The business meeting on March 10, 2005, begins at 10 a.m., at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Headquarters Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Agenda topics will include looking at project proposals that have been sent in for the 2005 fiscal year and making decisions on those projects whether to invite to second meeting or dismiss project.

On May 5, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil covering all Brazilian producers except Sucocitrico Cultrale, S.A. See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil , 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). On October 21, 1991, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to Frutesp. See Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results and Termination in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 56 FR 52510 (Oct. 21, 1991).

In 1993, Louis Dreyfus purchased the shares and assets of Frutesp, and the following year Frutesp changed its name to COINBRA-Frutesp.

On August 3, 2004, Louis Dreyfus informed the Department that it controls, through its member companies, all the assets of COINBRA-Frutesp. In this submission, Louis Dreyfus requested an expedited changed circumstances review to determine that FCOJ from Brazil manufactured by Louis Dreyfus or its affiliates and exported by COINBRA-Frutesp is not subject to the antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil.

On September 17 and November 5, 2004, we requested additional clarification from Louis Dreyfus with respect to the companies that are the subject of its request for a changed circumstances review. On September 20 and November 15, 2004, Louis Dreyfus clarified that it is requesting that COINBRA-Frutesp be designated as the successor-in-interest to Frutesp. According to Louis Dreyfus, this action is necessary because on March 18, 2004, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) informed Louis Dreyfus that entries of FCOJ manufactured by COINBRA-Frutesp are, in fact, subject to the antidumping duty order on FCOJ, and CBP is currently requiring the payment of cash deposits on such merchandise. Louis Dreyfus asserts that the CBP had not required cash deposits on COINBRA-Frutesp's exports prior to that time.

The merchandise covered by this order is FCOJ from Brazil, and is currently classifiable under item 2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The Department's written description of the scope of the review remains dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon request from an interested party or receipt of information concerning an antidumping duty order, when either of which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether COINBRA-Frutesp is the successor-in-interest to Frutesp for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability with respect to imports of FCOJ from Brazil produced and exported by COINBRA-Frutesp.

In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan , 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 9979 (Mar. 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review , 59 FR 6944 (Feb. 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor.

With regard to Frutesp, Louis Dreyfus claims that the production facilities and contractual relationships with suppliers and customers remained unchanged after Louis Dreyfus assumed control of this company. According to Louis Dreyfus, COINBRA-Frutesp and its assets have remained essentially the same as those of Frutesp for which the order was revoked. In addition, Louis Dreyfus states that changes in the corporate name and ownership are the only material aspects of COINBRA-Frutesp's business that have changed since the Department revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to Frutesp.

In this case, the Department finds that the information submitted by Louis Dreyfus provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant a review to determine whether COINBRA-Frutesp is the successor-in-interest to Frutesp. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in Louis Dreyfus' submissions to determine whether the revocation of the order as to Frutesp should apply to merchandise manufactured and exported by COINBRA-Frutesp. Because it is the Department's practice to examine changes in management and customer base as part of its analysis in such a determination, and Louis Dreyfus has not addressed these factors, we are not conducting the changed circumstances review on an expedited basis.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i) (2004), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed based on those results. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results not later than 60 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 (2004), and must be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f) (2004). The Department will also issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e) (2004), and will publish these results in the Federal Register .

The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222 of the Department's regulations.

The Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program provides funds to broad-based applicants with experience in coral reef conservation to conduct activities to protect and conserve coral reef ecosystems. The information submitted is used to determine: (1) whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver of matching funds, and (2) if a proposed project is consistent with the coral reef conservation priorities of authorities with jurisdiction over the area where the project will be conducted.

Information describing the eligibility requirements for a waiver of matching funds is described in the Announcement for Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program. The FFO can be obtained at http://www.grants.gov or http://www.coralreef.noaa.gov/grants.html . Respondents are encouraged to email their letters justifying the need for a waiver.

