnight

delivery service by no later than the

specified application due date.

For Application Kit. An application

kit is not available and is not necessary

for submitting an application for

funding under this NOFA. The March

10, 2000 Fair Share NOFA, as amended

by this notice, contains all of the

information necessary for the

submission of an application for

voucher funding in connection with this

NOFA.

For Further Information and

Technical Assistance. You may contact

George C. Hendrickson, Housing

Program Specialist, Room 4216, Office

of Public and Assisted Housing

Delivery, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Room 4216, 451

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20410; telephone (202) 708–1872, ext.

4064, or you may contact Ms. Sherry

McCown at the Grants Management

Center at (202) 358–0273. (These are not

toll-free numbers.) Persons with hearing

or speech impairments may access these

numbers via TTY (text telephone) by

calling the Federal Information Relay

Service at 1–800–877–8339 (this is a

toll-free number).

Amendments to Selection Criteria and

Points Assigned

This document amends the selection

criteria in Section IV of the March 10,

2000 Fair Share NOFA primarily to

better reflect the appropriate weight in

points that should have been assigned to

the ‘‘housing needs’’ selection criterion

so that need is the most important basis

for allocating incremental voucher

funding. Weights of other criteria are

reduced accordingly. This document

also alters or removes two selection

criteria that do not assess a public

housing agency’s housing needs and are

otherwise problematic. First, the

residency preference subcategory is

being altered to provide for the

assignment of points to PHAs that will

limit applicability of residency

preferences to 15% of all new

admissions to the program, as well as to

those PHAs that do not have a residency

preference or agree to eliminate one.

This change is made in recognition that

some PHAs with legally adopted

residency preferences and great housing

needs would have been penalized by the

language provided in the March 10,

2000 Fair Share NOFA. Second, the

portability selection criterion is

removed because portability is

adequately covered in the Area-Wide

Housing Opportunities (Selection

Criterion 2) and because the portability

criterion would have awarded too many

points for PHAs promising to absorb

portable families with the new funds,

relative to the March 10, 2000 Fair

Share NOFA’s treatment of PHAs that

already are absorbing portable families.

Because of the changes in the Selection

Criteria, changes were required to be

made to Attachment 2 to the March 10,

2000 Fair Share NOFA (Fair Share

Application Checklist) and the amended

checklist is included in this notice.

This document also revises the total

amount of points a PHA is eligible to

receive under the Fair Share NOFA. The

March 10, 2000 Fair Share NOFA

provided for a total of 160 points. The

amendments made by this notice

provide that the total number of points

a PHA is eligible to receive is 100

points.

The changes made by this document

are as follows:

• Selection Criterion 1: Housing

Needs—the maximum number of points

for this criterion is changed from 30 to

45 points, and the assignment of these

points is based more specifically on the

percentage of the State’s housing need

in the PHA’s jurisdiction.

• Selection Criterion 2: Efforts of PHA

to Provide Area-Wide Housing

Opportunities for Families—the points

for this criterion are changed from 60 to

30 points. To correspond to the

reduction in the point total for this

criterion, all the subcategories under

Selection Criterion 2 are reduced from

10 to 5 points. In addition, the residency

preference subcategory is changed as

discussed above. PHAs that would have

received points for this subcategory will

still receive points and need submit

nothing else unless they choose to

amend their certification. PHAs that

would not have received points but

would qualify under the amended

language need to submit the required

certification.

• Selection Criterion 3: Local

Initiatives—the points for this criterion

are changed from 20 to 10 points.

• Selection Criterion 4: Disabled

Families—the points for this criterion

are changed from 20 to 10 points.

• Selection Criterion 5: Medicaid

Home and Community Based Services

Waivers under Section 1915(c) of the

Social Security Act—the points for this

criterion are changed from 10 to 5

points.

• Selection Criterion 6: Portability—

this criterion is removed as a selection

criterion for the reasons discussed

above. Statements already submitted in

response to this criterion will not be

considered.

