Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13963

detailed allegation either that the

assembly plants received

countervailable benefits, or how such

countervailable benefits might be

accruing to Thai Merry through either of

these plants.

Petitioner has acknowledged that

these assembly plants are not owned by

Thai Merry. Petitioner has provided no

argument as to why the Department

should countervail alleged subsidies

provided to an unrelated subcontractor

of a company under investigation.

Therefore, we conclude that Thai Merry

did not benefit from this program.

Verification

In accordance with section 776(b) of

the Act, we verified the information

used in making our final determination.

We followed standard verification

procedures, including meeting with

government and company officials,

examination of relevant accounting

records and examination of original

source documents. Our verification

results are outlined in detail in the

public versions of the verification

reports, which are on file in the Central

Records Unit (Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 705(d) of

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our

determination. Since we have

determined that no bounties or grants

are being provided to manufacturers,

producers or exporters of disposable

pocket lighters in Thailand, the

investigation will be terminated upon

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Hence, the ITC is not required

to make a final injury determination

with respect to this countervailing duty

proceeding.

Return of Destruction of Proprietary

Information

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

Administrative Protective Order (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 355.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act

and 19 CFR 355.20(a)(4).

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6400 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 95–0222054–5054–01; I.D.

021495A]

RIN 0648–ZA15

Financial Assistance for Chesapeake

Bay Stock Assessments to Encourage

Research Projects for Improvement in

the Stock Conditions of the

Chesapeake Bay Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds.

SUMMARY: A total of $540,000 in Fiscal

Year (FY) 1995 funds is available

through the NOAA/NMFS Chesapeake

Bay Office to assist interested state

fishery agencies, academic institutions,

and other nonprofit organizations

relating to cooperative research units, in

carrying out research projects to provide

information for Chesapeake Bay Stock

Assessments through cooperative

agreements. About $180,000 of the base

amount is available to initiate new

projects in FY 1995, as described in this

announcement. NMFS issues this notice

describing the conditions under which

eligible applications will be accepted

and how NMFS will determine which

applications will be selected for

funding.

DATES: Applications for funding under

this program will be accepted until May

1, 1995, 6 p.m. eastern standard time.

Applications received after that time

will not be considered for funding. No

applications will be accepted by

facsimile machine submission.

Successful applicants generally will

be selected approximately 90 days from

the date of publication in the Federal

Register of this notice. The earliest date

for awards will be approximately 180

days after the date of publication in the

Federal Register of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Send applications to: M.

Elizabeth Gillelan, Division Chief,

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, NMFS,

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A,

Annapolis, MD 21403.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M.

Elizabeth Gillelan, 410/267–5660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority. The Fish and Wildlife

Act of 1956, as amended, at 16 U.S.C.

753 (a), authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary), for the purpose

of developing adequate, coordinated,

cooperative research and training

programs for fish and wildlife resources,

to continue to enter into cooperative

agreements with colleges and

universities, with game and fish

departments of the several states, and

with nonprofit organizations relating to

cooperative research units. The

Departments of Commerce (DOC),

Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act of 1995

makes funds available to the Secretary.

B. Catalog of Federal assistance. The

research to be funded is in support of

the Chesapeake Bay Studies (CFDA

11.457), under the Chesapeake Bay

Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC).

C. Program description. The CBSAC

was established in 1985 to plan and

review Bay-wide resource assessments,

coordinate relevant actions of state and

Federal agencies, report on fisheries

status and trends, and determine, fund

and review research projects. The

program implements a Bay-wide plan

for the assessment of commercially,

recreationally, and selected ecologically

important species in the Chesapeake

Bay. In 1988, CBSAC developed a Baywide Stock Assessment Plan, in

response to provisions in the

Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987. The

plan identified that key obstacles to

assessing Bay stocks were the lack of

consistent, Bay-wide, fishery-dependent

and fishery-independent data. Research

projects funded since 1988 have focused

on developing and improving fisheryindependent surveys and catch statistics

for key Bay species, such as striped

bass, oysters, blue crabs, and alosids.