Fernando E. Otero Rodriguez (Appellant) has filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A), and implemented regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. Mr. Otero Rodriguez appeals an objection raised by the Puerto Rico Planning Board to a consistency certification contained within his application for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit necessary to reconstruct a stilt house destroyed by Hurricane George. The proposed project is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone, territorial waters and submerged lands of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The CZMA requires a notice be published in the Federal Register , indicating the date on which the decision record has been closed. A final decision on this appeal must be issued no later than 90 days after publication of this notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(a). The deadline may be extended by publishing, within the 90-day period, a subsequent notice explaining why a decision cannot be issued within this time frame. In this event, a final decision must be issued no later than 45 days after publication of the subsequent notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b).

For additional information about this appeal contact Nancy Briscoe, 301-713-1219.

Luz Torres DeRosa (Appellant) has filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A), and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. Mrs. Torres appeals an objection raised by the Puerto Rico Planning Board to a consistency certification contained within her application for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit necessary to reconstruct a stilt house destroyed by Hurricane George. The proposed project is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone, territorial waters and submerged lands of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The CZMA requires a notice be published in the Federal Register, indicating the date on which the decision recorded has been closed. A final decision on this appeal must be issued no later than 90 days after publication of this notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(a). The deadline may be extended by publishing, within the 90-day period, a subsequent notice explaining why a decision cannot be issued within this time frame. In this event, a final decision must be issued no later than 45 days after publication of the subsequent notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b).

Panel members shall not be employed or currently funded by NOAA. Nominations should describe the nominee's contact information and qualifications relative to the criteria given below, or include a resume. Anyone is eligible to nominate and self-nominations will be accepted. The external review team will have at least seven members with a variety of backgrounds (recognizing it will not be practical to have all backgrounds represented), with respect to:

1. Scientific disciplines of physical sciences, biological sciences (including fisheries science), and social sciences;

2. Experience in academia, within mission-oriented government agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations, and the private sector;

3. Familiarity with NOAA's mandates; and

4. Being a science provider to key generic groups of stakeholders, science interpreter to groups of stakeholders, science user, or stakeholder with a history of interaction with science providers.

The reviewers should have the following qualifications:

1. National and international recognition within their profession;

2. Knowledge of the scientific information needs to support NOAA's ecosystem stewardship missions, coupled with broad familiarity with NOAA's total mission;

3. Knowledge of, and experience with, the organization and management of complex mission-oriented scientific programs; and

4. No perceived or actual vested interest or conflict of interest that might undermine the credibility of the review.

It is of note that, except for qualification criteria 4, the criteria are not absolute requirements. The qualifications of individuals are expected to be outstanding enough with respect to one or more, but not necessarily all, of the criteria. Because of the limited size of the review panel, management organization expertise must include expertise on ecosystem science or the very special features of science applied to government decision-making.

The purpose of the review is to answer the following questions: (1) Is the mix of scientific activities conducted and/or sponsored by NOAA appropriate for its mission needs and (2) how should NOAA organize its ecosystem research and science enterprise? The framework for the review, including additional background, is posted at: http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Doc/Documents.html.

The review will be conducted and the final report presented to the SAB by November 2005. The review will involve up to three site visits, approximately five meetings and the drafting of the report of the panel's review.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) data workshop, (2) assessment workshop, and (3) review workshop. The product of the data workshop and the assessment workshop is a stock assessment report, which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment report is independently peer reviewed at the review workshop.

The review workshop is an independent peer review of the assessment developed during the data and assessment workshops. Workshop panelists will review the assessment and produce a SEDAR Consensus Summary Report to document their consensus opinions and comments.

The products of the review workshop are a Consensus Summary Report, which reports Panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data, and an Advisory Report, which summarizes the status of the stock. Participants for SEDAR workshops are appointed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Participants include data collectors, database managers, stock assessment scientists, biologists, fisheries researchers, fishermen, environmentalists, Council members, International experts, and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least five business days prior to each workshop.

