5854 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices

combustion turbine will be fed to a heat

recovery steam generator. The output

from each heat recovery steam generator

will be fed to a single steam turbine that

has the potential to generate 164

megawatts. Each heat recover steam

generator will incorporate a selective

catalytic reduction system to remove

nitrogen oxides from the combustion

turbine’s exhaust gas. The combustion

turbines units will be shop-built and

shipped to the site as modules that will

be installed on steel-reinforced concrete

foundations. Related improvements will

include the construction of a new

electric transmission station and an

18.6-mile, 230 kV transmission line

circuit between the Gantt Plant and the

Opp Switching Station. The Southeast

Alabama Gas District will construct a

60-mile-long, 20-inch diameter natural

gas pipeline from Flomaton, Alabama,

to the Gantt site to provide the natural

gas to power the plant. RUS will not

provide financing assistance for the

natural gas pipeline.

Based on its environmental

assessment of the project, RUS has

concluded that the construction and

operation of the 496 megawatt plant at

the Gantt site would have no significant

impact to the quality of the human

environment. Therefore, RUS will not

prepare an environmental impact

statement for its action related to this

project.

Copies of the FONSI are available

from RUS at the address provided

herein or from Mike Noel, Alabama

Electric Cooperative, P.O. Box 550,

Andalusia, Alabama 36420–0550,

telephone (334) 427–3248. Mike’s e-mail

address is: mike.noel@powersouth.com.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Blaine D. Stockton, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator, Electric Program.

[FR Doc. 00–2692 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission For OMB Review;

Comment Request

DOC has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

Title: 2000 Panel of the Survey of

Income and Program Participation,

Wave 2 Topical Modules.

Form Number(s): SIPP–20205(L),

SIPP/CAPI automated instrument.

Agency Approval Number: 0607–

0865.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 25,467 hours.

Number of Respondents: 26,250.

Avg Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.

Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau

conducts the Survey of Income and

Program Participation (SIPP) to collect

information concerning the distribution

of income received directly as money or

indirectly as in-kind benefits. SIPP data

are use by economic policymakers, the

Congress, state and local governments,

and Federal agencies that administer

social welfare and transfer payment

programs such as the Department of

Health and Human Services, the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and the Department of

Agriculture.

The SIPP is a longitudinal survey, in

that households in the panel are

interviewed at 4-month intervals or

waves over the life of the panel. The

duration of a panel is typically 3 to 4

years. The length of the 2000 SIPP Panel

is subject to the approval of budget

initiatives but is currently scheduled for

one year and will include three waves

of interviews.

The survey is molded around a

central core of labor force and income

questions, health insurance questions,

and questions concerning government

program participation that remain fixed

throughout the life of the panel. The

core questions are asked at Wave 1 and

are updated during subsequent

interviews. The core is supplemented

with additional questions or topical

modules designed to answer specific

needs.

This request is for clearance of the

topical modules for Wave 2. The core

questionnaire and topical modules for

Wave 1 were cleared previously. The

topical modules for Wave 2 are: Work

Disability, Education and Training

History, Marital History, Fertility

History, Migration History, and

Household Relationships. Wave 2

interviews will be conducted from June

through September 2000. Additionally,

a reinterview for quality control

purposes will be conducted with a small

sub-sample of respondents throughout

the life of the panel.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Frequency: Every 4 months.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Section

182.

OMB Desk Officer: Susan Schechter,

(202) 395–5103.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Linda Engelmeier,

DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202)

482–3272, Department of Commerce,

room 5033, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or

via the Internet at LEngelme@doc.gov).

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk

Officer, room 10201, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2633 Filed 2– 4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–403–802]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic

Salmon From Norway

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Fresh and

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the countervailing duty order on fresh

and chilled Atlantic salmon from

Norway (64 FR 35588) pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of

a notice of intent to participate and

adequate substantive comments filed on

behalf of domestic interested parties, as

well as inadequate response (in this

case, no response) from respondent

interested parties, the Department

determined to conduct an expedited

(120 day) review. As a result of this

review, the Department finds that

termination of the countervailing duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy. The net

countervailable subsidy and the nature

of the subsidy are identified in the Final

Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G.

Skinner, Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1930 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices 5855

1See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16,

1999).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant

to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act.

The Department’s procedures for the

conduct of sunset reviews are set forth

in Procedures for Conducting Five-year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’), and in 19 CFR Part 351

(1999) in general. Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Scope

The product covered by the

countervailing duty order is the species

Atlantic salmon (Salmon Salar)

marketed as specified herein; the order

excludes all other species of salmon:

Danube salmon, Chinook (also called

‘‘king’’ or ‘‘quinnat’’), Coho (‘‘silver’’),

Sockeye (‘‘redfish’’ or ‘‘blueback’’),

Humpback (‘‘pink’’) and Chum (‘‘dog’’).

