Pursuant to section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 1 the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement, has requested that I renew the order (“TDO”) issued on March 19, 2004, temporarily denying the export privileges of Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. Joseph Talyi (“Tayli”), 41 Chamale Cove East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460; and Oakdale FDC, Federal Bureau of Prisons, P.O. Box 5060, Oakdale, Louisiana 71463. BIS is requested that the TDO be renewed for a period of 180 days or until an administrative case against Talyi is completed, whichever occurs earlier.

In its August 26, 2004, request for renewal of the TDO, BIS states that based upon new evidence, and evidence previously adduced that was the basis for the issuance of the initial order temporarily denying the export privileges of Talyi, as well as the subsequent renewals, 2 it believes that renewal of the current TDO is necessary to prevent further violations of the export control laws of the United States. See BIS Request for Renewal dated August 26, 2004, at 4.

BIS evidence attached to its request for renewal of the TDO indicates that Talyi has refused to enter into a settlement agreement, to which he previously agreed, concerning a BIS administrative enforcement case pending against him. See id. at 4-6. That settlement agreement was consistent with the criminal plea agreement that Talyi entered into that resulted in his criminal conviction. See id. at 7.

Specifically, BIS evidence indicates that on January 29, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Talyi pled guilty to two felony counts of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for his participation in the export and attempted export of items to the United Arab Emirates that were violations of the initial TDO. See id. at 5. Talyi's plea agreement further stated that Talyi agreed to settle the BIS administrative case by paying $75,000 civil penalty and accepting a 10-year denial of export privileges. 3 See id. BIS evidence indicates the plea agreement stated that a copy of the settlement agreement for BIS's administrative case was attached thereto. See id. BIS evidence also indicates that settlement documents consistent with Talyi's criminal plea agreement were sent to Talyi's counsel on March 2, 2004. See id. at 5-6. However, BIS evidence has established that counsel for Talyi ignored repeated attempts by counsel for BIS to discuss the administrative case throughout the spring of 2004 and refused to return a signed settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the plea agreement. See id. at 6. Based on the foregoing, BIS has established that, to date, Talyi has failed to enter into a settlement agreement consistent with his criminal plea agreement despite his agreement to do so. See id. at 4-6.

BIS evidence further indicates that in failing to enter into a settlement agreement with BIS, it appears Talyi has breached the terms of his criminal plea agreement. See id. at 6. Additionally, due to Talyi's failure to abide by the terms of his agreement, BIS was forced to institute a formal administrative proceeding against Talyi and he has defaulted in that matter.

In light of the above, I find that Talyi has demonstrated a continued pattern of noncompliance with the export control laws of the United States and terms of agreements with and orders of the United States government that establishes Talyi's complete disregard for the export control laws of the United States. Specifically, despite a TDO being issued against him on September 30, 2002, Talyi began violating its terms less than two weeks later. Then, on January 29, 2004, Talyi pled guilty to two felony counts for violations of the initial TDO and agreed to settle the BIS administrative case by paying a $75,000 civil penalty and accepting a 10-year denial of his export privileges. Despite executing the plea agreement, which stated the BIS settlement agreement was attached, Talyi has now refused to enter into a settlement agreement consistent with plea agreement and has forced BIS to pursue a formal administrative case against him due to his repeated failure to engage in any constructive settlement negotiations. Finally, Talyi has defaulted in the BIS administrative case pending against him and has apparently breached the terms of his criminal plea agreement.

Accordingly, I am renewing the order temporarily denying the export privileges of Talyi for a period of 180 days or until the administrative enforcement case against him is completed, whichever occurs earlier as I have concluded that a TDO against Talyi continues to be necessary, in the public interest, to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.

First , that Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. Joseph Talyi (“Talyi”), 41 Chamale Cove East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460; and Oakdale FDC, Federal Bureau of Prisons, P.O. Box 5060, Oakdale, Louisiana 71463 (the “Denied Person”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software of technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.

Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;

B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;

D. Obtain from the Denied Person order in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

Third, that, in addition to the related person named above, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to the denied person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position or responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.

In accordance with the provisions of section 766.24(e) of the EAR, denied persons may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.

This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for a period of 180 days or until an administrative enforcement case against Talyi is completed, whichever occurs earlier.

A copy of this Order shall be served on Talyi and shall be published in the Federal Register .

The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on October 14, 2004, at 10:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

The Committee will meet only in closed session to discuss matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on September 13, 2004, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that the portions of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies and the portions of this meeting disclosing privileged and confidential business information shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The entire meeting will include discussion concerning these matters.

For more information, contact Lee Ann Carpenter on 202-482-2583.

On June 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Mexico. See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews , 69 FR 30874 (June 1, 2004). The Department, in this proceeding, determined that it would conduct a full (240 day) sunset review of this order based on responses to the notice of initiation from domestic and respondent interested parties. The Department's preliminary results of this review were scheduled for September 20, 2004. The Department, however, needs additional time to consider issues related to the appropriate margin(s) of dumping likely to prevail if the order is revoked to provide to the International Trade Commission. Thus, the Department intends to issue the preliminary results on or about November 4, 2004 and the final results on or about February 28, 2005 in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Act.

On June 23, 2004, the Commission issued an Order (June Order)  1 stating its intent to withdraw market-based rate authority from 96 public utilities that had not filed Electric Quarterly Reports. The Commission gave the utilities 30 days to file their overdue Electric Quarterly Reports or face cancellation of their market-based rate tariffs.

In Order 2001, 2 the Commission required public utilities, including power marketers, to file, among other things, Electric Quarterly Reports summarizing the contractual terms and conditions in their agreements for all jurisdictional services (including market-based power sales, cost-based power sales, and transmission service) and transaction information (including rates) for short-term and long-term market-based power sales and cost-based power sales during the most recent calendar quarter.

Six of the 96 companies identified in the June Order made the required filings. The above-captioned companies have not filed Electric Quarterly Reports. Commission staff made a concerted effort to contact each of these companies. Contact was attempted in writing, by e-mail and by telephone to remind them of their regulatory obligation. In the June Order, the Commission ordered:

The Commission hereby withdraws the market-based rate authority and terminates the electric market-based rate tariff for each of the 90 companies captioned above in this Notice.

Take notice that on September 16, 2004, AEP Power Marketing, Inc. (AEP), AEP Service Corporation, CSW Power Marketing, Inc., CSW Energy Services, Inc., and Central and South West Services, Inc., (collectively AEP), submitted an amendment to the compliance filing submitted August 9, 2004, as supplemented on August 10, 2004, in Docket No. ER96-2495-020, et al.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern standard time on September 27, 2004.

Bethpage Energy Center 3, LLC (“Bethpage”) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed tariff provides for wholesale sales of energy, capacity, replacement reserves, and ancillary services at market-based rates. Bethpage also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Bethpage requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Bethpage.

On September 16, 2004, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Bethpage should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest, is October 18, 2004.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Bethpage is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Bethpage, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Bethpage's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Goldendale Energy Center, LLC (Goldendale) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed tariff provides for wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates. Goldendale also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Goldendale requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Goldendale.

On September 16, 2004, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Goldendale should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest, is October 18, 2004.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Goldendale is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Goldendale, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Goldendale's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov , using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

POSDEF Power Company, LP (POSDEF) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed tariff provides for wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates. POSDEF also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, POSDEF requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by POSDEF.

On September 16, 2004, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by POSDEF should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest, is October 18, 2004.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, POSDEF is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of POSDEF, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of POSDEF's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Take notice that on September 8, 2004, Sound Energy Solutions (SES) filed, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations, an amendment to its January 26, 2004 application in Docket No. CP04-58-000. The January 26, 2004 application requests authorization to site, construct, and operate an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in the Port of Long Beach, California. In SES's amendment in Docket No. CP04-58-003, it requests authorization to construct, own and operate a 2.3-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline which will connect its proposed LNG terminal facilities to the natural gas pipeline facilities of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas).

The proposed 2.3-mile pipeline will connect to SoCal Gas's existing Line 765 at SoCal Gas's Salt Works Station in the Port of Los Angeles, California. In SES's January 26, 2004 application, it did not specifically include the 2.3-mile pipeline as part of its request for authorization before the Commission. However, the amendment includes a description and references to all the places in the supporting environmental information filed in SES January 26, 2004 application which pertains to the 2.3-mile pipeline.

This amendment is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. Any initial questions regarding this amendment should be directed to Ms. Tetsuko Egawa, Assistant Director, Development, Sound Energy Solutions, 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1510, Long Beach, CA 90802.

Any person who is a party to SES's proceeding in Docket No. CP04-58-000 is automatically a party to SES's proceeding as amended by Docket No. CP04-58-003. Otherwise, there are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this amendment. First, any person (who is not already a party in the proceeding) wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this amendment should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding in Docket No CP04-58-000. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered concerning the amendment. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this amendment. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the amendment provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this amendment should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Comment Date: October 7, 2004.

TBG Cogen Partners (TBG Cogen) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed tariff provides for wholesale sales of energy, capacity, replacement reserves, and ancillary services at market-based rates. TBG Cogen also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, TBG Cogen requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by TBG Cogen.

On September 16, 2004, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by TBG Cogen should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest, is October 18, 2004.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, TBG Cogen is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of TBG Cogen, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of TBG Cogen's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Take notice that on August 31, 2004, White Pine Electric Power, L.L.C. (“White Pine”) filed with the Commission an amendment to its July 27, 2004, application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status. White Pine states that it filed an amendment to its application in order to clarify the nature of its incidental sales of purified water and compressed air.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov , or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern standard time on October 12, 2004.

(1) Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Office of Children's Health Protection.

(2) Funding Opportunity Title: Building State, Territorial, and Tribal Capacity to Address Children's Environmental Health: Environmental Triggers of Childhood Asthma; Initial Announcement.

(3) Funding Opportunity Number: USEPA-AO-OCHP-04-02.

(4) CFDA Number: 66.609 Protection of Children and the Aging as a Fundamental Goal of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Fiscal Year 2004, Environmental Protection Agency.

(5) Deadline for the Letter of Intent: October 15, 2004. All applicants must submit a Letter of Intent (up to two pages in length) to be considered for an invitation to submit a Full Proposal.

(6) Solicitation Closing Date and Full Proposal shipping date for applicants found to be eligible by EPA based on the Letters of Intent: December 29, 2004.

(7) Table of Contents:

(8) Executive Summary

(a) Funding Opportunity Title: “Building State, Territorial, and Tribal Capacity to Address Children's Environmental Health: Environmental Triggers of Childhood Asthma.”

(b) Announcement Type: Initial Offering.

(c) Funding Opportunity Number: USEPA-AO-OCHP-04-02.

(d) CFDA Number: 66.609 Protection of Children and the Aging as a Fundamental Goal of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Fiscal Year 2004, EPA.