Substitution of ‘‘Contracted Units’’ for

Budgeted Units When Number of

Contracted Units Is Higher Than

Number of Budgeted Units

In the March 10, 2000 Fair Share

NOFA, HUD used the term ‘‘HUDapproved budget’’ in discussing the

calculation of maximum funding

allowed under the NOFA. For example,

in Section V.(A) (‘‘Fair Share

Application Process’’), HUD advises that

the ‘‘The GMC may recommend for

approval the maximum funding for a

PHA under this NOFA that does not

exceed the lesser of 25% of the PHA

vouchers and certificates on the latest

HUD-approved budget or 25% of the

number of vouchers available in the

State, whichever is less.’’ (See page

13226, first column). Reference to 25%

31586 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

of HUD-approved budget (‘‘budgeted

units’’) for certificates and vouchers also

appears in Section V(B) and Section

VI(A) (also on page 13226).

Because the automated data on

budgeted units are not optimal in all

cases, through this notice, HUD

provides notification that it will

substitute in this calculation contracted

units (i.e., the number of units under an

Annual Contributions Contract) for the

number of certificates and vouchers on

the latest HUD-approved budget when

the number of a PHA’s contracted units

is higher than the number of a PHA’s

budgeted units. The determination of

contracted units shall be made in

accordance with Attachment 3

(Methodology for Determining Lease-Up

and Budget Authority Utilization

Percentage Rates) to the March 10, 2000

Fair Share NOFA (see page 13229).

Accordingly, in the FY 2000 NOFA

for Fair Share Allocation of Incremental

Voucher Funding, notice document 00–

6027, beginning at 65 FR 13222, in the

issue of Friday, March 10 2000, the

following amendments are made to

Section IV of the NOFA at 65 FR 13224,

and Attachment 2 at 65 FR 13229:

IV. Fair Share Application Rating

Process

(A) Selection Criteria. The GMC will

use the Selection Criteria shown below

for the rating of applications submitted

in response to this NOFA. The

maximum score under the selection

criteria for fair share funding is 100

points.

(1) Selection Criterion 1: Housing

Needs (45 points).

(a) Description: This criterion assesses

the housing need in the primary market

area specified in the PHA’s application

compared with the housing need for the

State. Housing need is defined as the

number of very low-income renter

households with severe rent burden,

based on 1990 Census data. Very lowincome is defined as income at or below

the Section 8 very low-income limits.

Severe rent burden is defined as a

household paying 50 percent or more of

its gross income for rent.

(b) Needs Data: For the purpose of this

criterion, housing needs are based on a

tabulation of 1990 Census data prepared

for the Department by the Bureau of the

Census. Data on housing needs are

available for all States, all counties

(county equivalents), and places with

populations of 10,000 or more as of

1990. Information will be posted on the

HUD Home Page site on the Internet’s

world wide web (http://www.hud.gov

under ‘‘Funds Available’’) indicating the

proportion of each State’s housing needs

for primary markets.

(c) Rating and Assessment: The

number of points assigned is based on

the percentage of the State’s housing

need that is within the PHA’s primary

market area. The primary market area is

defined as the jurisdiction (or its closest

equivalent in terms of areas for which

housing needs data are available) in

which the PHA is authorized to operate

and where the vouchers will be used, as

described in its application. (See

paragraph VI(C) of this NOFA regarding

regional (multi-county) and State

PHAs.)

(1) The GMC will assign the following

points :

• 45 points (maximum). For each

percentage point of the State’s housing

need (rounded to the nearest percentage

point), the PHA will receive two points.

(2) A State, regional or multi-county

PHA will receive points based on the

areas it serves where the vouchers will

be used, e.g., the entire State or the sum

of the housing needs for the counties

and/or localities comprising its primary

market area.

(3) A PHA with a primary market area

that is a community with a population

of 10,000 or less, or a PHA for which

housing needs data are not available,

will receive 2 points.

(2) Selection Criterion 2: Efforts of

PHA to Provide Area-Wide Housing

Opportunities for Families (30 points).

(a) Description: Many PHAs have

undertaken voluntary efforts to provide

area-wide housing opportunities for

families. The efforts described in

response to this selection criterion must

be beyond those required by federal law

or regulation such as the portability

provisions of the Section 8 voucher

program. The GMC will assign points to

PHAs that have established cooperative

agreements with other PHAs or created

a consortium of PHAs in order to

facilitate the transfer of families and

their rental assistance between PHA

jurisdictions. In addition, the GMC will

assign points to PHAs that have

established relationships with nonprofit groups to provide families with

additional counseling, or have directly

provided counseling, to increase the

likelihood of a successful move by the

families to areas that do not have large

concentrations of poverty.