Atlantic salmon is a whole or nearlywhole fish, typically (but not

necessarily) marketed gutted, and

cleaned, with the head on. The subject

merchandise is typically packed in

fresh-water ice (‘‘chilled’’). Excluded

from the subject merchandise are fillets,

steaks and other cuts of Atlantic salmon.

Also excluded are frozen, canned,

smoked or otherwise processed Atlantic

salmon. Atlantic salmon was classifiable

under item number 110.2045 of the

Tariff Schedules of the United States

Annotated (‘‘TSUSA’’). Prior to January

1, 1990, Atlantic salmon was provided

for under item numbers 0302.0060.8

and 0302.12.0065.3 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) (56 FR 7678, February 25,

1991). Currently, it is provided for

under HTSUS item number

0302.12.00.02.09. The subheadings

above are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

There have been no scope rulings for

the subject order.

History of the Order

On February 25, 1991, the Department

issued a final determination in the

countervailing duty investigation,

covering the period September 1, 1989,

through February 28, 1990. The

following six programs were found to

confer countervailable subsidies on

Norwegian producers/exporters of

subject merchandise: (1) Regional

Development Fund Loans and Grants;

(2) National Fishery Bank of Norway

Loans; (3) Regional Capital Tax

Incentive; (4) Reduced Payroll Taxes; (5)

Advance Depreciation of Business

Assets; and (6) Government Bank of

Agricultural Grants. The Department

found a net subsidy of 2.27 percent ad

valorem for all Norwegian producers/

exporters of subject merchandise.

There have been no administrative

reviews of this countervailing duty

order.

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

countervailing duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway

(64 FR 35588), pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act. The Department

received a Notice of Intent to Participate

on behalf of domestic interested parties

within the deadline (July 15, 1998)

specified in § 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the

Sunset Regulations. Subsequently, we

received a complete substantive

response to the notice of initiation on

August 2, 1999, on behalf of the

Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade

(‘‘FAST’’) and the following individual

members of FAST: Atlantic Salmon of

Maine, Connors Aquaculture, Inc., DE

Salmon, Inc., Island Aquaculture Corp.,

Maine Aqua Foods, Inc., Maine Coast

Nordic, Inc., Treats Island Fisheries, and

Trumpet Island Salmon Farm, Inc.

(collectively, ‘‘domestic interested

parties’’). As U.S. producers of the

subject merchandise and a business

association whose members are U.S.

producers of the subject merchandise,

the domestic interested parties claim

interested-party status under sections

771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Without a

substantive response from respondent

interested parties, the Department,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(C),

determined to conduct an expedited

(120-day) review of this order.

In accordance with 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of

the Act, the Department may treat a

review as extraordinarily complicated if

it is a review of a transition order (i.e.,

an order in effect on January 1, 1995).

On October 18, 1999, the Department

determined the sunset review of the

countervailing duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway to

be extraordinarily complicated, and,

therefore, we extended the time limit for

completion of the final results of this

review until not later than January 27,

2000, in accordance with section

751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.1

Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

27, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the timeframe for issuing this

determination has been extended by one

day.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department is conducting

this review to determine whether

termination of the countervailing duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy. Section 752(b)

of the Act provides that, in making this

determination, the Department shall

consider the net countervailable subsidy

determined in the investigation and

subsequent reviews, and whether any

change in the program which gave rise

to the net countervailable subsidy has

occurred and is likely to affect that net

countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to

section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the

Department shall provide to the

Commission the net countervailable

subsidy likely to prevail if the order is

revoked. In addition, consistent with

section 752(a)(6), the Department shall

provide to the Commission information

concerning the nature of the subsidy

and whether it is a subsidy described in

Article 3 or Article 6.1 of the 1994 WTO

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures (‘‘Subsidies

Agreement’’).

The Department’s determinations

concerning continuation or recurrence

of a countervailable subsidy, the net

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail

if the order is revoked, and nature of the

subsidy are discussed below. In

addition, the domestic interested

parties’ comments with respect to each

of these issues are addressed within the

respective sections.

Continuation or Recurrence of a

Countervailable Subsidy

Drawing on the guidance provided in

the legislative history accompanying the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), specifically the SAA, H.R.

Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994), the

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103–826,

pt.1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S.

Rep. No. 103–412 (1994), the

Department issued its Sunset Policy

Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues,

5856 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices

2See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).

3See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).

4See section III.B.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin

including the basis for likelihood

determinations. The Department

clarified that determinations of

likelihood will be made on an orderwide basis (see section III.A.2 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally,

the Department normally will determine

that revocation of a countervailing duty

order is likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy

where (a) a subsidy program continues,

(b) a subsidy program has been only

temporarily suspended, or (c) a subsidy

program has been only partially

terminated (see section III.A.3.a of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin). Exceptions to

this policy are provided where a

company has a long record of not using

a program (see section III.A.3.b of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin).