(e) Purpose of Funding Opportunity: Identify projects that will build state, territorial, and tribal capacity to address the environment triggers of childhood asthma. This solicitation focuses on projects that equip environment and health departments/agencies, and social service agencies where indicated, of states, territories and tribes as partners or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions with substantive government involvement, to achieve measurable environmental and public health results by identifying and reducing environmental risks to protect and improve the environmental health of children impacted by asthma. Projects must be accomplished through collaborative efforts of environment and health departments/agencies, and social service agencies where indicated, of states, territories and tribes as partners or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions with substantive government involvement which focus on one or more Target Investment Areas. Target Project Areas define a range of activities from which applicants must choose to understand, coordinate, address and manage the environmental triggers of childhood asthma.

(f) Awards: EPA anticipates awarding approximately seven to nine grants from these Full Proposals. Approximately $360,000 are expected to be awarded. Grants or cooperative agreements may be requested from $25,000 to $50,000 for a period of one year. No cost sharing is required.

(g) Eligibility: The environment or health departments/agencies, in partnership with social service departments/agencies when indicated, of the states of EPA Regions 2-10 (NJ, NY, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV, AL, FL, GE, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI, AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, IA, KS, MO, NE, CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY, AZ, CA, HI, NV, AK, ID, OR and WA) and the District of Columbia; tribes whose territories fall within the aforementioned states and the territories of the United States. Applicant agencies must propose to collaborate with their counterparts in their government's environment or health department or related agencies in this project.

Applicants may also be state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions in the geographic areas defined above, with documented significant sustained involvement of senior representatives of the environment and health departments of the states, territories or tribes in the geographic area served by the state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalition.

(h) Application and Submission Information: A two part application process will be followed. Letters of Intent must be submitted by e-mail October 15, 2004. Applicants with successful Letters of Intent will be invited to participate in an optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call on October 26, 2004 and to submit a Full Proposal which must be shipped by December 29, 2004. A sample Letter of Intent is included as an Attachment to this Solicitation. Other application materials are available on the Office of Children's Health Protection Web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm and the EPA Grants Administration Web site http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm.

In recent years, EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection has encouraged and supported collaboration between state level health and environment departments/agencies toward the end of building state capacity to combat childhood asthma. Since the summer of 2001, the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) has collaborated with the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to design a flexible template for state level strategies and actions to minimize environmental factors that contribute to asthma in children. This focus on environmental factors complements the on-going Centers for Disease Control (CDC) state asthma program which recognizes the need to address environmental factors but does not explicitly provide guidance or support for this aspect of disease prevention and control.

Throughout 2002, ECOS, ASTHO, and EPA hosted a series of four workshops to refine the details of a cooperative approach in four specific areas: Data, environmental factors in homes, environmental factors in schools and child care facilities, and outdoor environmental factors.

The funding priorities of this Request for Proposals are a reflection of the draft action agenda, Catching Your Breath http://www.astho.org/pubs/CatchingYourBreathReport.pdf that resulted from this intensive collaborative visioning process.

With this Funding Opportunity, the Office of Children's Health Protection is pleased to be able to extend this capacity building effort to territories of the United States and tribes.

The purpose of this funding opportunity, “Building State, Territorial, and Tribal Capacity to Address Children's Environmental Health: Environmental Triggers of Childhood Asthma,” is to identify projects that will build state, territorial, and tribal capacity to address the environmental triggers of childhood asthma. This solicitation focuses on projects that equip environment and health departments/agencies, in partnership with social service agencies, where indicated, of states, territories and tribes or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions with substantive government involvement, to achieve measurable environmental and public health results by identifying and reducing environmental risks to protect and improve the environmental health of children impacted by asthma. This initiative will help achieve these goals by identifying and funding projects that:

• Focus efforts on benefitting communities at greatest risk including places with high levels of toxic air pollution and areas with disproportionate impact from environmental health hazards related to childhood asthma;

• Measure, assess, and reduce environmental triggers of health risks associated with childhood asthma;

• Increase collaboration among environment, health and other relevant agencies within states, territories and tribes, or within state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions with their government partners. Focus collaboration upon understanding the burden of childhood asthma in at-risk communities and minimizing and eliminating the sources of environmental triggers; and

• Build institutional capacity to understand and solve children's environmental health problems through innovative techniques; and achieve measurable children's environmental health benefits.

Specifically, projects must meet the Statutory Criteria. Further, they must focus on one or more Target Investment Areas and build state, territorial or tribal capacity to address children's environmental health through collaborative efforts of environment, health and other appropriate government agencies in partnership with other organizations through work to understand, coordinate, address and manage the environmental triggers of childhood asthma through one of the Target Project Areas.

EPA expects to award these grants under the Clean Air Act Section 103(b)(3). In addition to the program criteria list below, a proposal must meet the following two important Statutory Criteria to be considered for funding.

A project must consist of activities authorized under the Clean Air Act Section 103(b)(3). This statute authorizes grants for: “research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys and studies.” These activities relate generally to the gathering or transferring of knowledge. Grant proposals should emphasize a “learning” concept, as opposed to “fixing” a specific environmental problem through a well-established method. For example, the application of the EPA “Tools for Schools” protocols in schools to manage environmental triggers and thereby reduce childhood asthma is not eligible nor would a project to develop a home assessment checklist tool and conduct routine home assessments be eligible. The project's activities must advance the state of knowledge or transfer information to other practitioners in the field. The statutory term “demonstration” can encompass the first application of an approach or an innovative application of a previously used method. The term “research” may include the application of established practices as they contribute to “learning” about the effectiveness of an environmental approach.

Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA's Administrator to conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys and studies relating to the causes, effects (including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention, and control of air pollution by making grants to air pollution control agencies, to other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations for purposes stated in Section 103(a)(1) http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa103.txt. The overarching concern or principle focus must be on the statutory purpose of this grant authority. Proposals should describe the relationship of their proposed activities to the air (ambient and indoor) pollution statute. Products may include, but are not limited to, conference presentations with published papers, case studies, workshops, educational materials, innovative tools, or on-site demonstrations.

In order to qualify as eligible projects under this initiative, projects must focus on and benefit one or more Target Investment Areas and build state, territorial and tribal capacity to address children's environmental health through collaborative efforts of environment, health, and other appropriate government departments/agencies in partnership with other organizations to coordinate, address and manage the environmental triggers of childhood asthma through one of the Target Project Areas.

(a) Benefit communities at greatest risk of childhood asthma including places with high risk from toxic air pollution, and/or

(b) Areas with disproportionate impact from environmental health hazards related to childhood asthma.

Building state, territorial and tribal capacity to address childhood asthma can be accomplished through projects in one or more of these areas:

(a) Organize or charter state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions with government partners to provide innovative solutions to address the environmental triggers of childhood asthma. Broad-based membership must feature senior officials from the environment and health agencies of the states, territories or tribes within the geographic area covered who demonstrate significant leadership and pledge sustained participation in the coalition.

(b) Existing state, territorial or tribal governmental partnerships or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions, design and implement projects that focus on understanding the burden of childhood asthma in Target Investment Areas and identify sources of asthma triggers;

(c) Collaborative efforts of state, territorial and tribal environment, health and social service departments/agencies and/or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions which include these entities, to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of:

(i) New methods, approaches or protocols for reducing or eliminating exposure to environmental asthma triggers in early childhood (0-4 years). This may include but is not limited to changes in environmental health requirements of child care facility approval, education and implementation work in large-scale and home-based child care facilities, pre-K and nursery school programs, Head Start and Migrant Head Start facilities, homeless shelters serving children of this age range, etc.

(ii) New approaches for encouraging, rewarding, and measuring the elimination of environmental asthma triggers from the environments of young children. These may include, but are not limited to training and/or certification programs for child care providers, training and follow-up programs for new parents in high risk communities, training and consumer education for parents on environmental asthma triggers common in the child care setting and what to look for when choosing a child care provider based on these concerns, etc.

Funds available for these projects are expected to total approximately $360,000. Grants and cooperative agreements are expected to be awarded to approximately seven to nine state, territorial or tribal environment or health agencies or state/territorial or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions. Proposals for less than $25,000 and greater than $50,000 will not be considered. Award amounts will vary depending upon solicitation priorities, proposal quality and level of activity, and resource availability. The Agency reserves the right to make no awards under this solicitation.

Projects may expand upon ongoing work within the focus of this solicitation. However, the boundaries of the previous and proposed work under this solicitation must be clear in terms of the work to be done and the budget to support the new proposal.

It is expected that grants and cooperative agreements will begin around the spring of 2005 and be completed in the spring of 2006.

If the applicant chooses to submit a proposal for a cooperative agreement, the Agency will have substantial involvement in the project. The applicant must define the expectations for Agency involvement in the project. Such involvement may mean EPA review and approval of project scope and phases; EPA participation in and collaboration on, various phases of the work; EPA review of draft and final work products; regular e-mail, phone and conference calls.

Projects not selected for award under this solicitation will be retained on file and made available for potential funding by OCHP and other EPA offices for a period of one year from the date of receipt of the Full Proposal by EPA.

While only environment or health agencies/departments or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions with government partners may be the direct recipients and lead administrators of the project, other partners are encouraged to participate and are eligible for compensation through sub-contracting agreement(s) between the lead agency/department and collaborating partners as long as the state/territorial/tribal department/agency maintains a substantive, hands-on role in the management and implementation of the project. Materials to support the projects may be secured through procurement contracts.

Eligible applicants under this managed competition include: government environment or health departments/agencies, in partnership with social service departments/agencies when indicated, of states, territories or tribes as listed below, and state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions addressing environmental triggers of childhood asthma with substantive involvement of these government department/agency partners.

Eligible governments include: the states of EPA Regions 2-10 (NJ, NY, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV, AL, FL, GE, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI, AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, IA, KS, MO, NE, CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY, AZ, CA, HI, NV, AK, ID, OR and WA) and the District of Columbia; tribes whose territories fall within the aforementioned states; and the territories of the United States.

(1) The EPA Region 1 states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont and the tribes whose territories fall within this Region are expressly excluded from this funding Initiative. Funding was available directly from the EPA Region 1 Office through a different competed solicitation in April of 2004 known as the “Healthy Communities Grant Program” to support New England states' efforts in the arena of childhood asthma and related community-based endeavors. See http://www.epa.gov/region01/grants/healthycommunities.html or contact Sandra Padula at (617) 918-1797 for more information.

(2) Businesses, federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to be grant recipients. They are encouraged to work in partnership with eligible applicants on projects.