Stock assessment research is essential,

given the recent declines in harvest and

apparent stock condition for many of

the important species of the Chesapeake

Bay.

II. Areas of Special Emphasis

A. Proposals should exhibit

familiarity with related work that is

completed or ongoing. Where

appropriate, proposals should be

multidisciplinary. Coordinated efforts

involving multiple eligible applicants or

persons are encouraged. Eligible women

and minority owned and operated nonprofit organizations are encouraged to

apply.

Consideration for funding will be

given to applications that address the

following stock assessment research and

management priorities for the

Chesapeake Bay. These are listed in

priority order:

1. Design and development of a Baywide recreational survey for blue crabs.

This study should provide not only

estimates of blue crab harvest by

category (eg., hard, soft, peeler) and

associated effort, but also biological
13964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

sample data on size or age distribution

of the recreational harvest. This could

be designed as a stand-alone survey, or

as a supplement to the NMFS Marine

Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey

(MRFSS).

A major impediment to understanding

the status of the fishery resources in the

Chesapeake Bay is the lack of

knowledge of the total removals, by

fishing, of important fish and shellfish

species. While estimates of commercial

catches from both Maryland and

Virginia are available based on state

reporting requirements, estimates of

recreational blue crab harvest are not

available for most years. A main

concern to be addressed in the design of

this survey is the difficulty in obtaining

estimates of recreational blue crab

catches since much of the harvest is

landed at private, rather than public,

docks and ramps.

The recreational survey design should

be consistent with the model of the

NMFS MRFSS, with its two principal

design components. First, a telephone

survey instrument used to enumerate

total period and seasonal directed

fishing effort by mode. Secondly, an

access intercept survey component to

estimate period/seasonal mean catchrate by mode and category, and the

collection of biological characterization

data.

Proposals for this priority must

address the following aspects of the

survey design.

a. Identification of the accessintercept sampling frame, including:

(1) List of all access sites.

(2) Detailed model for scheduling the

temporal and geographic distribution of

field interviews within the sampling

frame, and the routing scheme among

access sites.

(3) Description of information to be

obtained from interviews, specifically

the interview survey questionnaire.

(4) Description of the nature and

manner of collection of biological

samples which will minimally include

size, sex, and category by mode.

b. Identification of the telephone

survey sampling frame, including:

(1) Specifications of who is included

in the sampling frame and how this was

determined.

(2) Complete description of the

temporal distribution of telephone calls

and associated sample size

requirements.

(3) Specification of the interview

survey questionnaire.

c. Completion of a pilot study, which

will successfully demonstrate the

effectiveness of the above two survey

components for the estimation and

characterization of blue crab

recreational harvest. The pilot study

should minimally address the following:

(1) Comparisons of catch rates among

the various fishing modes, methods, and

times, etc. which will serve as the basis

for determining the proportional

sampling needed to provide unbiased

estimates.

(2) Identification and resolution of

any deficiencies in the sampling frame.

(3) Final estimates of the pilot study

period recreational harvest by category,

mode (with associated effort) and

measures of percent standard error

about the point estimates.

Copies of a report of a workshop

which discussed concerns specific to

the design of a recreational blue crab

survey may be obtained from the NOAA

Chesapeake Bay Office.

2. Design and conduct a study to

determine the discard mortality and

discard size frequencies in the

commercial and recreational fisheries in

Chesapeake Bay. This study should

provide information on the reason for

discard (e.g., minimum size regulation,

lack of market, etc.), the length

distribution of discards, and discard

mortality rates, primarily for summer

flounder and bluefish, as well as other

important Bay species. This is to be a

onetime study, not a design effort for

future implementation.

Discard information is limited and

current assessments are forced to use

analogous information from other

species and limited areas. Data from this

study would be a valuable improvement

in coastwide assessments.