The purpose of the GMT meeting is to plan the GMT's annual schedule and strategies to effectively aid the Council in managing 2005 West Coast groundfish fisheries and Council initiatives expected to arise in 2005. Additionally, the GMT will discuss groundfish management measures in place for the winter and spring months, respond to assignments relating to implementation of the Council's groundfish strategic plan, discuss a new Pacific whiting stock assessment and develop recommended management measures for the 2005 whiting fishery, discuss implementation strategies for Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Amendment 18, develop new data management tools, and address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. The GMT's role will be development of recommendations for consideration by the Council at its March meeting in Sacramento, California.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the GMT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal GMT action during this meeting. GMT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The PPT will meet to discuss the following agenda items:

1. Introduction

2. First meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Management Commission

3. Fishery management options for Pacific bigeye and yellowfin tunas:

 a. International fisheries

 b. Domestic fisheries

4. Bigeye quota for the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean

5. Other business

The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the PPT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. PPT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting locations are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-522-8226 (fax), at least five days prior to the meeting date.

Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contract LTC Dolgoff no later than January 24, 2005, for further information about admission as seating is limited. Additionally, those who wish to make oral comments or deliver written comments should also request to be scheduled, and submit a written text of the comments by January 26, 2005, to allow time for distribution to Task Force members prior to the meeting. Individual oral comments will be limited to five minutes, with the total oral comment period not exceeding 30 minutes.

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria at the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, room 11122, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Improving adolescent literacy is one of the major challenges facing high schools today. High school students must have strong literacy skills in order to acquire the knowledge and skills in English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and other courses that they need in order to prepare for further learning, for careers, and for active participation in our democracy. Too many young people are now entering high school without these essential skills. At a time when they will soon enter high school, one-quarter of all eighth-grade students and more than 40 percent of those in urban schools scored below the basic level on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in 2003. According to one estimate, at least one-third of entering ninth graders are at least two years behind grade level in their reading skills (Balfanz, et al. , 2002). Many of these young people become discouraged and drop out before they reach the twelfth grade. Large numbers of those who do persist through their senior year leave high school nearly as unprepared for the future as when they entered it. Twenty-eight percent of twelfth-grade public school students scored below the basic level on the NAEP 2002 reading assessment. These students face a bleak future in an economy and society that demands more than ever before, higher levels of reading, writing, and oral communication skills.

Recognizing the importance of improving the literacy skills of America's children and youth, President Bush established, as key priorities, the implementation of scientifically based approaches to reading in the early grades and the development of new knowledge about how best to help adolescents read well.

One ongoing initiative, the Adolescent Literacy Research Network, created by the Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in collaboration with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), supports six, five-year experimental research projects. These projects are examining cognitive, perceptual, behavioral, and other mechanisms that influence the development of reading and writing abilities during adolescence, as well as the extent to which interventions may narrow or close literacy gaps for adolescents.

While these and other long-term, scientifically based research studies promise to provide a stronger foundation for designing more effective literacy interventions for adolescents, a number of noteworthy supplemental reading programs for adolescents are already available and have attracted great attention from high school leaders concerned about the literacy skills of their freshman students. High schools that have created freshman academy SLCs to ease the transition of ninth-grade students to high school are among those most interested in addressing the needs of ninth graders who have reading skills that are significantly below grade level. Unfortunately, however, there is little or no scientifically based evidence that schools can consult to inform their decision-making regarding the selection and implementation of these reading programs.

In addition to this ongoing research initiative, to help fill this knowledge gap, the Department is now seeking to partner with local educational agencies (LEAs) in a national research evaluation that will examine the effectiveness of two supplemental reading programs that will be implemented within freshman academy SLCs. Section 5441(c)(2)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA), authorizes SLC funds to be used to “research, develop, and implement * * * strategies for effective and innovative changes in curriculum and instruction, geared to challenging State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards.” The Department proposes in this notice to provide a new opportunity for interested LEAs that are implementing freshman academy SLCs to partner with us to evaluate the effectiveness of two promising supplemental reading programs for ninth-grade students whose reading skills are two to four years below grade level.

The Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has awarded a contract to MDRC and the American Institutes of Research (AIR) to conduct this supplemental reading program evaluation. AIR has solicited proposals from vendors of classroom-based supplemental reading programs that wish to participate in this initiative. The supplemental reading programs must be suitable for implementation within freshman academies, must be research-based, and must address all aspects of reading, from basic alphabetic skills to higher-level comprehension and writing. The programs must also consider issues of how to motivate adolescents to read. MDRC and AIR will convene an independent, expert panel to evaluate the programs submitted for consideration, assessing, particularly, the extent to which a program incorporates the features judged by experts in the field to be indicative of a high-quality adolescent reading program and the extent to which there is research-based evidence of the program's effectiveness. Based on the expert panel's recommendations, MDRC and AIR will select the two most promising programs for evaluation through this initiative. These programs will be identified and described in detail in the final notice inviting applications for this competition.

Interested LEAs that are selected to participate in this initiative will implement the supplemental reading programs during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years in high schools that have established freshman academy SLCs. Each high school will implement one of the two programs, serving first-time ninth-grade students whose reading skills are two to four years below grade level. Working with MDRC, the contractor selected to conduct the evaluation, each high school will select by lottery approximately 50 students from a pool of a minimum of 125 eligible students to participate in the supplemental reading program; the remaining students will be assigned to an elective course, study hall, or other activity in which they would otherwise participate. The evaluators will work with each LEA and high school to assess the effectiveness of the supplemental reading program. After the completion of the 2006-07 school year, participating high schools will have gained valuable data about the effectiveness of these supplemental reading programs in their schools. These data will help them to decide whether to expand the supplemental reading program to include all eligible students, or to select and implement another supplemental reading program.

The Department proposes to award 60-month grants using the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice. In addition to supporting the other broader SLC activities at each participating high school, each grant will fully fund the costs of implementing the supplemental reading program, technical assistance from the program vendor, and the cost of participating in the evaluation.

The evaluation will provide researchers, policy-makers, school administrators, teachers, and parents throughout the United States important information about these supplemental reading programs and adolescent literacy development, and answer three important questions:

(1) Do specific supplemental literacy interventions supporting personalized and intensive instruction for striving ninth-grade readers significantly improve reading proficiency?

(2) What are the effects of supplemental reading programs on in-school outcomes such as attendance and course-taking behavior, and on longer-term outcomes such as student performance on State assessments in the tenth or eleventh grade?

(3) Which students benefit most from participation in the interventions?

LEAs and participating high schools would benefit in a number of ways from partnering with the Department in this initiative. They would make an important contribution to improving our now-limited knowledge of how we can help most effectively at-risk young people who enter high school with limited literacy skills. They would receive grant funds to support the implementation of a promising supplemental reading program and high-quality professional development for the teachers who will provide instruction. After the second year of the grant, once the research evaluation has been completed, participating schools would be free to expand the program to include all eligible students or implement a new program, if they choose. Finally, they would receive funds to support a broader SLC project that expands or creates new SLC structures and strategies in participating high schools. Those funds would be available for use throughout the 60-month grant period.

We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

To be eligible for consideration under this priority, an applicant must:

(1) Apply on behalf of two or four large high schools that are currently implementing freshman academies;

(2) Provide documentation of the LEA's and schools' willingness to participate in a large-scale, national evaluation that uses scientifically based research methods. Each LEA must include in its application a letter from its research office or research board agreeing to meet the requirements of the research design, if such approval is needed according to local policies. If such approval is not required, each LEA must include in its application a letter from its superintendent and the principals of the high schools named in the application, agreeing to meet the requirements of the research design;

(3) Agree to implement two designated supplemental reading programs for striving ninth-grade readers, one in each school, in two or four eligible high schools, adhering strictly to the design of the reading program, with the understanding that the supplemental reading program will be one of two programs announced in the notice of final priorities and will be chosen for the school by the contractor selected to conduct the evaluation;