Applicants are not required to have a formal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) non-profit designation, such as 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4); however they must present in their Full Proposal their letter of incorporation or other documentation demonstrating their non-profit or not-for-profit status. This requirement does not apply to public agencies or federally-recognized tribes. Failure to enclose a letter of incorporation or other documentation demonstrating non-profit or not-for-profit status will render Full Proposals incomplete and they will not be reviewed. Applicants who do have an IRS 501(c)(4) designation are not eligible for grants if they engage in lobbying, no matter what the source of funding for the lobbying activities. No recipient may use grant funds for lobbying. For profit enterprises are not eligible to receive sub-grants from eligible recipients, although they may receive contracts, subject to EPA regulations on procurement under assistance agreements, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 30.40 (for non-governmental recipients) and 40 CFR 31.36 (for governments).

Tribal agencies must supply documentation of their authorizing tribal resolution.

Applicants must adhere to the provisions of The Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” (SPOC List) applies. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html for further information.

As stated above, eligible applicants in this managed competition include environment, health agencies/departments, in partnership with social service agencies where applicable, of states, territories or tribes, and state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions with government partners. While only environment or health agencies/departments or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions with government partners may be the direct recipients and lead administrators of the project, other partners are encouraged to participate and are eligible for compensation through sub-contracting agreement(s) between the lead agency/department and collaborating partners as long as the state, territorial or tribal agency/department maintains a substantive, hands-on role in the management and implementation of the project. Please note that substantive involvement by the environment and health departments is a key evaluation criterion. Projects that are essentially pass-through funding to a third party for independent implementation will not meet the evaluation criteria. Examples of substantive collaborative involvement include but are not limited to:

(1) Both agencies/departments dedicating personnel;

(2) Agencies/departments co-sponsoring and presenting at crucial workshops and meetings; or

(3) Both agencies/departments being involved in peer reviews of documents and/or products.

Applicants must meet standards for eligibility described in section 103(b)(3) of the CAA (http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa103.txt).

Pre-award costs will not be covered under this solicitation. Grant recipients may begin incurring allowable costs on the date identified in the EPA award agreement. Activities must be completed and funds spent within the time frames specified in the award agreement. EPA grant funds may be used only for the purposes set forth in the grant agreement and must conform to the Federal cost principles contained in OMB Circular A-87; A-122; and A-21, as appropriate. Ineligible costs will be reduced from the final grant.

Cost sharing or matching funds are not required for this solicitation.

The Letter of Intent must comply with the following responsiveness criteria to be eligible to submit a Full Proposal: Applicant eligibility, completeness, administrative responsiveness, and timeliness of submission.

The Full Proposal must comply with the following responsiveness criteria for the Full Proposal to be reviewed for possible award: Timeliness of shipment, administrative responsiveness, order of materials presentation, completeness, original signatures as required, required number of copies and the absence of unnecessary materials and extraneous information.

State, territorial and tribal departments/agencies and state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions addressing environmental triggers of childhood asthma with substantive involvement of these government department/agency partners (as described above in section III) may submit more than one proposal if the proposals are for different projects. However, no more than one grant will be awarded under this offering to any given state, territory or tribal entity or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalition serving a given geographic area. Environment and health departments/agencies of state, territorial and tribal organizations are encouraged to collaborate with joint proposals under this solicitation that is focused on bringing environment and health departments/agencies together to address environmental triggers of childhood asthma.

This is a two-stage application process involving a Letter of Intent which is evaluated for basic eligibility, administrative and technical responsiveness. Applicants submitting acceptable Letters of Intent will be invited to participate in a Pre-proposal assistance conference call and to submit a Full Proposal.

A sample Letter of Intent is provided at the end of this solicitation. Paper copies of this announcement, the sample Letter of Intent and the requisite forms for the Full Proposal can be obtained by contacting EPA personnel listed in Section VII of this solicitation. Electronic copies of the requisite forms for the Full Proposal are available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm . If your Full Proposal is selected for possible award, your EPA Regional Office will supply you with any additional Federal forms needed to process your Full Proposal for award.

(a) Stage 1 of this application process is a Letter of Intent (Up to two pages in length) which is due via e-mail to fletcher.bettina@epa.gov on or before October 15, 2004. Letters of Intent must have an email subject line starting with Letter of Intent: Followed by your Project Title. Email confirmation of receipt will be sent within two business days of receipt.

(b) Email submission of the Letter of Intent is strongly preferred. However, if email is not available, the Letter of Intent may be faxed to the attention of Bettina B. Fletcher at 202-564-2733. If a confirming phone call for fax transmissions is not received within two business days, a phone call should be made to Bettina Fletcher at 202-564-2646 to initiate a trace.

(c) A sample Letter of Intent is provided at the end of this solicitation. A copy also can be found at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

(d) Your Letter of Intent must provide all of the following information in the following order :

(Section 1) Contact information for your organization:

(1) Name of your organization.

(2) Project name.

(3) Name of authorized representative.

(4) Address.

(5) Phone number and fax number.

(6) E-mail address.

(7) Web site, if any.

(Section 2) A brief description of how your organization fits each stated eligibility criterion and how your organization proposes to collaborate with the other agency(ies)/department(s).

(Section 3) One page project summary including:

(1) Dollar value of the project;

(2) Description of the organizational unit which will lead/oversee the project;

(3) A brief summary statement that articulates the project's concept and states its goals and objectives;

(4) A brief description of how this project will meet the Statutory Criteria.

(5) Identification of the specific Target Investment Area and the specific Target Project Area addressed by the project;

(6) A brief summary of the method that will be used to achieve the project goals and how the outcomes will be measured;

(7) Summary of the kinds of activities that will be funded by the project and;

(8) A brief description of the role the state, territorial, or tribal environment and health agencies or state, territorial or tribal members of your state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalition will play in this project.

(Section 4) Indication of Interest in Participating in Optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call and Special Needs:

(1) Indication if you would like to participate in the October 26, 2004 optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call if your Letter of Intent is accepted.

(2) Indication of any special needs to permit participation on such a call.

Stage 2 of this application process is a Full Proposal (including optional Pre-proposal Assistance Conference Call). Note: IF your Letter of Intent is accepted, you will be invited to participate in Stage 2

An optional Pre-proposal Assistance Conference Call will be held on October 26, 2004, to answer any questions prospective eligible applicants may have. If you indicate in your Letter of Intent a desire to participate in the Pre-proposal Assistance Conference Call and your Letter of Intent is found to be eligible, you will be emailed instructions for participating in the conference call.

Note: You must complete both the EPA Application Kit for Federal Assistance and the Work Plan Proposal Narrative as described below:

(a) Table of Contents with page numbers for all elements of this submission.

(b) EPA Application Kit for Federal Assistance.

The EPA Application Kit for Federal Assistance can be obtained on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm or http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm .

(c) Completed SF-424A Budget Forms. http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm contains information about completing SF-424A Budget Forms and Understanding Cost Principles for a Federal grant.

(d) Work Plan Proposal Narrative:

In addition to the standard forms contained in the EPA Application Kit for Federal Assistance and the SF-424A budget forms, you must submit a Work Plan Proposal Narrative of no longer than 12 pages (plus appendices) that follows exactly the format outlined below. Pages and information submitted out of order will not be reviewed. Text may be single or double spaced, no smaller than 12 point font. The pages must be letter sized (8 1/2 x11 inches). Margins are not specified. Proposals must be legible. Note: All proposals should be well explained and easily read. Information should be clear and concise, well organized and contain no unnecessary jargon. The Work Plan Proposal Narrative Content should include:

(i) Contact Information Sheet (1 page): For the project lead and each collaborating partner, include contact name, organization, title, address, phone, fax, and e-mail.

(ii) Letter of Intent: Include a copy of your previously submitted Letter of Intent as a project summary.

(iii) Project Description (Up to 5 pages): Describe precisely what your project will achieve. In your narrative, answer these questions in this order:

Question 1. Who will conduct the project? What are the specific roles and responsibilities of the state, territorial and tribal representatives in this project? What experience do the partners have in addressing environmental triggers of childhood asthma? What is the nature of your agencies'/departments' or coalition's on-going programs addressing children's environmental health. What will be the roles and responsibilities of any other partners? Who will be affected by and/or benefit from your project? How will they be targeted, identified, and recruited?

Question 2. Why is it needed?

Question 3. What is the purpose of your project? Explain your strategy— your goals and objectives, the specific activities you will conduct to achieve them, and what your projected outcomes will be. How will you evaluate your results and your level of success? Describe any mechanisms for tracking outputs ( e.g. how many households were educated, how many facilities were assessed, in how many facilities were actions taken), and evaluating outcomes ( e.g. the effectiveness of the education and mitigation efforts to (1) decrease their measured levels of asthma triggers in children's environments and/or (2) decrease the number of times children access acute care services for asthma ( e.g. frequency and severity of asthma attacks, frequency of asthma-related absences and the level of increased awareness); How will the project be sustained beyond the life of the EPA grant?

Question 4. How will project deliverables and/or findings be presented/packaged to be shared with and replicated by other states, territories, tribes or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalitions?

Question 5. All projects should be completed prior to June 15, 2006. Outline a detailed time line/responsibility matrix to link your project activities to a clear project schedule. Indicate at what point over the months of your budget period each action, project outcome or milestone occurs and indicate which partner is responsible for each action. Note: Tabular or graphic presentation of this information is acceptable for this time line; smaller but readable typeface is allowed for this information

(e) Project Budget (1-2 pages):

(i) Personnel (For Each Positions: % of Time Worked, Annual Salary, Salary Proposed for this Project).

(ii) Fringe Benefits (Full-time Rate).

(iii) Long Distance Travel (Destination, Cost of Trip, # of Travelers, # of Trips, Amt. Proposed).

(iv) Air Fare (Destination, # Travelers, # Trips).

(v) Local Travel (Destination, Distance, Mileage, # Travelers).

(vi) Direct Cost—Equipment (Quantity, Cost per Unit, Amt. Proposed).

(vii) Direct Cost—Supplies (Quantity, Cost per Unit, Amt. Proposed).

(viii) Direct Cost—Other e.g. Phone, Postage, Conference Calls (Quantity, Cost per Unit, Amt. Proposed).

(ix) Direct Cost—Contracts (Direct Labor, Overhead @__rate, Materials and Supplies, G&A Rate).

(x) Direct Cost—Consultants (Skill, Quantity, Rate).

(xi) Indirect Cost Charges (Total Direct Costs × __% (indirect cost rate = Estimated).

(f) Appendices: Include project specific letters of commitment from each state, territorial or tribal environment, health and other agencies as well as major partners involved in the success of this project. Include resumes for key personnel as well. Letters of commitment focus on the partner's role in the proposed project. Do not submit letters of general support, they will not be reviewed. Do not include any materials other than letters of commitment for this project and resumes.

To support the EPA review process, the proposal must contain one complete Full Proposal package with original signatures in contrasting ink and nine duplicate hard copy sets of the Full Proposal package including the following materials in the order listed below:

(1) Table of Contents with page numbers for all elements of this submission.