3. Design of a cost-effective American

shad mark-and-recapture (tagging) study

which would provide abundance and

mortality estimates for Chesapeake Bay

stocks. There is currently a Bay-wide

moratorium on the harvest of American

shad, yet coastal intercept fisheries

continue to harvest this species. This

study should be designed to identify

which fisheries harvest Bay stocks, and

provide estimates of the abundance and

mortality rates for those stocks.

B. Applications addressing the

priorities should build upon, or take

into account, any related past or current

work.

III. How to Apply

A. Eligible Applicants. Applications

for cooperative agreements under the

Chesapeake Bay Studies Program may

be submitted, in accordance with the

procedures set forth in this notice, by

any state game and fish department,

college or university, or other nonprofit

organizations relating to cooperative

research units. Other Federal agencies

or institutions are not eligible to receive

Federal assistance under this notice.

DOC/NOAA/NMFS employees,

including full-time, part-time, and

intermittent personnel (or their spouses

or blood relatives who are members of

their immediate households) are not

eligible to submit an application under

this solicitation or aid in the preparation

of an application, except to provide

information on program goals, funding

priorities, application procedures, and

completion of application forms. Since

this is a competitive program, assistance

will not be provided in conceptualizing,

developing, or structuring proposals.

Eligible applicants outside the

Chesapeake Bay region may submit

proposals, as long as their objectives

support the technical and management

priorities of the Chesapeake Bay, as

defined in section II.A. above. All

solicited proposals received by the

closing date will be considered by

NMFS.

B. Duration and terms of funding.

Under this solicitation, NMFS will fund

Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment

Research Projects for 1 year cooperative

agreements. The cooperative agreement

has been determined as the appropriate

funding instrument because of the

substantial involvement of NMFS in:

1. Developing program research

priorities;

2. Evaluating the performance of the

program for effectiveness in meeting

regional goals for Chesapeake Bay stock

assessments;

3. Monitoring the progress of each

funded project;

4. Holding periodic workshops with

investigators; and

5. Working with recipients in

preparation of annual reports

summarizing current accomplishments

of the Chesapeake Bay Stock

Assessment Committee. Project dates

should be scheduled to begin no later

than 1 October 1995. Cooperative

agreements are approved on an annual

basis but may be considered eligible for

continuation beyond the first project

and budget period subject to the

approved scope of work, satisfactory

progress, and availability of funds at the

total discretion of NMFS. However,

there are no assurances for such

continuation. Publication of this notice

does not obligate NMFS to award any

specific cooperative agreement or to

obligate any part of the entire amount of

funds available.

C. Cost Sharing. Applications must

reflect the total budget necessary to

accomplish the project, including

contributions and/or donations. Cost

sharing is not required under the

Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment

Research Program. However, cost

sharing is encouraged to enhance the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13965

value of a project, and in case of a tie

in considering proposals for funding,

cost sharing may affect the final

decision. The appropriateness of all cost

sharing will be determined on the basis

of guidance provided in applicable

Federal cost principles. If an applicant

chooses to share costs, and if that

application is selected for funding, the

applicant will be bound by the

percentage of cost sharing reflected in

the award documents.

The non-Federal share may include

funds received from private sources or

from state or local governments or the

value of in-kind contributions. Federal

funds may not be used to meet the nonFederal share of matching funds, except

as provided by Federal statute. In-kind

contributions are noncash contributions

provided by the applicant or nonFederal third parties. In-kind

contributions may be in the form of, but

are not limited to, personal services

rendered in carrying out functions

related to the project, and permission to

use real or personal property owned by

others (for which consideration is not

required) in carrying out the project. To

support the budget, the applicant must

describe briefly the basis for estimating

the value of the non-Federal funds

derived from in-kind contributions.

The total cost of a project begins on

the effective date of a cooperative

agreement between the applicant and an

authorized representative of the U.S.