(4) Agree to assign one language arts teacher in each participating high school—to participate in professional development necessary to implement the supplemental reading program (which may include travel to an off-site location); to teach the selected supplemental reading program to participating students for a minimum of 225 minutes per week for each week of the 2005-2006 and 2006-07 school years; and to complete any surveys and administer any student assessments required by the evaluation contractor;

(5) Assist the contractor in obtaining parental consent for students to participate in assessments and other data collections;

(6) Agree to provide, prior to the start of school years 2005-06 and 2006-07, for each participating high school, a list of at least 125 striving ninth-grade readers who are eligible to participate in the research study; work with the contractor to assign by lottery 50 of those students in each participating high school to the supplemental reading program and assign the remaining students to other activities that they would otherwise participate in, such as a study hall, electives, or other activity that does not involve supplemental reading instruction; provide students selected for the supplemental reading program with a minimum of 225 minutes per week of instruction in the supplemental reading program for each week of the school year; and allow enough flexibility in the schedules of all eligible students so that students who are not initially selected by lottery to participate in the supplemental reading program may be reassigned, at random, to the program if students who were initially selected for the program transfer to another school, drop out, or otherwise discontinue their participation in supplemental reading instruction during the school year.

Rationale: The terms and conditions of this proposed priority are required to implement the scientifically based research design of the research evaluation. The supplemental reading programs, for example, cannot be fairly and effectively evaluated if they are not implemented consistently across sites by well-trained instructors. Similarly, the evaluation design requires eligible students to be assigned randomly to participate in the designated supplemental reading programs so that the evaluation will provide clear and definitive information about the effectiveness of these programs. The design also requires that pairs of high schools implement the two supplemental reading programs so that the two programs can be evaluated under similar conditions. Though the characteristics of high schools within a single LEA may differ, they would each operate within the same policy context and under a similar set of circumstances and are likely to more closely resemble each other than high schools in other LEAs or states.

The Secretary proposes a priority for applications from LEAs applying on behalf of four high schools that are implementing freshman academies and that commit to participate in the research study.

Rationale: For the purposes of the research evaluation, the Department will accept applications from LEAs applying on behalf of either four schools or two schools that are implementing freshman academies. Ideally, the LEAs studied in this research evaluation will be uniform in terms of the number of schools participating. Furthermore, maintaining the integrity of the random assignment process is more challenging with a larger number of districts. While the Department would like many districts to have the opportunity to participate, we must balance the potential benefits of more districts receiving the grants with the objective of conducting a rigorous study that will yield conclusive results about the effectiveness of the two supplemental reading programs that will be evaluated.

The Department, therefore, would prefer that all LEAs participating in this research evaluation implement the supplemental reading program in four high schools. However, in the interest of securing a suitable number of strong applications, the Department may implement proposed priority 2 as an invitational or competitive preference priority, in which case the Department will accept applications from LEAs applying on behalf of four or two high schools.

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following application requirements for this SLC competition. These proposed requirements are in addition to the content that all Smaller Learning Communities grant applicants must include in their applications as required by the program statute under title V, part D, subpart 4, section 5441(b) of the ESEA.

We propose that, to be considered for funding, an applicant must be an LEA (including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and educational service agencies) that applies on behalf of two or four large public high schools that have implemented at least one freshman academy SLC by no later than the 2004-2005 school year.

Accordingly, LEAs must identify in their applications the names of the two or four large high schools proposed to participate in the research evaluation and the number of students enrolled in each school, disaggregated by grade level. We will not accept applications from LEAs on behalf of one, three, or more than four schools. We require that each school include grades 11 and 12 and have an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 through 12.

Enrollment figures must be based upon data from the current school year or data from the most recently completed school year. We will not accept applications from LEAs applying on behalf of schools that are being constructed and do not have an active student enrollment at the time of application.