In addition to considering the

guidance on likelihood cited above,

section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine that

revocation of an order is likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy where a

respondent interested party waives its

participation in the sunset review.

Pursuant to the SAA, at 881, in a sunset

review of a countervailing duty order,

when the foreign government has

waived participation, the Department

shall conclude that revocation of the

order would be likely to lead to a

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy for all

respondent interested parties.2 In the

instant review, the Department did not

receive a response from the foreign

government or any other respondent

interested party. Pursuant to

351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset

Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of

participation.

The domestic interested parties argue

that revocation of the countervailing

duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic

salmon from Norway likely result in

continued unfair subsidization by the

Government of Norway, as well as

material injury to the U.S. industry.

They assert that, because there have

been no administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty order and the

Department has not examined the

programs further, the Government of

Norway presumably continues to

subsidize producers/exporters of subject

merchandise.

The domestic interested parties also

note that the European Commission, in

a 1996 countervailing duty

investigation, determined that the

Government of Norway conferred

countervailing subsidies amounting to

3.84 percent ad valorem on producers/

exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon (see

August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of

domestic interested parties at 21). The

domestic interested parties note that the

European Commission’s findings, which

investigated subsidies provided to

Norwegian salmon farmers between July

1, 1995 and July 31, 1996, demonstrate

that the Government of Norway has

continued to subsidize its domestic

salmon farming industry and the

amount of these subsidies has increased

since the Department’s 1991 final

affirmative determination. Id.

The Department agrees with the

domestic interested parties that because

there have been no administrative

reviews of this order and no evidence

has been submitted to the Department

demonstrating the termination of the

countervailable programs, it is

reasonable to assume that these

programs continue to exist and are

utilized. Moreover, section 751(c)(4)(B)

of the Act provides that the Department

shall determine that revocation of an

order is likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy

where the foreign government and/or a

respondent interested party waives its

participation in the sunset review.

Therefore, because we assume

countervailable programs continue to

exist, the foreign government and other

respondent interested parties have

waived participation in the review, and

absent any argument to the contrary, the

Department concludes that revocation of

the order would be likely to lead to a

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy for all

respondent interested parties.3

Net Countervailable Subsidy

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that, consistent with

the SAA and House Report, the

Department normally will select a rate

from the investigation as the net

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail

if the order is revoked, because that is

the only calculated rate that reflects the

behavior of exporters and foreign

governments without the discipline of

an order or suspension agreement in

place. However, this rate may not be the

most appropriate rate if, for example,

the rate was derived from subsidy

programs which were found in

subsequent reviews to be terminated,

there has been a program-wide change,

or the rate ignores a program found to

be countervailable in a subsequent

administrative review.4

The domestic interested parties, citing

the SAA, note that the Administration

intends that Commerce normally will

select the rate from the investigation,

because that is the only calculated rate

that reflects the behavior or exporters

and foreign governments without the

discipline of an order in place (see

August 2, 1999 Substantive Response of

domestic interested parties at 25). The

domestic interested parties argue that

the Department should determine that

the net countervailable subsidy likely to

prevail is 2.27 percent, the rate set forth

in the original investigation.

The Department agrees with the

domestic interested parties. The rate

determined in the original investigation

was 2.27 percent for all imports of fresh

and chilled Atlantic salmon from

Norway. As noted above, there have

been no administrative reviews of the

order. Absent administrative review, the

Department has never found that

substantive changes have been made to

the programs found to be

countervailable. Furthermore, there are

no other U.S. countervailable duty

proceedings involving Norway.

Therefore, since there is no evidence

that changes have been made to any of

the Norwegian subsidy programs, and

absent any argument and evidence to

the contrary, the Department determines

that a net countervailable subsidy of

2.27 percent would be likely to prevail

if the order were revoked. This rate is

the rate for all producers and exporters

of subject merchandise from Norway.

Nature of the Subsidy

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department states that, consistent with

section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the

Department will provide to the

Commission information concerning the

nature of the subsidy, and whether the

subsidy is a subsidy described in Article

3 or Article 6.1 of the Subsidies

Agreement. The domestic interested

parties did not address this issue in

their substantive response of August 2,

1999.

The following programs, although not

falling within the definition of an export

subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of the

Subsidies Agreement, could be found to

be inconsistent with Article 6 if the net

countervailable subsidy exceeds five

percent, as measured in accordance

with Annex IV of the Subsidies

Agreement. The Department, however,

has no information with which to make

such a calculation, nor do we believe it

appropriate to attempt such a

calculation in the course of a sunset

review. Rather, we are providing the

Commission with the following program

descriptions.