Government and ends on the date

specified in the award. Accordingly, the

time expended and costs incurred in

either the development of a project or

the financial assistance application, or

in any subsequent discussions or

negotiations prior to the award, are

neither reimbursable nor recognizable as

part of the recipient’s cost share.

D. Format. 1. Applications for project

funding must be complete. Applicants

must identify the specific research

priority or priorities to which they are

responding. For applications containing

more than one project, each project

component must be identified

individually using the format specified

in this section. If an application is not

in response to a priority, it should be so

stated. Applicants should not assume

prior knowledge on the part of NMFS as

to the relative merits of the project

described in the application.

Applications are not to be bound in any

manner and should be one-sided. All

incomplete applications will be

returned to the applicant. Applicants

must submit one signed original and

two copies of the complete application.

2. Applications must be submitted in

the following format:

a. Cover sheet: An applicant must use

OMB Standard Form 424 (revised 4–92)

as the cover sheet for each project.

Applicants may obtain copies of these

forms from the NOAA Grants

Management Division or the NOAA

Chesapeake Bay Office (see ADDRESSES).

b. Project summary: Each proposal

must contain a summary of not more

than one page that provides the

following:

(1) Project title.

(2) Project status (new).

(3) Project duration (beginning and

ending dates).

(4) Name, address, and telephone

number of applicant.

(5) Principal Investigator(s).

(6) Project objectives.

(7) Summary of work to be performed.

(8) Total Federal funds requested.

(9) Cost sharing to be provided from

non-Federal sources, if any. Specify

whether contributions are projectrelated cash or in-kind.

(10) Total project cost.

c. Project description: Each project

must be completely and accurately

described. Each project description may

be up to 15 pages in length. If an

application is awarded, NMFS will

make all portions of the project

description available to the public for

review; therefore, NMFS cannot

guarantee the confidentiality of any

information submitted as part of any

project, nor will NMFS accept for

consideration any project requesting

confidentiality of any part of the project.

Each project must be described as

follows:

(1) Identification of problem(s):

Describe the specific problem to be

addressed and the area of emphasis to

which the project responds (see section

II above).

(2) Project objectives: This is one of

the most important parts of the Project

Proposal. Use the following guidelines

for stating the objective of the project.

(a) Keep it simple and easily

understandable.

(b) Be as specific and quantitative as

possible.

(c) Specify the ‘‘what and when;’’

avoid the ‘‘how and why.’’

(d) Keep it attainable within the time,

money, and human resources available.

(e) Use action verbs that are

accomplishment oriented.

(3) Need for Government financial

assistance: Demonstrate the need for

assistance. Any appropriate database to

substantiate or reinforce the need for the

project should be included. Explain

why other funding sources cannot fund

all the proposed work. List all other

sources of funding that are or have been

sought for the project.

(4) Benefits or results expected:

Identify and document the results or

benefits to be derived from the proposed

activities.

(5) Project statement of work: The

Statement of Work is the scientific or

technical action plan of activities that

are to be accomplished during each

budget period of the project. This

description must include the specific

methodologies, by project job activity,

proposed for accomplishing the

proposal’s objective(s). If the work

described in this section does not

contain sufficient detail to allow for

proper technical evaluation, NMFS will

not consider the application for funding

and will return it to the applicant.

Investigators submitting proposals in

response to this announcement are

strongly encouraged to develop interinstitutional, inter-disciplinary research

teams in the form of single, integrated

proposals or as individual proposals

that are clearly linked together. Such

collaborative efforts will be factored into

the final funding decision.

Each Statement of Work must include

the following information:

(a) The applicant’s name.

(b) The inclusive dates of the budget

period covered under the Statement of

Work.

(c) The title of the proposal.

(d) The scientific or technical

objectives and procedures that are to be

accomplished during the budget period.

Devise a detailed set of objectives and

procedures to answer who, what, how,

when, and where. The procedures must

be of sufficient detail to enable

competent workers to be able to follow

them and to complete scheduled

activities.

