39280 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices

D. Hindrance of Well-planned

Developments

Several commenters opposed to the

limitations placed on NWP 26 stated

that the new limits will discourage

developers from proposing wellplanned developments. They believe

that, in order to qualify for an NWP

under the lower limits, developers will

present a larger number of smaller

projects as ‘‘single and complete’’ rather

than a more genuine, larger, single and

complete project such as could be done

with allowance for up to 10 acres of fill.

Others indicated that developers would

make less effort to ‘‘avoid and

minimize’’ at the outset. Once they

determined they would have to apply

for an individual permit anyway, they

would start out by requesting as much

wetland fill as they might wish. Both of

these scenarios are possible with the

previous or current limits of NWP 26.

The Corps doesn’t believe that this

would encourage developers to design

projects this way. It is incumbent on the

Corps to evaluate if a project is truly

‘‘single and complete’’ or is, rather, the

first of several components of a larger

single and complete project. In the same

way, the Corps must determine if

appropriate avoidance and

minimization has been conducted and

that the adverse effects are minimal. The

Corps is considering this in more detail

in the NWPs proposed to replace NWP

26.

E. Need for an Upper Limit

Several commenters opposed to the

changes stated that an upper limit

should not be necessary since a PCN is

required any time more than one NWP

12 through 40 is applied to a single and

complete project. Some of the same

commenters suggested that there be

provisions allowing for 3 acres to be

exceeded for the most-often-used

combinations of NWPs. As stated above,

based on current knowledge of wetland

science and of the types of projects

proposed nationwide, the Corps

believes that to ensure that adverse

effects are minimal we, usually, need to

maintain an upper acreage limit of 3

acres to projects authorized under one

or more NWPs. However, a limit of 10

acres has been proposed for master

planned developments in the activityspecific NWPs proposed to replace NWP

26 (63 FR 36040–36078).

V. Conclusion

Based on our review of the comments

we have concluded that the 3

modifications:(1) the expiration of NWP

26 on December 13, 1998; (2) the

prohibition against filling or excavating

more than 500 linear feet of stream bed

under NWP 26; and (3) the prohibition

against using other NWPs with NWP 26

to authorize the loss of more than 3

acres of waters of the United States, we

made regarding NWP 26 are appropriate

and should not be changed, with one

exception. We have proposed to extend

the expiration date of NWP 26 to March

28,1999, to ensure that there is adequate

time to effectively involve other

agencies and the public in the

development of regional conditions for

the new and modified, activity-specific,

NWPs and to ensure that those NWPs

are in place at the time NWP 26 expires.

Dated: July 17, 1998.

Charles M. Hess,

Chief, Operations Division, Directorate of

Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 98–19495 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–P

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Privacy Act; Systems of Records

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board.

ACTION: New system of records.

SUMMARY: Each Federal agency is

required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5

U.S.C. 552a, as amended, to publish a

description of the systems of records it

maintains containing personal

information. In this notice the Board

announces a new system of records.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. Andersen, General Counsel,

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 208–

6387.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The new

system of records, designated DNFSB–7,

is described below.

DNFSB–7

SYSTEM NAME:

Supervisor Files.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

Unclassified materials.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20004–2901.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM:

Members of the Board’s technical,

legal, and administrative staff.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Files maintained by supervisors,

indexed by employee name, containing

positive or negative information used

primarily to write annual or mid-year

performance appraisals or to propose

awards and honors. The files may

contain written correspondence,

examples of an employee’s work,

printed versions of electronic

communications, private notes by the

supervisor, and other records bearing on

the individual’s performance.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

National Defense Authorization Act,

Fiscal Year 1989 (amended the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et

seq.) by adding new Chapter 21—

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board).

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:

Records are used by supervisors to

write annual or mid-year performance

appraisals for their employees or to

propose awards and honors. Records

may also be used in connection with

disciplinary and adverse actions. These

records are not disclosed outside

DNFSB and will not be accessed by

persons other than the supervisor

maintaining the record and

administrative staff personnel assigned

to file or retrieve records, except as

required by law consistent with the

Privacy Act.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Paper records and computer files.

RETRIEVABILITY:

By employee name.

SAFEGUARDS:

Access is limited to the individual

supervisor keeping the records and

administrative personnel who may file

or retrieve records. Records are stored in

locked file cabinets or in locked desk

drawers.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Records retention and disposal

authorities are contained in the

‘‘General Records Schedules’’ published

by National Archives and Records

Administration, Washington, DC. Most

files in DNFSB–7 are purged once per

year following completion of appraisals.

Records are destroyed by shredding,

burning, or burial in a sanitary landfill,

as appropriate.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite

700, Washington, DC 20004–2901.