(2) Completed EPA Application Kit for Federal Assistance.

(3) Completed SF 424A Budget Forms.

(4) Work Plan Proposal Narrative consisting of:

(i) Contact Information Sheet.

(ii) Copy of the Letter of Intent.

(iii) Project Description.

(5) Project Budget.

(6) Appendices exactly as defined in Section IV. Application and Submission Information.

To support the EPA review process, the proposal is required to contain one complete Full Proposal package with original signatures in contrasting ink and nine duplicate hard copy sets of the Full Proposal package including the following materials in the order listed above.

Do not submit additional items. Unnecessary materials (cover letters, un-requested forms or binders) will make your proposal ineligible.

Grant applicants are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The DUNS number will supplement other identifiers required by statute or regulation, such as tax identification numbers. Organizations can receive a DUNS number in one day, at no cost, by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Individuals who would personally receive a grant or cooperative agreement award from the Federal government apart from any business or non-profit organization they may operate are exempt from this requirement. The Web site where an organization can obtain a DUNS number is: http://www.dnb.com . This process takes 30 business days and there is no cost unless the organization requests expedited (1-day) processing, which includes a fee of $40.

Successful Stage 2 Applicants must submit the following information after EPA notifies them of its intent to make an award, but prior to the award: quality assurance plan for any project involving environmental data; evidence of compliance with human subjects requirements where research is found to be involved.

(a) A required Stage 1 Letter of Intent is due via email to fletcher.bettina@epa.gov on or before October 15, 2004 as indicated on the email transmission. If email is unavailable, a fax submission may be used. The same due date applies and the date will be determined by the date registered on the receiving fax machine log and printed on the received documents by said machine. A confirming email will be sent within two working days of receipt of e-mailed Letters of Intent. A confirming phone call will be made within two working days of receipt for faxed Letters of Intent. The applicant should follow up with a phone call to Bettina Fletcher at 202-564-2646 if a confirmation is not received within the stated time frames. Email and fax transmissions received after October 15, 2004 will not be reviewed.

(b) Applicants submitting a Letter of Intent will be notified via email on or before October 22, 2004 if they are deemed eligible to participate in the optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call and to submit a Full Proposal.

(c) Applicants with accepted Letters of Intent who expressed an interest in participating in the optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call will be advised in this email on or before October 22, 2004 of the call-in number and the specific time for the call.

(d) All questions before and after the October 26, 2004 Pre-proposal Assistance Call, must be sent by email to the following address: fletcher.bettina@epa.gov . The word “QUESTION” in capital letters and the name of the solicitation should appear in the subject line. Answers to allowable questions will be provided in a timely manner at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm . EPA will not respond to technical questions by phone or fax.

(e) Optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call will be held on October 26, 2004.

(f) A summary of the questions and answers from the October 26 2004 Pre-proposal Conference Call will be posted on the OCHP Web site http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm on or before November 2, 2004.

(g) To ensure fair and open competition, EPA will respond to questions submitted by email up to December 17, 2004. Questions and answers will be posted in a timely manner at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

(h) Full Proposals from invited eligible applicants must be delivered to the private shipping company ( e.g. , Federal Express, UPS, DHL, or courier) for shipment or postmarked (see note in Section VIII) by the U.S. Post Office (not a private postage meter) postmark on or before December 29, 2004. Full Proposals shipped or mailed after this date will not be considered for funding under this solicitation. Date of shipment will be determined by the shipping company's shipping information or the U.S. Post Office (not a private postage meter) postmark on the shipping package depending upon the method of shipment.

(i) Applicants will receive an email notification of receipt of the Full Proposal within one month of receipt by the Agency.

(j) The Selected Projects will be announced as their award negotiations are completed around late spring 2005. Those projects not selected for award in this funding cycle will also be notified at this time.

(k) Start Date for Projects: June 15, 2005 is the earliest start date that applicants should plan on and enter on their proposal forms and time lines. Grant recipients may begin incurring allowable costs on the start date identified in the EPA grant award agreement. Budget periods may run up to 12 months from the date of award.

Applicants may be subject to Executive Order 12372. “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html for more details.

Salaries/fringe, travel, communications, equipment rental, indirect overhead, public outreach efforts (workshops, public forums, meeting expenses), office expenses, printing and copying (conference and promotional materials), and web site dissemination of information related to the project.

Capital expenditures, construction expenses, lobbying, endowments, formal educational expenses, entertainment, remediation and removal expenses, medical equipment and supplies, air sampling, and equipment purchases as the sole focus of the assistance agreement.

Pre-award costs will not be covered under this solicitation. Grant recipients may begin incurring allowable costs on the date identified in the EPA award agreement. Activities must be completed and funds spent within the time frames specified in the award agreement. EPA grant funds may be used only for the purposes set forth in the grant agreement and must conform to the Federal cost principles contained in OMB Circular A-87; A-122; and A-21, as appropriate. Ineligible costs will be reduced from the final grant.

a. Do not submit additional items. Unnecessary materials ( i.e. un-requested forms or binders) create extra burden for the reviewers and failure to follow instructions may render your project ineligible.

b. Letters of Intent must be sent via email to fletcher.bettina@ epa.gov. If email is not available, Letters of Intent may be faxed to Bettina Fletcher at 202-564-2733.

c. Because of continuing delays in the delivery of mailed parcels, Full Proposals are best delivered by a private shipping company ( e.g. , Federal Express, UPS, DHL, or courier) to the attention of: Bettina Fletcher, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Mail Code 1107A, Room 2512 Ariel Rios North, Washington, DC 20004.

If the applicant has no ability to send the Full Proposal in by way of a private shipping company, the Full Proposal may be mailed to the attention of: Bettina Fletcher, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Mail Code 1107A, Room 2512 Ariel Rios North, Washington, DC 20460.

d. If the applicant experiences technical difficulties in making a submission, contact Bettina Fletcher at 202-564-2646 immediately.

The Letter of Intent must comply with the following responsiveness criteria to be eligible to submit a Full Proposal: Applicant eligibility, completeness, administrative responsiveness, and timeliness of submission.

The Letters of Intent will also be compared to Statutory Criteria, Target Investment Areas and the Target Project Areas in this solicitation. Applicants whose projects are clearly not responsive to the published Statutory Criteria, Target Investment Areas and Target Project Areas may not be invited to submit a Full Proposal.

The Full Proposal must comply with the following responsiveness criteria for the Full Proposal to be reviewed for possible award: timeliness of shipment, administrative responsiveness, order of materials presentation, completeness, original signatures as required, required number of copies and the absence of unnecessary materials and extraneous information.

State, territorial and tribal departments/agencies and state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions asthma coalitions addressing environmental triggers of childhood asthma with substantive involvement of these government department/agency partners (as described above in Section III) may submit more than one proposal if the proposals are for different projects. However, no more than one grant will be awarded under this offering to any given state, territory or tribal entity or state/territorial/tribal or regional asthma coalition serving a given geographic area. Environment and health departments/agencies of State, territorial and tribal organizations are encouraged to collaborate with joint proposals under this solicitation that is focused on bringing environment and health departments/agencies together to address environmental triggers of childhood asthma.

Each Full Proposal will be scored based on how well it meets the specific selection criteria below.

The proposal describes substantive collaborative partnerships to address the environmental triggers of childhood asthma. Letters of commitment specifically describe activities of the partners for this project. Significant, sustained involvement of senior representatives of state, territorial or tribal environment, health, and related agency officials is documented. The organization is appropriate to do this project. The project does not principally pass-through funds to an independent third party.

The proposal describes how the project will specifically benefit one or more the Target Investment Areas. Describes the need for this project in this Target Investment Area and how it will reduce risks for children's environmental health in this Target Investment Area.

The proposal describes how the project will specifically address the significant environmental issues around childhood asthma in the context of one or more of the Target Project Areas. The proposal includes specific goals and objectives with measurable, achievable outputs and outcomes. Proposal uses existing tools with demonstrated effectiveness such as facility assessment checklists rather than investing resources to recreate already-available materials. The proposal includes steps and methodology to track outputs. The project includes evaluation steps to measure degree of success for the project and to make mid-course adjustments, if needed. The project has addressed potential sources of resources and mechanisms for sustaining the project after this EPA funding cycle has been completed.

The proposal budget reflects: reasonable costs and efficient use of resources for the work proposed. Funds are not used as pass-through funding to a third party for project implementation. This subsection will be scored on: (1) How well the budget information clearly and accurately shows how funds will be used, (2) whether there funding request is reasonable given the activity proposed, and (3) whether the funding can be expected to provide a good return on the investment. Proposal leverages funding from other agencies and programs to increase the accomplishment of this project without raising concerns of double billing for the same work.

Reviewers have the flexibility to provide from zero to 10 bonus points for exceptional project qualities in accordance with one or more of the following principles of quality and efficacy:

(1) Applicant's materials are consistent with EPA guidance and recommendations. In particular, applicant outlines educational materials and mitigation methods for second-hand tobacco smoke, house dust mites, cockroaches, molds, and animal dander that are compatible with the guidance contained in EPA's asthma brochure, A Clear Your Home of Asthma Triggers: Your Children Will Breathe Easier, http://www.epa.gov/asthma/resources.html and the findings and recommendations contained in the January, 2000 National Academy of Sciences report on asthma, A Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures, http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9610.html.

(2) Projects focused upon ambient air pollutants and asthma are consistent with EPA guidance that can be accessed through http://www.epa.gov/air/topics/comap.html.

(3) Use of education materials reflecting current standards for conducting environmental health or public health education and outreach activities, particularly with respect to motivating behavioral changes in low-literacy, low-income, and disproportionately impacted populations.

(4) Proposals including extraordinarily compelling examples and other strengths noted by the reviewers who evaluate and compare proposals.

After individual projects are evaluated, scored, and ranked against the published criteria by EPA staff and peers external to the Agency, EPA may take into account the following factors in making their final selections:

(a) Effectiveness of collaborative activities and partnerships, as needed to successfully implement the project;

(b) Environmental and educational importance of the activity or product;

(c) Effectiveness of the delivery mechanism ( i.e. workshop, conference, etc.);

(d) Cost effectiveness of the proposal; and

(e) Geographic distribution of projects.

Projects recommended for possible funding based upon the findings of the reviewers and EPA's consideration of the final selection factors described above receive a cost analysis to ensure that the project costs in the budget are reasonable, allocable, and allowable per OMB Cost Circulars A-87, A-122, and A-21 as appropriate.

In the course of this Cost Analysis, unallowable and unproductive activities will be deleted and unreasonable costs will be deflated.

Organizations submitting Letters of Intent will be notified regarding their successful or unsuccessful Stage 1 application via email on or before October 22, 2004.