(e) Location of the work.

(f) A list of all project personnel and

their responsibilities.

(g) A milestone table that summarizes

the procedures (from item

III.D.2.c.(5)(d)) that are to be attained in

each month covered by the Statement of

Work.

(6) Participation by persons or groups

other than the applicant: Describe the

level of participation required in the

project(s) by NOAA or other government

and non-government entities. Specific

NOAA employees should not be named

in the initial proposal.

(7) Federal, state and local

government activities: List any programs

(Federal, state, or local government or

activities, including Sea Grant, state

Coastal Zone Management Programs,

NOAA Oyster Disease Research

Program, the state/Federal Chesapeake

Bay Program, etc.) this project would

affect and describe the relationship
13966 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

between the project and those plans or

activities.

(8) Project management: Describe how

the project will be organized and

managed. Include resumes of principal

investigators. List all persons directly

employed by the applicant who will be

involved with the project. If a

consultant and/or subcontractor is

selected prior to application

submission, include the name and

qualifications of the consultant and/or

subcontractor and the process used for

selection.

(9) Monitoring of project performance:

Identify who will participate in

monitoring the project.

(10) Project impacts: Describe the

impact of the project in terms of

anticipated increased production, sales,

product quality and safety, improved

management, or any other values that

will be produced by this project.

Describe how these products or services

will be made available to the fisheries

and management communities.

(11) Evaluation of project: The

applicant is required to provide an

evaluation of project accomplishments

at the end of each budget period and in

the final report. The application must

describe the methodology or procedures

to be followed to determine technical

feasibility, or to quantify the results of

the project in promoting increased

production, product quality and safety,

management effectiveness, or other

measurable factors.

(12) Total project costs: Total project

cost is the amount of funds required to

accomplish what is proposed in the

Statement of Work, and includes

contributions and donations. All costs

must be shown in a detailed budget. A

standard budget form (SF–424A) is

available from the offices listed (see

ADDRESSES). NMFS will not consider

fees or profits as allowable costs for

grantees. Additional cost detail may be

required prior to a final analysis of

overall cost allowability, allocability,

and reasonableness. The date, period

covered, and findings for the most

recent financial audit performed, as well

as the name of the audit firm, the

contact person, and phone number and

address, must be also provided.

d. Supporting documentation:

Provide any required documents and

any additional information necessary or

useful to the description of the project.

The amount of information will depend

on the type of project proposed, but

should be no more than 20 pages. The

applicant should present any

information that would emphasize the

value of the project in terms of the

significance of the problems addressed.

Without such information, the merits of

the project may not be fully understood,

or the value of the project may be

underestimated. The absence of

adequate supporting documentation

may cause reviewers to question

assertions made in describing the

project and may result in lower ranking

of the project. Information presented in

this section should be clearly referenced

in the project description.

IV. Evaluation Criteria and Selection

Procedures

A. Initial evaluation of applications.

Applications will be reviewed by NOAA

to assure that they meet all requirements

of this announcement, including

eligibility and relevance to the

Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment

Research Program.

B. Consultation with experts in the

field of stock assessment research. For

applications meeting the requirements

of this solicitation, NMFS will conduct

a technical evaluation of each project

prior to any other review. This review

normally will involve experts from nonNOAA as well as NOAA organizations.

All comments submitted to NMFS will

be taken into consideration in the

technical evaluation of projects.

Technical evaluators will submit

independent reviews to NMFS.

Reviewers will be asked to comment on

the following evaluation criteria:

1. Problem description and

conceptual approach for resolution,

especially the applicant’s

comprehension of the problem(s),

familiarity with related work that is

completed or ongoing, and the overall

concept proposed to resolve the

problem(s) (30 points).

2. Soundness of project design/

technical approach, especially whether

the applicant provided sufficient

information to technically evaluate the

project and, if so, the strengths and

weaknesses of the technical design

proposed for problem resolution (35

points).