(b) Rating and Assessment: The GMC

will assign point values for any of the

following assessments for which the

PHA qualifies and add the points for all

the assessments (maximum of 30 points)

to determine the total points for this

Selection Criterion:

• 5 Points—Assign 5 points if the

PHA documents that it participates in

an area-wide exchange program where

all PHAs absorb portable Section 8

families.

• 5 Points—Assign 5 points if the

PHA certifies that (i) its administrative

plan does not include a ‘‘residency

preference’’ for selection of families to

participate in its voucher program, or

(ii) it will eliminate immediately any

‘‘residency preference’’ currently in its

administrative plan, or (iii) it will limit

applicability of residency preferences to

15% of all new admissions to the

voucher program.

• 5 Points—Assign 5 points if the

PHA documents that it has established

a contractual relationship with a nonprofit agency or the local governmental

entity to provide housing counseling for

families that want to move to lowpoverty or non-minority areas. The five

PHAs approved for the FY 93 Moving to

Opportunity (MTO) for Fair Housing

Demonstration, PHAs participating in

the Regional Opportunity Counseling

(ROC) Program, and any other PHAs

that receive counseling funds from HUD

in connection with the demolition of

public housing, public housing vacancy

consolidation, or settlement of litigation

involving desegregation may qualify for

points under this assessment. However,

these PHAs must identify all activities

undertaken, other than those funded

and required under the MTO

Demonstration, ROC Program, or the

court-ordered plans or plans for

relocating public housing families, to

expand housing opportunities.

• 5 Points—Assign 5 points if the

PHA documents that it participates with

other PHAs in using a metropolitan

wide or combined waiting list for

selecting participants in the program.

• 5 Points—Assign 5 points if the

PHA documents that it has

implemented other initiatives that have

resulted in expanding housing

opportunities in areas that do not have

undue concentrations of poverty or

minority families.

• 5 Points—Assign 5 points if the

PHA has formed a consortium or joint

venture with other PHAs to administer

its voucher program.

(3) Selection Criterion 3: Local

Initiatives (10 points).

(a) Description: The application must

describe the extent to which the PHA

demonstrates locally initiated efforts in

support of its voucher and certificate

programs or comparable tenant-based

rental assistance programs. Evaluation

of a locality’s contribution is measured

competitively by whether the locality is

able to provide services, cash

contributions, or tax abatements to

rental property owners leasing to

Section 8 families, or demonstrates its

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices 31587

intention to provide this kind of support

in the future.

(b) Rating and Assessment: The GMC

will assign one of two point-values, as

follows:

• 10 points: The State or locality

provides local support (e.g., financial,

manpower for inspection services) to its

voucher or certificate program.

• 0 points: The State or locality does

not provide support to the PHA’s

voucher or certificate program.

(4) Selection Criterion 4: Disabled

Families (10 points).

(a) Description: The GMC will assign

10 points to PHAs that indicate at least

15 percent or more of the vouchers they

are requesting (or funded by HUD)

under this NOFA will be used to house

disabled families. The PHA’s

application must be specific as to the

exact percentage of vouchers that will

be issued solely to disabled families.

Disabled families are defined as follows:

(i) Disabled Family. A family whose

head, spouse, or sole member is a

person with disabilities. The term

‘‘disabled family’’ may include two or

more such persons with disabilities

living together, and one or more such

persons with disabilities living with one

or more persons who are determined

essential to the care and well-being of

the person or persons with disabilities

(live-in aides).

(ii) Person with disabilities. A person

who—

a. Has a disability as defined in

section 223 of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 423), or

b. Is determined to have a physical,

mental or emotional impairment that:

1. Is expected to be of long-continued

and indefinite duration;

2. Substantially impedes his or her

ability to live independently; and

3. Is of such a nature that such ability

could be improved by more suitable

housing conditions, or

c. Has a developmental disability as

defined in section 102 of the

Developmental Disabilities Assistance

and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C.

6001(5)).

The term ‘‘person with disabilities’’

does not exclude persons who have the

disease of acquired immunodeficiency

syndrome (AIDS) or any conditions

arising from the etiologic agent for

acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

(HIV).