Project Officers of organizations with Full Proposals that were selected for possible award (pending successful award negotiations) will be contacted around the spring of 2005 by the appropriate Regional Project Officer to work through the awards process. Upon completion of a successful award negotiation and following a mandatory five day Congressional Notification Period, each successful grant applicant will receive a written notice signed by the EPA Project Officer/grants official. This document will serve as the authorizing document. This award notice will be faxed to the Key Contact as specified in the Full Proposal. Successful applicants must receive this document before drawing any funds.

Projects must be performed by the applicant/recipient or a designee within that organization who is satisfactory to the applicant and EPA. All proposals must identify any other person(s) and their organization(s) who will assist in carrying out the project. Recipients are responsible for receiving the grant award agreement from EPA and ensuring that all grant conditions are satisfied. Recipients are responsible for the successful completion of the project.

No pre-award costs should be incurred by the recipient. Grant recipients may begin incurring allowable costs on the start date identified in the EPA grant award agreement. Activities must be completed and funds spent within the time frames specified in the award agreement. EPA grant funds may be used only for the purposes set forth in the grant agreement and must conform to the Federal cost principles contained in OMB Circular A-87, A-122, and A-21, as appropriate. Ineligible costs will be reduced from the final grant award.

The Successful Stage 2 Applicant must submit the following information after EPA notifies them of its intent to make an award, but prior to the award: Quality assurance plan for any project involving environmental data; evidence of compliance with human subjects requirements where research is found to be involved.

Specific financial and other reporting requirements will be identified in the EPA grant award agreement. Grant recipients must submit the standard formal quarterly progress reports, unless otherwise instructed in the award agreement. A quality assurance plan will be required if environmental data are collected. Also, two copies of the final report and two copies of all work products must be sent to the EPA project officer within 90 days after the expiration of the budget period. This submission will be accepted as the final requirement, unless the EPA project officer notifies the recipient that changes must be made.

Bettina B. Fletcher; Office of Children's Health Protection; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.; Mail Code 1107A; Room 2512 Ariel Rios North; Washington, DC 20004-2403; fletcher.bettina@epa.gov ; Phone: (202) 564-2646; FAX (202) 564-2733; Web Site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

a. Applicants who need more information about this grant or clarification about specific requirements of this Solicitation Notice, should periodically check the Web page http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm for posted information ( e.g. administrative clarification and responses to Qs & As from Letters of Intent and participate, if eligible, in the Pre-proposal Assistance Conference Call).

b. Specific clarifying questions can be posed via email to fletcher.bettina@epa.gov . The word “QUESTION” in Capital Letters and the name of the solicitation should appear in the Subject Line. Responses to allowable questions will be posted in a timely manner on the OCHP Web site at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

c. If email is absolutely not available, requests for materials may be made by FAX to 202-564-2733. Requests should be sent to the attention of Bettina B. Fletcher.

d. To Ensure Fair And Open Competition, EPA Will Answer No Clarifying Questions In Person Except On The Pre-Proposal Conference Call.

e. Applicants may submit questions via email to fletcher.bettina@epa.gov . Answers will be posted on the Web page: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

f. Questions and answers from the October 26, 2004 optional Pre-proposal Assistance Call will be summarized and posted within a week of the Assistance Call on the OCHP Web page at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

g. To ensure fair and open competition, EPA will respond to questions submitted by email up to December 17, 2004. Questions and answers will be posted in a timely manner at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm .

3. If paper copies of the EPA Application Kit for Federal Assistance are required, contact Bettina B. Fletcher at fletcher.bettina@epa.gov.

The following are examples of types of projects that EPA would consider for funding the Building State, Territorial, and Tribal Capacity to Address Children's Environmental Health: Environmental Triggers of Childhood Asthma. The following are examples of components EPA considers to be elements of building state, territorial and tribal capacity to address children's environmental health in the context of the environmental triggers of childhood asthma. These examples are illustrative only and are not intended to limit proposal ideas.

• Design an asthma surveillance tracking system.

• Linked an asthma surveillance tracking system with environmental data.

• Design an asthma education program through a collaboration of the environment and health agencies.

• Build state, territorial, tribal or regional capacity to decrease asthma incidence in areas with disproportionate impact from environmental health hazards.

• Sponsor state, territorial, tribal or regional workshops to train school officials, day care facility operators, health officials, parents of school-aged children on air quality and environmental triggers of childhood asthma in schools and day care facilities.

• Create a technical resource and training center for state, territorial, tribal or regional community air risk screening as well as a resource for pollution and exposure prevention related to childhood asthma.

• Target reduction of smoke including environmental tobacco smoke, smoke from burning of trash, and smoke from field burning through education and awareness campaigns.

• Facilitate productive dialogues and strategy development among states, territories, tribal and regions as well as across disciplines regarding asthma tracking and surveillance and the development of healthier day care facilities and schools.

• Conduct multilingual, multi-cultural outreach and education activities that result in better health outcomes related to childhood asthma.

• Conduct an education and outreach campaign in low-income, diverse neighborhoods on vehicle idling, ambient and indoor air quality and childhood asthma.

a. Please visit our Web site for information on children's environmental health issues and these grant materials at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp and http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/grants.htm respectively.

b. We strongly suggest that applicants examine the ECOS/ASTHO state draft action agenda, Catching Your Breath, http://www.astho.org/pubs/CatchingYourBreathReport.pdf for background on state/asthma activities.

c. First time recipients of Federal funds are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the regulations applicable to assistance agreements found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, part 31 for State and local government entities. See http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-B.html . Applicants may also obtain a copy of the CFR Title 40, part 31 at the local U.S. Government Bookstore, or through the U.S. Government Printing Office. This solicitation notice contains all the information and forms necessary to prepare a Letter of Intent. If your project is selected as a finalist after the evaluation process is concluded, EPA will provide you with additional Federal forms needed to process your Full Proposal.

EPA's regulations on procurement under assistance agreements can be found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 30.40 (for non-governmental recipients) and 40 CFR 31.36 (for governments).

Dispute Resolution Process: Procedures are in 40 CFR 30.63 and 40 CFR 31.70.

Due to on-going mail delays in the Washington, DC area, applicants who are invited to submit a Full Proposal are strongly encouraged to send all required materials by way of a private shipping company ( e.g. , Federal Express, UPS, DHL, or courier) to the attention of: Bettina Fletcher, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Mail Code 1107A, Room 2512 Ariel Rios North, Washington, DC 20004.

If the applicant has no ability to send the Full Proposal in by way of a private shipping company, the Full Proposal may be mailed to the attention of: Bettina Fletcher, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Mail Code 1107A, Room 2512 Ariel Rios North, Washington, DC 20460.

Sample Letter of Intent (Up to 2 pages total)

All state, tribal, territorial agencies/departments and state/territorial/tribal or regional ( e.g. the asthma coalition of the greater metropolitan area of Smallville) asthma coalitions who intend to apply should complete this Letter of Intent information and return it to EPA via email to fletcher.bettina@epa.gov by October 15, 2004.

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period, extending through September 12, 2006.

For further information, contact: Debra M. Younginer, Executive Secretary, Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., M/S K-57, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770/488-1073 or fax 770/488-3230.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and ATSDR.

Title: Child Care and Development Fund Annual Report (ACF-700).

OMB No.: 0980-0241.

Description: The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) report requests annual tribal aggregate information on services provided through the CCDF, which is required by the Child Care and Development Fund Block Grant (CCDBG) Final Rule (45 CFR parts 98 and 99). Tribes are required to submit annual aggregate data appropriate to tribal programs on children and families receiving CCDF-funds or CCDBG funded child care services. Tribal Lead Agencies are also required to submit a supplemental narrative as part of the ACF-700 report. This narrative describes child care activities and actions in the Tribal Lead Agency's service area. The ACF-700 and supplemental narrative report will be included in the Secretary's report to Congress, as appropriate, and will be shared with all Tribal Lead Agencies to inform them of CCDF or CCDBG-funded activities in other tribal programs.

Respondents: Tribal CCDF programs (263 in total).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,205.

Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection: E-mail address: grjohnson@cf.hhs.gov.

OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, paperwork Reduction Project, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF, e-mail address: Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.

Proposed Projects:

Title: Refugee State-of-Origin Report ORR-11.

OMB No. 0970-0043.

Description: The information collection of ORR-11 (Refugee State-of-Origin Report) is designed to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (the Act). Section 412(a)(3) of the Act requires the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to compile and maintain data on the secondary migration of refugees in the United States after arrival.

In order to meet this legislative requirement, ORR requires each State to submit an annual count of the number of refugees who were initially resettled in another State. The State does this by counting the number of refugees with Social Security numbers indicating residence in another State at the time of arrival in the United States. (The first three digits of the Social Security number indicate the State of residence of the applicant.)

Data submitted by the States are compiled and analyzed by an ORR statistician, who then prepares a summary report, which is included in ORR's Annual Report to Congress. The primary use of the data is to quantify and analyze refugee secondary migration among the 50 States. ORR uses these data to adjust its refugee arrival totals in order to calculate the ORR social service allocation.

Respondents: States.

In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: grjohnson@acf.hhs.gov. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents; including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

Proposed Projects:

Title: Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Financial Report, ACF-196TT.

OMB No.: New collection.

Description: Authority to collect and report this information is found in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Pub. L. 104-193.

Tribal entities with approved tribal plans for implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are required by statute to report financial data on a quarterly basis. This form provides specific data regarding Federal expenditures. Failure to collect this data would seriously compromise the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) ability to monitor expenditures. This information is also used to estimate outlays and may be used to prepare ACF budget submissions to Congress. Financial management of the program would be seriously compromised if the expenditure data were collected on a less than quarterly basis. Federal policy requires the strictest controls on funding requirements, which necessitates quarterly review of documentation in support of Tribal expenditures for reimbursement.

In an effort to obtain comments on the content and use of this form, the form was distributed to ACF's Regional Offices and at various tribal conferences. Comments received were then used to guide us in the development of the product presented with this submittal.

Respondents: Tribal TANF Agencies.

In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail: grjohnson@acf.hhs.gov. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health. The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(9)(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. The applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors on October 26, 2004, in the Rodbell Auditorium, Rall Building at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

The NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (“the NTP Board”) is composed of scientists from the public and private sector and provides primary scientific oversight to the NTP.

The meeting being held on October 26, 2004, begins at 8:30 a.m. and is open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment with attendance limited only by the space available. Persons needing special assistance should contact the NTP Executive Secretary (contact information below) at least seven business days in advance of the meeting. A draft agenda with a tentative schedule is provided below. Primary agenda topics include: (1) NTP initiatives to enhance toxicology, (2) substances nominated to the NTP for study and recommendations of the NTP Interagency Committee for Chemical Evaluation and Coordination (ICCEC), (3) new approaches for statistical analyses for chronic tests, (4) a proposed process for evaluating chemicals with limited data sets by the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, and (5) a research program on Caenorhabditis elegans. The NTP Board will also review three concept proposals for the conduct of research through the use of a contract mechanism. These concepts include: (1) The evaluation of chemicals for their potential to modulate immune responses, (2) chemical characterization of substances for testing in high-throughput screening and chronic assays, and (3) application of automated techniques to toxicity testing. Time is allotted during the meeting for the public to present comments to the NTP Board and NTP staff on any agenda topic.