3. Project management and experience

and qualifications of personnel,

including organization and management

of the project, and the personnel

experience and qualifications (15

points).

4. Justification and allocation of the

budget in terms of the work to be

performed (20 points).

C. Review Panel. NMFS will convene

a review panel consisting of at least

three regionally recognized experts in

the scientific and management aspects

of stock assessment research who will

conduct reviews as follows:

1. Evaluate technical reviews.

2. Provide independent review based

on the same criteria as the technical

review.

3. Discuss all review comments as a

panel.

4. Provide individual panelist scores

and suggestions for modifications (i.e.,

budget, personnel, technical approach,

etc.).

D. Funding decision. 1. Applications

will be ranked by NMFS into two

groups: (a) Recommended, and (b) not

recommended. As previously stated

(section III A.1.), collaborative proposals

and applications which propose a cost

share are strongly encouraged, and

therefore will be given added weight in

the selection process. Numeric ranking

will be the major consideration for

deciding which of the ‘‘recommended’’

proposals will be selected for funding.

2. After projects have been ranked for

funding, the Chief of the NOAA/NMFS

Chesapeake Bay Office, in consultation

with the Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, NOAA, will determine the

projects to be recommended for funding

based upon the technical evaluations,

panel review, and the evaluation factors;

ascertain which projects do not

substantially duplicate other projects

that are currently funded by NOAA or

are approved for funding by other

Federal offices; and, determine the

amount of funds available for the

program. The exact amount of funds

awarded to each project will be

determined in preaward negotiations

between the applicant, the Grants

Office, and the NOAA/NMFS

Chesapeake Bay Office staff.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Obligations of the applicant. 1.

Deliverables—In addition to quarterly

status and budget reports, and at the

time of submission of the final report of

results of funded projects, recipients

must submit a four-to-five page

summary of project work and results

that will be compiled in a report of

Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment

Research Program results. Projects that

produce non-experimental data must

have copies of these data transferred to

the NOAA/NMFS Chesapeake Bay

Office in both compiled, hard copy

format, and as a verified, electronic data

file. Full, clearly stated documentation

of the contents of such data files must

be submitted with these data.

2. Periodic workshops—Investigators

will be expected to attend one or two

workshops with other Stock Assessment

Research Program researchers to

encourage interdisciplinary dialogue

and forge synthesis of results.

3. Primary applicant certifications—

All primary applicants must submit a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13967

completed Form CD–511,

‘‘Certifications Regarding Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements and Lobbying,’’ and the

following explanations are hereby

provided:

a. Nonprocurement debarment and

suspension—Prospective participants

(as defined at 15 CFR 26.105) are subject

to 15 CFR part 26, ‘‘Nonprocurement

Debarment and Suspension,’’ and the

related section of the certification form

prescribed above applies;

b. Drug-free workplace—Grantees (as

defined at 15 CFR 26.605) are subject to

15 CFR part 26, subpart F,

‘‘Governmentwide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants),’’ and the

related section of the certification form

prescribed above applies;

c. Anti-lobbying—Persons (as defined

at 15 CFR 28.105) are subject to the

lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352,

‘‘Limitation on use of appropriated

funds to influence certain Federal

contracting and financial transactions,’’

and the lobbying section of the

certification form prescribed above

applies to applications/bids for grants,

cooperative agreements, and contracts

for more than $100,000, and loans and

loan guarantees for more than $150,000,

or the single family maximum mortgage

limit for affected programs, whichever is

greater; and

d. Anti-lobbying disclosure—Any

applicant who has paid or will pay for

lobbying using any funds must submit

an SF-LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities,’’ as required under 15 CFR

part 28, appendix B.

4. Lower tier certifications—

Recipients shall require applicants/

bidders for subgrants, contracts,

subcontracts, or other lower tier covered

transactions at any tier under the award

to submit, if applicable, a completed

Form CD–512, ‘‘Certifications Regarding

Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility

and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier

Covered Transactions and Lobbying’’

and disclosure form SF-LLL,

‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.’’