(Note: While the above definition of a

‘‘person with disabilities’’ is to be used for

purposes of determining a family’s eligibility

for a Section 8 voucher designated as being

for a disabled family under this NOFA, the

definition of a person with disabilities

contained in section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations

must be used for purposes of meeting the

requirements of Fair Housing laws, including

providing reasonable accommodations.)

No individual shall be considered a

person with disabilities for the purpose

of determining eligibility solely on the

basis of any drug or alcohol

dependence.

(b) Rating and Assessment: The GMC

will assign one of two point values, as

follows:

• 10 points: The PHA will use not

less than 15 percent of the vouchers

being requested (or funded by HUD) to

house disabled families.

• 0 points: The PHA will use less

than 15 percent of the vouchers it is

requesting (or funded by HUD) to house

disabled families.

(5) Selection Criterion 5: Medicaid

Home and Community Based Services

Waivers Under Section 1915(c) of the

Social Security Act (5 points).

(a) Description: This selection

criterion is for PHAs interested in the

provision of Section 8 voucher

assistance to families within their

jurisdiction who are disabled and also

covered under a waiver of Section

1915(c) of the Social Security Act.

Section 1915(c) waivers are approved by

the Health Care Financing

Administration within the Department

of Health and Human Services (HHS) for

the agency within each State

responsible for the administration of the

medicaid program. Contacting the

responsible State agency (for example,

the Agency for Health Care

Administration in the State of Florida)

will assist the PHA in determining how

many, if any, individuals are covered by

a Section 1915(c) waiver in the PHA’s

legal area of operation. These waivers

allow medicaid-eligible individuals at

risk of being placed in hospitals,

nursing facilities or intermediate care

facilities the alternative of being cared

for in their homes and communities.

These individuals are thereby assisted

in preserving their independence and

ties to family and friends at a cost no

higher than that of institutional care.

While a Section 1915(c) waiver may

cover individuals other than those who

are disabled, the focus of Selection

Criterion 5 is on disabled families only.

The definition of disabled families

listed under Selection Criterion 4 will

be used by PHAs for purposes of the

issuance of vouchers to disabled

families in connection with Selection

Criterion 5; i.e., only those individuals

that meet the definition of a disabled

family in this announcement are to be

considered in connection with a PHA

determining how many such disabled

families are covered by a Section

1915(c) waiver in their legal area of

operation and whether to try to qualify

for the 5 points available under

Selection Criterion 5. The PHA’s

application must be specific as to the

percentage of vouchers that will be

issued to such disabled families.

Any PHA attempting to qualify for the

5 points available under Selection

Criterion 5 should also include

information within its application

indicating the collaborative efforts

already undertaken with the responsible

State agency to identify eligible families,

as well as agreements reached with that

agency for future referrals of such

families. HUD reserves the right at some

future point in time to conduct an

evaluation of the success of the PHA’s

efforts to collaborate with the State

agency and to successfully house

individuals that meet the requirements

of being covered by a Section 1915(c)

waiver, qualify as a disabled family

under this announcement, and are

otherwise eligible for a Section 8

voucher.

(b) Rating and Assessment: The GMC

will assign one of two point values as

follows:

• 5 points: The PHA will use not less

than 3 percent of the vouchers being

requested (or funded by HUD) to house

Section 8 eligible, disabled families

covered by a waiver under Section

1915(c) of the Social Security Act.

• 0 points: The PHA will use less

than 3 percent of the vouchers it is

requesting (or funded by HUD) to house

Section 8 eligible, disabled families

covered by a waiver under Section

1915(c) of the Social Security Act.

(c) Prohibition Against Double

Counting. The number (percentage) of

disabled families that a PHA indicates it

will issue vouchers to when qualifying

for the 5 points available under

Selection Criterion 5 cannot be used to

also qualify for the 10 points available

under Selection Criterion 4 or

conversely.

Dated: May 15, 2000.

Harold Lucas,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P

31588 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices 31589

31590 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices 31591

31592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–12586 Filed 5–15–00; 4:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–C

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Species

Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

The following applicant has applied

for a permit to conduct certain activities

with endangered species. This notice is

provided pursuant to section 10(c) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

Permit Number TE805269–6

Applicant: Daniel A. Soluk, Illinois

Natural History Survey, Champaign,

Illinois.