The agenda and background materials on agenda topics, as available, will be posted on the NTP Web site ( http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov, see What's New) or available upon request to the NTP Executive Secretary (contact information below). The NTP is making plans to videocast the meeting through the Internet at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/video.htm. Following the meeting, summary minutes will be prepared and available through the NTP Web site and upon request to Central Data Management, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD E1-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-541-3419, fax: 919-541-3687, and e-mail: CDM@niehs.nih.gov.

Information about substances nominated to the NTP for toxicology and carcinogenicity studies and the ICCEC's recommendations were published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2004 (Vol. 69, No. 161, pages 51691-51693). This notice is available on the Web ( http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/liason/04JuneICCECFR.html ) along with the list of nominations ( http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/NomPage/2004Noms.html ) and supporting documents for each nomination ( http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/NomPage/BkgrSum04June.html ) or is available by contacting the NTP Executive Secretary (contact information below). This meeting provides an additional opportunity for the public to provide comment on these nominations and study recommendations to the NTP Board and NTP staff. Comments submitted to the NTP in response to the August 20, 2004, Federal Register notice are under consideration and do not need to be resubmitted or readdressed.

Public input at this meeting is invited and time is set aside for the presentation of public comments on any agenda topic. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each speaker and, if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes. Each organization is allowed one time slot per agenda topic. Persons registering to make oral comments are asked to provide their name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail, and sponsoring organization (if any). To facilitate planning for the meeting, persons interested in providing formal oral comments are asked to notify Dr. Barbara Shane, NTP Executive Secretary, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD A3-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-541-0530; and e-mail: shane@niehs.nih.gov by October 18, 2004. Persons may also submit written comments in lieu of making oral comments. Written comments should be sent to the NTP Executive Secretary and must be received by October 18, 2004, to enable review by the NTP Board and NTP staff prior to the meeting.

Persons submitting written comments should include their name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail, and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Individuals will also be able to register to give oral public comments on-site at the meeting. However, if registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 30 copies of the statement for distribution to the NTP Board and NTP staff and to supplement the record.

The NTP Board meeting is open to the public. Due to changes in security policies at the NIEHS, individuals who plan to attend are asked to pre-register with the NTP Executive Secretary (contact information above). The names of those registered will be given to the NIEHS Security Office in order to gain access to the campus. Persons attending who have not pre-registered may be asked to provide pertinent information about the meeting such as the title or host of the meeting before gaining access to the campus. All visitors (whether or not you are pre-registered) will need to be prepared to show 2 forms of identification (ID), for example, a driver's license and one other form of ID, such as company ID, government ID, or university ID.

The NTP Board is a technical advisory body comprised of scientists from the public and private sectors who provide primary scientific oversight to the overall program and its centers. Specifically, the NTP Board advises the NTP on matters of scientific program content, both present and future, and conducts periodic review of the program for the purposes of determining and advising on the scientific merit of its activities and their overall scientific quality. Its members are selected from recognized authorities knowledgeable in fields, such as toxicology, pharmacology, pathology, biochemistry, epidemiology, risk assessment, carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, molecular biology, behavioral toxicology and neurotoxicology, immunotoxicology, reproductive toxicology or teratology, and biostatistics. The NTP strives for equitable geographic distribution and minority and female representation on the NTP Board. Its members are invited to serve overlapping terms of up to four years and meetings are held once or twice annually for the NTP Board and its two standing subcommittees (the Report on Carcinogens Subcommittee and the Technical Reports Review Subcommittee).

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Rodbell Auditorium, Rall Building, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is given of the meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) that was held on September 14 and 15, 2004, at the Residence Inn by Marriott, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.

A summary of the meeting is as follows. The Board met in an open session on September 14 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The open session included a Department of Health and Human Services drug testing program update, a presentation on the comments submitted on the proposed revisions to the “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing” published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19673-19732), and a Department of Transportation drug testing program update.

The Board met in closed sessions on September 14 from 11:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on September 15 from 8:30 a.m. to noon to review and discuss the public comments submitted regarding the Revised Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (69 FR 19644, April 13, 2004) and the Notice of Proposed Revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program (69 FR 19673, April 13, 2004). This meeting was conducted in closed sessions since discussing preliminary information on the Guidelines in open session would significantly frustrate the Department's ability to develop the Final Notice of Revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, which must include the policies and procedures that will assure accurate and reliable specimen validity testing as well as drug testing using alternative specimens and when using on-site drug tests.

A roster of the board members may be obtained from: Mrs. Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1035, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-276-2600 (voice). To ensure that all interested parties receive information presented at the DTAB meeting, the transcript of the open session will be available on the following Web site http://workplace.samhsa.gov as soon as possible after the meeting.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. section 16(b) through (h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of America v. Syngenta AG, et al., Civil Case No. 04 CV-1442. On August 25, 2004, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by Syngenta AG (“Syngenta”) of Advanta B.V. (“Advanta”), a seed company jointly owned by two European companies, would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed the same time as the Complaint, requires Syngenta to divest Advanta's world-wide sugar beet seed business. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC in Suite 215 North, 325 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530 (telephone 202/514-2692), and at the Clerk's Office of the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001.

Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed to Roger W. Fones, Chief, Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202/307-6351).

Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

On May 11, 2004, Syngenta AG (“Syngenta”), Syngenta Crop Protection AG, AstraZeneca Holdings B.V., AstraZeneca PLC, Koninklijke Vanderhave Groep B.V., and Koninklijke Cooperatie Cosun U.A. entered into an agreement under which Syngenta would purchase all the assets of Advanta B.V. (“Advanta”), a seed company jointly owned by AstraZeneca Holdings B.V. and Koninklijke Vanderhave Groep, B.V. The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on August 25, 2004, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition. The Complaint alleges that the acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition in the market for sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States, in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. As a result of this loss of competition, prices of sugar beet seeds likely would increase and fewer new or improved sugar beet seed varieties likely would be developed, to the detriment of purchasers of sugar beet seeds, sugar beet processors, and consumers of sugar beet-based products.

At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a proposed Final Judgment and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, which are designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Syngenta is required divest the worldwide sugar beet seed business of Advanta. Under the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, Syngenta will take certain steps to ensure that Advanta's sugar beet seed business is operated as a competitively independent, economically viable, and ongoing business concern that remains independent and uninfluenced by the consummation of the acquisition, and that competition is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestiture.

The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.

Syngenta is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland, with its principal offices in Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta is the ultimate parent entity of Syngenta Crop Protection AG. Syngenta is engaged in the development, production, and sale of agricultural products, including pesticides and seeds. Syngenta's total sales in 2003 were approximately $6.6 billion. In 2003, Syngenta's sales of sugar beet seeds in the United States were approximately $10 million; its global sugar beet seed sales were $99 million.

AstraZeneca PLC is a private limited company with its headquarters in London, England. AstraZeneca PLC is the ultimate parent entity of AstraZeneca Holdings B.V. Koninklijke Cooperatie Cosun U.A. is a cooperative with its headquarters in Cosunpark 1, the Netherlands. Koninklijke Cooperatie Cosun U.A. is the ultimate parent entity of Koninklijke Vanderhave Groep B.V.

Advanta is a company incorporated in the Netherlands with its headquarters in Kapelle, the Netherlands. AstraZeneca Holdings B.V. and Koninklijke Vanderhave Groep B.V. each hold 50% of the shares of Advanta. Advanta sells various kinds of agricultural seeds throughout the world, with global sales of 444 million euros ($548 million) in 2003. Advanta sells sugar beet seeds in the United States through its business unit Interstate Seeds. Advanta also markets sugar beet seeds in the United States through collaborations with Holly Hybrids, Seedex, and Croplan. In 2003, Advanta directly and through these collaborations had sugar beet seed sales of about $7 million in the United States.

Syngenta's acquisition of Advanta, as initially agreed to by Defendants on May 11, 2004, would lessen competition substantially in the market for sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States. This acquisition is the subject of the Complaint and proposed Final Judgment filed by the United States on August 25, 2004.

Sugar beet seeds are used by growers to produce sugar beets, which in turn are sold to sugar beet processors, who convert them into sugar for human consumption. Sugar beet growers in the United States purchased $50 million worth of sugar beet seeds in 2003.

Sugar beets are grown under many different climatic and environmental conditions throughout the United States. These different growing regions require sugar beet varieties with different characteristics. A sugar beet seed company identifies desirable traits for each region and breeds those traits into new varieties.

Advanta and Syngenta each have invested extensively in sugar beet seed research and development programs over a number of decades. Syngenta has breeding facilities in Longmont, Colorado and in Western Europe. Advanta also has several breeding facilities, all in Europe. Both develop sugar beet varieties specifically for the unique growing conditions found in various regions of the United States. For example, a sugar beet seed variety that is suitable for cultivation in France is not likely, without further development, to be suitable or attractive to growers in Minnesota or Idaho. The seed companies have not been equally successful in developing seeds for the various growing regions of the United States, and they compete to improve their sales in each region by developing seeds with better disease resistance, yield per acre, and sugar content.

Developing marketable sugar beet seeds can take five to ten years. During this development period, the seed developer will conduct coded registration trials in the region where the beet is intended to be grown. The results of these field trials are used to determine which new varieties will be submitted to sugar beet processors for coded registration trials. Each sugar beet processor in the United States annually conducts coded registration trials to select varieties of sugar beet seeds to recommend to the growers in the processor's growing region. These trials take two to three years to complete. Sugar beet growers typically will select for purchase only seed varieties that have been tested and recommended by the sugar processors to which they intend to market their crops.

Sugar beet seed companies that have processor-approved varieties compete for sales to growers based upon price and characteristics desired by growers, for example, traits that lower production costs, offer higher yield per acre, or provide resistance to diseases and pests prevalent in the growers' geographic region.

Syngenta develops and sells sugar beet seeds in the United States under the brand name Hilleshog. Syngenta accounts for nearly 20% of all the sugar beets seed developed and sold in the United States. Advanta sells sugar beet seeds through its business unit, Interstate Seeds, under the brand name Vanderhave. Sugar beet seeds bred from genetic material developed by Advanta are also sold in the United States by Holly Hybrids and other companies. Advanta-bred sugar beet seed account for more than 16% of the seeds sold in the United States.

The market in the United States for sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States is highly concentrated. Syngenta and Advanta are two of only three significant firms that develop sugar beet seeds for cultivation in the United States. The market for sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States will become substantially more concentrated if Syngenta acquires Advanta. Syngenta's acquisition of Advanta will lessen competition substantially and make more likely increased prices and a slower pace of innovation.