Form CD–512 is intended for the use of

recipients and should not be transmitted

to DOC. SF-LLL submitted by any tier

recipient or subrecipient should be

submitted to DOC in accordance with

the instructions contained in the award

document.

B. Other requirements. 1. Federal

policies and procedures—Recipients

and subrecipients are subject to all

Federal laws and Federal and DOC

policies, regulations, and procedures

applicable to Federal financial

assistance awards.

2. Indirect cost rates—The total dollar

amount of the indirect costs proposed in

an application under this program must

not exceed the current indirect cost rate

negotiated and approved by a cognizant

Federal agency. NOAA’s acceptance of

negotiated rates is subject to total

indirect costs not to exceed 100% of

total direct costs. This language is

pursuant to the NOAA Grants and

Cooperative Agreements Policy Manual,

Chapter 3(B)(2).

3. Past performance—Unsatisfactory

performance under prior Federal awards

may result in an application not being

considered for funding. In addition, any

recipient and/or researcher who is past

due for submitting acceptable progress

reports on any previous project funded

under this program may be ineligible to

be considered for new awards until the

delinquent reports are received,

reviewed and deemed acceptable by

NMFS.

4. Financial management

certifications/preaward accounting

survey—Successful applicants, at the

discretion of the NOAA Grants Officer,

may be required to have their financial

management systems certified by an

independent public accountant as being

in compliance with Federal standards

specified in the applicable OMB

Circulars prior to execution of the

award. Any first-time applicant for

Federal grant funds may be subject to a

preaward accounting survey by the DOC

prior to execution of the award.

5. Delinquent Federal debts—No

award of Federal funds shall be made to

an applicant who has an outstanding

delinquent Federal debt until either:

a. The delinquent account is paid in

full;

b. A negotiated repayment schedule is

established and at least one payment is

received; or

c. Other arrangements satisfactory to

DOC are made.

6. Name checks—Potential recipients

may be required to submit an

‘‘Identification-Application for Funding

Assistance’’ (Form CD–346), which is

used to ascertain background

information on key individuals

associated with the potential recipient.

All non-profit and for-profit applicants

are subject to a name check review

process. Name checks are intended to

reveal if any key individuals associated

with the applicant have been convicted

of or are presently facing, criminal

charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or

other matters that significantly reflect

on the applicant’s management honesty

or financial integrity. Applicants will

also be subject to credit check reviews.

7. False statements—A false statement

on the application is grounds for denial

or termination of funds and grounds for

possible punishment by a fine or

imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C.

1001.

8. Preaward activities—If applicants

incur any costs prior to an award being

made, they do so solely at their own risk

of not being reimbursed by the

Government. Notwithstanding any

verbal or written assurance that may

have been received, there is no

obligation on the part of DOC to cover

preaward costs.

9. Purchase of American-made

equipment and products—Applicants

are hereby notified that they will be

encouraged, to the greatest extent

practicable, to purchase American-made

equipment and products with funding

provided under this program in

accordance with Congressional intent as

set forth in the resolution contained in

Public Law 103–317, sections 607(a)

and (b).

10. Other—If an application is

selected for funding, DOC has no

obligation to provide any additional

funding in connection with that award.

Renewal of an award to increase

funding or extend the period of

performance is at the total discretion of

DOC.

Cooperative agreements awarded

pursuant to pertinent statutes shall be in

accordance with the Fisheries Research

Plan (comprehensive program of

fisheries research) in effect on the date

of the award.

Classification

This action has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

Applications under this program are

subject to Executive Order 12372,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs.’’

Prior notice and an opportunity for

public comment are not required by the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other law for this notice concerning

grants, benefits, and contracts.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required for purposes of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This notice contains collections of

information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act, which have been

approved by OMB under OMB control

numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, and

0605–0001.

Dated: March 7, 1995.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6312 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F