The applicant requests a permit

amendment to take Hine’s Emerald

Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) in the

states of Alabama, Michigan, Missouri

and Ohio. The applicant is currently

authorized to conduct take in Illinois

and Wisconsin. Activities are proposed

for the enhancement of survival of the

species in the wild.

Written data or comments should be

submitted to the Regional Director, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological

Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive,

Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111–4056,

and must be received within 30 days of

the date of this publication.

Documents and other information

submitted with this application are

available for review by any party who

submits a written request for a copy of

such documents to the following office

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services Operations,

1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling,

Minnesota 55111–4056. Telephone:

(612/713–5343); FAX: (612/713–5292).

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Charles M. Wooley,

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological

Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

[FR Doc. 00–12573 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Availability of a Draft Environmental

Assessment and Receipt of an

Application for an Incidental Take

Permit for the Atlantic Coast Piping

Plover in Massachusetts

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Massachusetts Division

of Fisheries and Wildlife has applied to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) for an incidental take permit

pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Endangered Species Act (Act). The

requested permit, which is for a period

of three years, would authorize the

incidental take of the threatened piping

plover (Charadrius melodus) in

Massachusetts. The proposed take

would occur as a result of specific

actions relating to the management of

recreational use of beaches where

breeding piping plovers are found.

The Massachusetts Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife has prepared a

draft environmental assessment (EA) for

the incidental take application. This

notice is provided pursuant to Section

10(c) of the Act and National

Environmental Policy Act regulations

(40 CFR 1506.6).

DATES: Written comments on the

application and draft EA should be

received on or before June 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

regarding the application and requests

for copies of the draft EA and the

conservation plan should be addressed

to Field Supervisor, New England Field

Office, 22 Bridge St., Unit 1, Concord,

New Hampshire 03301–4986, telephone

(603) 225–1411. Please refer to permit

TE813653 when submitting comments.

Comments regarding the conservation

plan will be forwarded to the

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and

Wildlife for review and response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susanna L. von Oettingen at the above

address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Atlantic Coast piping plover was

listed as a threatened species on January

10, 1986. Because of its listing as

threatened, the piping plover is

protected by the Act’s prohibitions

against ‘‘take’’. However, the Service

may issue permits to carry out otherwise

prohibited activities involving

endangered and threatened wildlife

under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are at 50

CFR 17.22, 17.23 and 17.32. For

threatened species, such permits are

available for scientific purposes,

incidental take, or special purposes

consistent with the purposes of the Act.

The Massachusetts Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife (Division) has

applied to the Service for an incidental

take permit pursuant to Section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. This permit

would authorize the incidental take of

piping plovers through otherwise lawful

activities occurring on plover breeding

beaches. Included in the application is

a conservation plan prepared by the

Division detailing the activities that

would result in incidental take and

describing measures that mitigate,

minimize and monitor the amount of

take. In 1996, the Division was granted

a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the

incidental take of piping plovers. The

permit expired in 1998. The

conservation plan included in the

current application under review is an

updated document and will replace the

earlier conservation plan.

The revised recovery plan for the

Atlantic Coast piping plover (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 1996. Piping

Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic

Coast Population, Revised Recovery

Plan. Hadley, MA. 258 pp) identified

New England (which includes

Massachusetts) as a recovery unit.

Guidelines in the recovery plan state

that permits for incidental take that will

reduce the productivity of breeding

piping plovers should only be allowed

in recovery units where the

subpopulation has achieved at least

70% of its portion of the recovery goal.

The 1999 preliminary estimate of 634

pairs of piping plovers in the New

England recovery unit indicate that the

population has exceeded the recovery

goal of 627 pairs specified in the

recovery plan. Furthermore, under an

intensive management program, the

Massachusetts piping plover population

has increased more than four-fold over

the last ten years, from 140 pairs in 1990

to 505 pairs in 1999.

The purpose of the proposed

incidental take permit is to provide

increased flexibility in managing

Massachusetts beaches for use by

recreationists and homeowners, while

assuring continued progress toward the

recovery of the Massachusetts and

Atlantic Coast populations of the piping

plover. The additional flexibility in

managing beaches will prevent a

disproportionate expenditure of

resources directed at the protection of a

few nests or broods in areas where they

may significantly disrupt beach access

by large numbers of people and be

highly vulnerable to disturbance and/or

mortality. Management flexibility also