New entry is not likely to thwart these anticompetitive effects. Successful entry into the sugar beet seed business is difficult, time consuming, and costly. Developing a new sugar beet seed variety can take five to ten years. Completing the trial tests required by a sugar beet processing company for acceptance on the processor's approved list of varieties can take an additional two to three years.

The divestiture requirement of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in sugar beet seeds by establishing a new, independent, and economically viable competitor. The proposed Final Judgment requires Syngenta, within 90 days after the filing of the Complaint, or 5 days after notice of the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest, as a viable ongoing business, Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed business. These assets include all tangible and intangible assets necessary to run Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed operations, including research and development facilities, customer lists and contracts, all registered plant breeders rights, and licenses. The United States may extend the period of time available to Syngenta to complete the divestiture up to an additional 120 days.

The proposed Final Judgment requires divestment of Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed business, including two major research facilities located in Europe that focus on sugar beet seeds: a facility in Rilland-Bath, the Netherlands; and a facility in Tienen, Belgium. At these facilities, Advanta also develops sugar beet seeds with characteristics desirable for production in the United States, such as beets that are resistant to diseases found in the U.S., but not in Europe. Advanta then contracts with a U.S.-based company to grow the varieties of seeds it intends for the U.S. market. Requiring the divestiture of Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed business, including these European operations, will insure that the acquire will have the assets necessary to continue to develop sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States, as well as to produce and sell those seeds.

The assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States in its sole discretion that the operations can and will be operated by the purchaser as a viable, ongoing business that can compete effectively in the relevant market. Defendants must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestiture quickly and shall cooperate with prospective purchasers.

In the event that Syngenta does not accomplish the divestiture within the periods prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, the Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestiture. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Syngenta will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly reports with the Court and the United States setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment.

The divestiture provisions of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition on the market for sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States.

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in Federal Court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.

The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.

The APPA provides a period of at least sixty days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register . All comments received during this period will be considered by the Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the Court's entry of judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court and published in the Federal Register .

Written comments should be submitted to: Roger W. Fones, Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20530.

The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Syngenta's acquisition of Advanta. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the development, production, and sale of sugar beet seeds suitable for growing in the United States.

The APPA requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court shall consider:

(A) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and

(B) The impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, the APPA permits a court to consider, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1448-62 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). Thus, in conducting this inquiry, “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator Tunney). 1 Rather:

Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.” United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460-62. Courts have held that:

The proposed Final Judgment, therefore, should not be reviewed under a standard of whether it is certain to eliminate every anticompetitive effect of a particular practice or whether it mandates certainly of free competition in the future. Court approval of a final judgment requires a standard more flexible and less strict than the standard required for a finding of liability. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is ‘within the reaches of public interest.' ” United States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy).

Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the “court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,” it follows that “the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,” and not to “effectively redraft the complaint” to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Id. at 1459-60.

There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Dated: September 14, 2004.

Whereas, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on August 25, 2004, plaintiff and defendants, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

And whereas, the defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;

And whereas, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of defendant Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed business to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;

And whereas, plaintiff requires defendant Syngenta to make a certain divestiture for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;

And whereas, the defendants have represented to the United States that the divestiture required below can and will be made and that the defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;

Now therefore, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed:

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendants under section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.

As used in this Final Judgment:

A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means Fox Paine & Company, LLC or any alternative entity or entities to whom the defendant Syngenta divests Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business.

B. “Advanta” means Advanta B.V., a company incorporated in The Netherlands with its headquarters in Kapelle, The Netherlands, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

C. “Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business” means Advanta's business engaged in the research, development, licensing (as licensor or as licensee), production or sale of agricultural sugar beet seeds anywhere in the world, including the business currently conducted through Interstate Seeds, a business unit of Advanta USA, Inc., and also includes:

1. The assets set forth in Schedule A;

2. All tangible assets other than those listed in Schedule A that are used in connection with Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed operations, including but not limited to all research and development activities; all manufacturing and agricultural equipment, tooling and fixed assets, personal property, sugar beet seed inventory, germplasm, materials, supplies, and other tangible property; all licenses, permits, and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to Advanta's world-wide sugar beet seed operations; all contracts, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings relating to Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed operations, including supply and distribution agreements; all customer lists, contracts, accounts, and credit records; all performance records and all other records relating to Advanta's research, development, licensing, production or sale of sugar beet seed worldwide, provided, however, that the Advanta sugar beet seed assets to be divested shall not include Advanta facilities or assets that are predominantly used: (1) In connection with operations related to Advanta's worldwide non-sugar beet seed activities; or (2) in connection with the carrying out of Advanta's company-wide administrative functions; and

3. All intangible assets that are utilized in connection with Advanta's worldwide sugar beet seed operations, including but not limited to all patents, registered plant breeders' rights and trademarks; licenses and sublicenses; trade names; goodwill; service marks; service names; technical information; know-how; trade secrets; drawings; blueprints; designs; design protocols; specifications for materials; specifications for parts and devices; safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances; all research data concerning historic and current research and development; quality assurance and control procedures; design tools and simulation capability; all manuals and technical information Advanta provides to its employees, customers, suppliers, agents or licensees; and all research data concerning historic and current research and development efforts, including but not limited to designs of experiments and the results of successful and unsuccessful designs and experiments.

D. “AstraZeneca” means AstraZeneca PLC, a private limited company with its headquarters in London, England, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures (including AstraZeneca Holdings, a joint owner of Advanta) and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

E. “The defendants” means (1) Advanta; (2) AstraZenece; (3) Koninklijke; and (4) Syngenta.

F. “Fox Paine” means Fox Paine & Company, LLC a corporation with headquarters in Foster City, California, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

G. “Koninklijke” means Koninklijke Cooperatie Cosun U.A., a co-operative with its headquarters in Cosunpark 1, The Netherlands, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures (including Koninklijke Vanderhave Groep B.V., a joint owner of Advanta), and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

H. “Syngenta” means Syngenta AG, a company incorporated in Switzerland, with headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

A. This Final Judgment applies to the defendants, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.

B. The defendants shall require, as a condition of the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units or assets that include Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, that the purchaser agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment, provided, however, that Syngenta need not obtain agreement from the Acquirer(s).

A. Defendant Syngenta is ordered and directed, within ninety (90) calendar days after the date of filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, except that as to the patents listed in Schedule A 2(b), defendant Syngenta will grant to the Acquirer an exclusive, royalty-free license for use in connection with sugar beets for the life of the patient plus any extensions. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period, not to exceed one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in each such circumstance. Defendant Syngenta agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Advanta Sugar Beet Seed Business as expeditiously as possible.

B. In the event that the United States objects to Fox Paine as the Acquirer of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, or if for any other reason defendant Syngenta does not divest Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business to Fox Paine, defendant Syngenta promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business. Defendant Syngenta shall inform any person making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business that it is being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Syngenta shall offer to furnish to each prospective Acquirer, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client or work-product privileges. Syngenta shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.

C. Syngenta shall provide the Acquirer of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business and the United States information relating to the personnel involved in the research, development, licensing, production, or sale of Advanta's sugar beet seeds anywhere in the world to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment to these individuals. Syngenta will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to employ any of the defendants' employees whose responsibilities wholly or predominantly include the research, development, licensing, production, or sale of the products of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business.

D. Syngenta shall permit prospective Acquirers of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.

E. Syngenta shall warrant to the Acquirer of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business that each asset will be operational on the date of divestiture.

F. The defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the operation or divestiture of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business.

G. Syngenta shall warrant to the Acquirer of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits pertaining to the operation of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, and that following the sale of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, the defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business.

H. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant to section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant to section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include all of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business can and will be used by the Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing business, engaged in researching, developing, licensing, producing and selling sugar beet seeds in the United States. Divestiture of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business may be made to one or more Acquirers, provided that it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the divested Sugar Beet Seed Business will remain viable and that divestiture of that business will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestiture, whether pursuant to section IV or section V of this Final Judgment:

1. Shall be made to an Acquirer or Acquirers that, in the United State's sole judgment, has the managerial intent and capability (including the necessary operational, technical and financial capability) to compete effectively in the research, development, licensing, production, and sale of sugar beet seeds in the United States; and

2. Shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer or Acquirers and the defendants give the defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively.

A. If defendant Syngenta has not divested Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business within the time period specified in section IV(A), Syngenta shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, which shall first have consulted with the European Commission, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States, and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business.

B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of section IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to section V(D) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the cost and expense of defendant Syngenta any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture.

C. The defendants shall not object to a sale of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by the defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under section VI.

D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Syngenta, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business and for all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid Syngenta and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.

E. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, and the defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. The defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.

F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business.

G. If the trustee has not accomplished such divestiture within six months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) The trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished; and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States who shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include, without limitation, extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.

A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, defendant Syngenta or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify Syngenta. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, together with full details of the same.

B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from the defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the trustee if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer and any other potential Acquirer. The defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.

C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from the defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to defendant Syngenta and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under section V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under section IV or section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by the defendants under section V(C), a divestiture proposed under section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.

The defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to section IV or V of this Final Judgment.

Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, the defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. The defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture order by this Court.

A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under section IV or V, the defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes the fact and manner of its compliance with section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts Syngenta has taken to solicit buyers for Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business, and to provide required information to any prospective Acquirer, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by the defendants, including limitations on the information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.

B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, the defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions the defendants have taken and all steps the defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with section VIII of this Final Judgment. The defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in the defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.

C. Defendant Syngenta shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business and to divest Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business until one year after such divestiture has been completed.

A. For purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time duly authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of a duly authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to the defendants, be permitted:

1. Access during the defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the United States' option, to require the defendants to provide copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records and documents in the possession, custody, or control of the defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and

2. To interview, either informally or on the record, the defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by the defendants.

B. Upon the written request of a duly authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, the defendants shall submit written reports, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.

C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.

D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by the defendants to the United States, the defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give the defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).

Defendants Syngenta and Advanta may not reacquire any part of Advanta's Sugar Beet Seed Business during the term of this Final Judgment.

This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.

Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten years from the date of its entry.

Entry of this Final Judgment is in the Public interest.

Pursuant to Section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (PCAH) will be held on Monday, October 11, 2004, from 9 a.m. to approximately 1 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Nasher Sculpture Center, Nasher Hall, 2001 Flora Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

The Committee meeting will begin at 9 a.m. with a welcome, introductions and reports on recent Committee activities. This will be followed by a presentation by John Nau, II, Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The meeting will include reports, presented by agency representatives, from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the National Endowment for the Arts. The remainder of the meeting will focus on discussion of current activities in the area of Youth Arts and Humanities Learning, including presentations by PCAH members James Farmer and William Strickland and Giselle Antoni, Director of Big Thought (Formerly Youth Audiences of North Texas). The meeting will adjourn after discussion of other business, as necessary, and closing remarks.