Attention: Andrew Thibadeau.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices 39281

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Request by an individual to determine

if DNFSB–7 contains information about

him/her should be directed to the

Privacy Act Officer, Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington,

DC 20004–2901. Required identifying

information: Complete name, social

security number, and date of birth.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:

Same as Notification procedure above,

except individual must show official

photo identification, such as driver’s

license, passport, or government

identification before viewing records.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:

Same as Record Access procedure.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Subject individuals.

SYSTEM EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS

OF THE ACT:

None.

Dated: July 16, 1998.

John T. Conway,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 98–19461 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3670–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.282A]

Public Charter Schools Program

(PCSP); Notice Inviting Applications

for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY)

1998

Purpose of Program: A major purpose

of the Public Charter Schools grant

program is to increase understanding of

the charter schools model by providing

financial assistance for the design and

initial implementation of charter

schools.

Who May Apply: (a) State educational

agencies (SEAs) in States with laws

authorizing the establishment of charter

schools. The Secretary awards grants to

SEAs to enable them to conduct charter

schools programs in their States. SEAs

use their PCSP funds to award subgrants

to ‘‘eligible applicants,’’ as defined in

this notice, for planning, program

design, and initial implementation of a

charter school.

(b) Under certain circumstances, an

authorized public chartering agency

participating in a partnership with a

charter school developer. Such a

partnership is eligible to receive funding

directly from the U.S. Department of

Education if—

(1) The SEA in its State elects not to

participate in this program; or

(2) The SEA in its State does not have

an application approved under this

program.

If an SEA’s application is approved in

this competition, applications received

from non-SEA eligible applicants in that

State will be returned to the applicants.

In such a case, the eligible applicant

should contact the SEA for information

related to its subgrant competition.

Note: The following States currently have

approved applications under this program:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New

Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and

Wisconsin. In these States, only the SEA is

eligible to receive an award under this

competition. Eligible applicants in these

States should contact their respective SEAs

for information about participation in the

State’s charter school subgrant program.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: August 20, 1998.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

review: September 21, 1998.

Applications Available: July 22, 1998.

Available Funds: $55,000,000.

Estimated Range of Awards:

State educational agencies: $250,000–

$5,000,000 per year.

Other eligible applicants: $25,000–

$150,000 per year.

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

State educational agencies: $3,000,000

per year.

Other eligible applicants: $75,000 per

year.

Estimated Number of Awards:

State educational agencies: 10–15.

Other eligible applicants: 5–10.

Note: These estimates are projections for

the guidance of potential applicants. The

Department is not bound by any estimates in

this notice.

Project Period: State educational

agencies: Up to 36 months. Other

eligible applicants: Up to 36 months.

Note: Grants awarded by the Secretary

directly to non-SEA eligible applicants or

subgrants awarded by SEAs to eligible

applicants will be awarded for a period of up

to 36 months, of which the eligible applicant

may use—

(a) Not more than 18 months for

planning and program design; and

(b) Not more than two years for the

initial implementation of a charter

school.

Applicable Regulations and Statute:

The Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in

34 CFR Parts 75 (except § 75.210), 77,

79, 80, 81, 82, 85, and 86. Title X, Part

C, Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C.

§ 8061–8067.

Priority: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)

the Secretary is particularly interested

in applications that meet the following

invitational priority. However, an

application that meets this invitational

priority does not receive absolute or

competitive preference over

applications that do not meet the

priority:

Invitational Priority—Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities

Projects that address linkages between

charter school initiatives and

comprehensive educational

improvement strategies undertaken in

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities designated by the

Departments of Agriculture or Housing

and Urban Development.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of

wider education reform efforts to

strengthen teaching and learning,

charter schools can be an innovative

approach to improving public education

and expanding public school choice.

While there is no one model, public

charter schools are exempted from most

statutory and regulatory requirements in

exchange for performance-based

accountability. They are intended to

stimulate the creativity and

commitment of teachers, parents,

students, and citizens and contribute to

better student academic achievement.

Information regarding the required

contents of applications, diversity of

projects, and waivers are provided in

the application package for this

program.

The following definitions, selection

criteria, and allowable activities are

taken from the Public Charter Schools

statute, in Title X, Part C, of the

Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965, as amended. They are

being repeated in this application notice

for the convenience of the applicant.

Definitions

The following definitions apply to

this program:

(a) Charter school means a public

school that—

(1) In accordance with an enabling

State statute, is exempted from

significant State or local rules that

inhibit the flexible operation and

management of public schools, but not

from any rules relating to the other

requirements of this definition;

(2) Is created by a developer as a

public school, or is adapted by a

developer from an existing public

school, and is operated under public

supervision and direction;

(3) Operates in pursuit of a specific

set of educational objectives determined

by the school’s developer and agreed to