Regional Development Fund Loans

and Grants (RDF). The RDF provides

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices 5857

loan guarantees, long-term loans, and

investment and business development

grants to producers and exporters

located only in specified regions of

Norway to strengthen the economic base

and to increase employment in regions

with low levels of economic activity.

National Fishery Bank of Norway

Loans (NFB). The NFB provided loans

for the financing of fish farms from 1974

through 1987, including long-term loans

for investment in production equipment

and buildings.

Regional Capital Tax Incentive. The

aim of the Regional Capital Tax

Incentive is to encourage investment in

regions of Norway with a weak

industrial base and considerable

unemployment. Funds set aside by the

taxpayer under this program are

deducted from taxable income (at a

maximum amount of 15 percent), and

must then be invested in capital assets

for the use in the taxpayer’s own

business.

Reduced Payroll Taxes. This program

aims at encouraging employment of

persons living in underdeveloped

regions of Norway. Under the National

Insurance Act, employers are liable for

the payment of payroll taxes which are

based on a percentage of the wages paid

in the course of a year. However, since

1975, the amount of contributions have

been geographically differentiated

depending on the municipality in which

the employee resides.

Advance Depreciation of Business

Assets. This program encourages

investment in less-developed areas of

Norway by allowing companies located

in selected districts of the country to

claim a higher rate of depreciation in

the year in which capital assets are

acquired. Eligible companies,

depending on their location, are allowed

to take a first-year deduction of either 25

or 40 percent. After this initial

deduction, the producer is then allowed

to take the standard deduction on the

remainder of the depreciable value of

the asset.

Government Bank of Agriculture. The

Bank administers the Norwegian Fund

of Development in Agriculture which

was established to create supplemental

income and employment for farmers.

The Bank provides both long-term loans

and interest-free loans and grants to all

agricultural producers throughout

Norway, however, there are maximum

levels of assistance which differ by

region.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

countervailing duty order would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy at the rate listed

below:

Producer/exporter

Net

countervailable

subsidy

(percent)

All Producers/Exporters

from Norway ................ 2.27

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2592 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Notice of Transmittal of Sequestration

Preview Report for Fiscal Year 2001 to

the Congress and the Office of

Management and Budget.

Pursuant to section 254(b) of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 904(b)),

the Congressional Budget Office hereby

reports that it has submitted its

Sequestration Preview Report for Fiscal

Year 2001 to the House of

Representatives, the Senate, and the

Office of Management and Budget

Dan L. Crippen,

Director, Congressional Budget Office.

[FR Doc. 00–2843 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0070–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.132A–1]

Centers for Independent Living; Notice

Inviting Applications for New Awards

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000

Purpose of Program: This program

provides support for planning,

conducting, administering, and

evaluating centers for independent

living (centers) that comply with the

standards and assurances in section 725

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), consistent with the State

plan for establishing a statewide

network of centers. Centers are

consumer-controlled, community-based,

cross-disability, nonresidential, private

nonprofit agencies that are designed and

operated within local communities by

individuals with disabilities and

provide an array of independent living

(IL) services.

Eligible Applicants: To be eligible to

apply, an applicant must—(a) be a

consumer-controlled, community-based,

cross-disability, nonresidential, private

nonprofit agency as defined in 34 CFR

364.4(b); (b) have the power and

authority to meet the requirements in 34

CFR 366.2(a)(1); (c) be able to plan,

conduct, administer, and evaluate a

center for independent living consistent

with the requirements of section 725(b)

and (c) of the Act and Subparts F and

G of 34 CFR part 366; and (d) either—

(1) not currently be receiving funds

under Part C of Chapter 1 of Title VII of

the Act; or (2) propose the expansion of

an existing center through the

establishment of a separate and

complete center (except that the

governing board of the existing center

may serve as the governing board of the

new center) in a different geographical

location. Eligibility under this

competition is limited to entities that

meet the requirements of 34 CFR 366.24

and propose to serve areas that are

unserved or underserved in the States

and territories listed under Available

Funds.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: March 31, 2000.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: May 30, 2000.

Applications Available: February 8,

2000.

Available Funds: $697,191 as

distributed in the following manner:

American Samoa ..................... $154,046

Arizona ..................................... 32,983

California ................................. 124,582

Guam ........................................ 58,162

Maryland .................................. 25,597

New York ................................. 77,043

N. Marianas .............................. 58,162

Ohio .......................................... 47,459

Texas ........................................ 119,157

Estimated Range of Awards: $25,597–

$154,046.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

$77,466.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1 per

eligible State.

Note: The Department is not bound by any

estimates in this notice.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.