The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities was created by Executive Order in 1982 to advise the President, the two Endowments, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services on measures to encourage private sector support for the nation's cultural institutions and to promote public understanding of the arts and the humanities.

Any interested persons may attend as observers, on a space available basis, but seating is limited. Therefore, for this meeting, individuals wishing to attend must contact Georgiana Paul of the President's Committee seven days in advance at (202) 682-5409 or write to the Committee at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 526, Washington, DC 20506. Further information with reference to this meeting can also be obtained from Ms. Paul.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ms. Paul through the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of September 27, 2004:

A Closed Meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 29, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 29, 2004, will be:

Formal orders of investigations;

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.

Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by October 18, 2004, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After October 18, 2004, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.

E.ON AG (“E.ON”) and E.ON UK Holding GmbH (“UK Holding”), both located at E.ON-Platz 1, 40479 Düsseldorf, Germany, and E.ON UK Ltd. (“UK Ltd.”) and Powergen Limited (formerly Powergen plc, “Powergen”), both located at 53 New Broad Street, London EC2M 1SL, United Kingdom (collectively, “Applicants”), have filed an application (“Application”) under section 5(d) of the Act.

Applicants request the Commission to find and declare that UK Holding, 1 an E.ON first tier, wholly owned subsidiary, UK Ltd., 2 UK Holding's direct wholly owned subsidiary, and Powergen, UK Ltd.'s direct wholly owned subsidiary, are no longer holding companies under the Act and, further, to declare that, upon issuance of the order so finding and declaring, the registrations of UK Holding, UK Ltd. and Powergen will cease to be in effect.

E.ON is the parent holding company in the E.ON system of international utility companies. By order dated June 14, 2002 (“2002 Order”), the Commission authorized E.ON's acquisition of Powergen (“Acquisition”), the parent holding company in a United Kingdom (“UK”)-based public-utility holding company system, and certain related transactions. 3 E.ON, through its acquisition of Powergen, indirectly acquired LG&E Energy LLC (“LG&E Energy”), a registered public-utility holding company, 4 and its public-utility subsidiaries, Louisville Gas and Electric Company (“LG&E”) and Kentucky Utilities Company (“KU”).

E.ON owned Powergen through several tiers of intermediate holding companies. Powergen owned LG&E Energy through several tiers of intermediate holding companies, as well, with Powergen U.S. Investment Corp. (now E.ON U.S. Investment Corp.) (“EUSIC”) being LG&E Energy's immediate parent and a United States (“US”)-based intermediate registered holding company. 5 Powergen owned EUSIC through the following other Powergen intermediate holding companies: Powergen U.S. Holdings Limited, Powergen U.S. Investments, Powergen Luxembourg Holdings sarl and Powergen Luxembourg sarl (“Powergen Intermediate Holding Companies”).

In the Original Financing Application (which resulted in the 2002 Order), E.ON proposed, among other things, to simplify its corporate structure by transferring EUSIC from the UK-based Powergen chain of companies to E.ON U.S. Holding GmbH (“E.ON US”), a direct subsidiary of E.ON and a German-organized registered holding company. The 2002 Order reserved jurisdiction over E.ON's proposal to change the corporate structure, which E.ON proposed to effect in several steps over a period of time. 6

In February 2003, the Commission released jurisdiction over and approved the transfer of EUSIC, the immediate parent company of LG&E Energy, from the E.ON system's UK-based Powergen chain of companies to E.ON US. 7 With the transfer of EUSIC's stock to E.ON US, the Powergen Intermediate Holding Companies ceased to hold voting interests, directly or indirectly, in, or to exercise any controlling influence over, LG&E Energy and, thus, ceased to be holding companies within the meaning of section 2(a)(7) of the Act. Thereafter, under section 5(d) of the Act, the Powergen Intermediate Holding Companies sought, and the Commission, by order dated October 28, 2003, found and declared that the Powergen Intermediate Holding Companies were no longer holding companies and, further, declared the registrations of these four companies to be no longer in effect. 8

Powergen itself, although it no longer owned LG&E Energy, remained a registered holding company in October 2003, due to its continuing role in the management of LG&E Energy and LG&E and KU. Applicants state that, at this time, UK Holding, UK Ltd. and Powergen no longer have any responsibilities for, and exercise no controlling influence over, LG&E Energy.

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of The Village Green Bookstore, Inc. because it has been delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since August 1997.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.d.t. on September 23, 2004, through 11:59 p.m. e.d.t. on October 6, 2004.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 20, 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by PCX. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act  3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing. 5 On September 17, 2004, the Exchange amended the filing. 6 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

The Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (“PCXE”), proposes to amend its current listing requirements to specifically provide for the listing of units comprised of common stock and a debt security, sometimes referred to as income deposit securities (“IDS”). Under the proposed rule change, IDS units can be listed on the Exchange if each component of the IDS unit satisfies the initial listing standards applicable to that component. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized .

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4  2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on August 23, 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by PCX. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

PCX proposes to make a clarifying change to the PCX Schedule of Fees and Charges (“Schedule”) with respect to the options issue relinquishment request fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at PCX and at the Commission.

In its filing with the Commission, PCX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

The Exchange proposes to make a clarifying change to the Schedule with respect to the options issue relinquishment request fee. Currently, an assigned Lead Market Maker (“LMM”) is charged a fee of $100 for each options issue the LMM requests to be relinquished. The Exchange proposes to clarify this fee by adding a footnote in the Schedule specifying that the fee will not apply in cases of involuntary delisting requests initiated by PCX.

According to the Exchange, the $100 options issue relinquishment request fee is designed to cover administrative costs associated with voluntary delisting requests initiated by LMMs. The Exchange represents that occasionally an issue relinquishment may result from an action that is initiated by PCX, as opposed to the LMM, due to internal system and/or business considerations. In such cases, the assigned LMM would not be assessed the $100 fee.

The Exchange also proposes to delete reference to a temporary fee waiver for Market Makers for each additional options trading permit (“OTP”) (for which a Market Maker holds a primary appointment) beyond the first OTP held by such Market Maker. This waiver expired on June 30, 2004. Hence, the Exchange proposes to delete this language as obsolete.

The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,  4 in particular, because it is designed to promote just and equitable principals of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

Written comments were neither solicited nor received with respect to the proposed rule change.

The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act  5 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4  6 thereunder, because the proposed rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov . Please include File Number SR-PCX-2004-81 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2004-81. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of PCX. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2004-81 and should be submitted on or before October 18, 2004.

In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective September 12, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning September 7, 2004, and continuing through September 12, 2004.

All other information remains the same, i.e. , the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is November 9, 2004, and for economic injury the deadline is June 10, 2005.

The Small Business Administration Region IV Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 6, 2004, at 8:30 a.m. at Wake Tech Community College, 600 New Waverly Place, Cary, NC 27511, phone (919) 851-5193, to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies.

Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Mike Ernandes in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Mike Ernandes, Marketing & Outreach Specialist, SBA North Carolina District Office, 6302 Fairview Road, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC 28210, phone (704) 344-6588, fax (704) 344-6769, e-mail: mike.ernandes@sba.gov.

For more information, see our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

Determinations: “Nineteenth-Century European Paintings Galleries”

Summary: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq. ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 (68 FR 19875), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Nineteenth-Century European Paintings Galleries,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY in late September 2004, for two years, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register .

On September 7, 2004, (1) R.J. Corman Equipment Company, LLC (RJCE) and (2) R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Bardstown Line (RJCR) jointly filed with the Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903. 1 RCJE seeks to abandon and RJCR seeks to discontinue service on, a line of railroad known as the Dawkins Line, extending from milepost 0.05 at Dawkins, KY, to the end of the track at milepost 36.13 near Evanston, KY, a distance of approximately 36.08 miles in Johnson, Magoffin and Breathitt Counties, KY. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 41240, 41260, 41222, 41465, and 41339 and includes the stations of Paintsville, Ivyton, Royalton, Magoffin and Skyline.

The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in the possession of RJCE and RJCR will be made available promptly to those requesting it.

The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.-Abandonment-Goshen , 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).

By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by December 23, 2004.

Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,100 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than October 15, 2004. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27).

All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket Nos. AB-876X and AB-875X and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, and (2) Thomas J. Litwiler, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606-2832. Replies to the petition are due on or before October 15, 2004.

Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1539. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)

An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by the SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.

Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War (FPOW) will be held on October 12-14, 2004, in the Basement Conference Room, at the VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02130. Each day, the meeting will convene at 9 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38, United States Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war and to make recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation.

The agenda for October 12 consists of an introduction of Committee members, remarks from dignitaries, a review of Committee reports, an update of activities since the last meeting, and time for FPOW veterans and/or the public to address the committee. The Chairman of the FPOW presumptive workgroup will provide a status report on the recommendations made to the Secretary. The agenda for October 13 includes reports on the progress of the VA FPOW Case Management training and the progress of the Special FPOW Care and Benefits Teams. The Director of the Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoners of War Studies will provide an update on center activities. The Committee will discuss the VA's responses to the Committee's previous recommendations. The Committee will also hear presentations on activities in Veterans Health Administration VISN 1 Network. The day will conclude with new business and general discussion. On October 14, the Committee's medical and administrative work groups will meet separately to discuss their new recommendations and report to the Committee Chairman. Additionally, the Committee will analyze the comments discussed throughout the meeting for the development of a final report for the Secretary.

Members of the public may direct questions or submit written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Renée L. Szybala, Director, Compensation and Pension Service (21), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disabilities Programs will be held November 9-10, 2004, at VA Headquarters, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 830, Washington, DC. Meeting sessions will convene at 8:30 a.m. on both days and will adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on November 9 and at 12 noon on November 19. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on VA's prosthetic programs designed to provide state-of-the-art prosthetics and the associated rehabilitation research, development, and evaluation of such technology. The Committee also provides advice to the Secretary on special disability programs which are defined as any program administered by the Secretary to serve veterans with spinal cord injury, blindness or vision impairment, loss of or loss of use of extremities, deafness or hearing impairment, or other serious incapacities in terms of daily life functions.

On the morning of November 9, the Committee will be briefed by the Chief Consultants, Rehabilitation Strategic Healthcare Group and Prosthetics and Sensory Aids. In the afternoon, the Committee will be briefed by the directors of VA's special disabilities programs (physical medicine and rehabilitation, audiology and speech pathology), and the national program directors of VA's ophthalmology and optometry programs. On the morning of November 10, the Committee will be briefed by the Director Rehabilitation Research and Development, and will subsequently discuss the annual Capacity Report as well as transition issues and benefits.

No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, members of the public may direct questions or submit written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Ms. Cynthia Wade, Veterans Health Administration, Patient Care Services, Rehabilitation Strategic Healthcare Group (117), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Ms. Wade at (202) 273-8485.