The LEA also must provide an assurance that the schools identified in their application: (1) Are implementing at least one freshman academy SLC during the 2004-05 school year; (2) will continue to implement at least one freshman academy SLC during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years; and (3) did not implement a classroom-based supplemental reading program for striving ninth-grade readers during the 2004-05 school year. For each school identified in the application, LEAs also must provide evidence that a minimum of 150 striving ninth-grade readers (as defined elsewhere in this notice) were enrolled at the school during each of the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years. We will accept applications from LEAs whether or not they are applying on behalf of schools that have previously received funding under the Federal SLC program. Eligible schools would be those currently implementing freshman academy SLCs, though the freshman academies need not have been funded through a prior Federal SLC grant.

Rationale: The Department needs enrollment information to determine if each of the two or four schools identified in an application meets the proposed definition of a large high school and to ensure that an LEA is applying on behalf of a correct number of schools. Schools under construction do not have actual enrollment data to be used to determine eligibility and, therefore, may not apply. In addition, the research evaluation design requires that (i) LEAs implement the supplemental reading programs in sets of two or four high schools; (ii) the supplemental reading programs are implemented within established freshman academy SLCs in high schools that have not implemented a classroom-based supplemental reading program or classes for striving ninth-grade readers; and (iii) each school has a minimum of 125 striving ninth-grade readers. While we recognize that no LEA can be certain of the skills and academic needs of the students who will enter a particular high school during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, we believe that high schools whose two most recent freshman classes included at least 150 striving ninth-grade readers are more likely than other high schools to have the required minimum of 125 eligible students during the next two school years.

We propose to require that LEAs provide, for each of the schools included in the application, the most recent “report card” produced by the State or the LEA to inform the public about the characteristics of the school and its students, including information about student academic achievement and other student outcomes. These “report cards” must include, at a minimum, the information that LEAs are required to report for each school under section 1111(h)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA: (1) Whether the school has been identified for school improvement; and (2) information that shows how the academic assessments and other indicators of adequate yearly progress compare to students in the LEA and the State, as well as performance of the school's students on the statewide assessment as a whole.

Rationale: The Department needs the “report cards” to verify the accuracy of the information the LEA provides in its application about student academic achievement and other student outcomes at each school.

In an effort to encourage systemic, LEA-level reform efforts, we propose permitting an individual LEA to submit only one application on behalf of multiple schools. Accordingly, the LEA would be required to specify in its application which high schools it intends to fund.

In addition, we propose to require that an LEA applying for a grant under this competition apply only on behalf of a high school or high schools for which it has governing authority, unless the LEA is an educational service agency applying in the manner described in the section in this notice entitled Educational Service Agencies . An LEA, however, may form a consortium with another LEA with which it shares a geographical border and submit a joint application for funds. In such an instance, the consortium must apply on behalf of either two or four high schools, and follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). For example, an LEA that wishes to apply for a grant but only has one eligible high school may partner with a neighboring LEA, if the neighboring LEA has another eligible high school.

Rationale: These requirements are designed to ensure that each LEA that receives assistance under this program will manage and coordinate school-level planning and implementation activities as part of a single, coherent, LEA-wide reform strategy. These requirements will help LEAs make the most effective and efficient use of SLC resources and assist them in aligning SLC activities with other LEA-level initiatives, including the implementation of activities carried out under other programs funded by the ESEA and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. In addition, a high school would have considerable difficulty implementing or expanding an SLC program without the active participation of its parent LEA.

We propose to permit an educational service agency to apply on behalf of eligible high schools only if the educational service agency includes in its application evidence that the entity that has governing authority over the eligible high school supports the application.

Rationale: Educational service agencies, which are included in the statutory definition of LEA, typically do not have governing authority over high schools they service. Generally, the administrative control or direction of a high school is invested in a public board of education or another public authority other than an educational service agency. We recognize that not all entities that have administrative control or direction of eligible high schools have the capacity to apply for and administer an SLC grant. Educational service agencies provide resources and expertise to assist districts and schools in performing functions that they otherwise could not, by themselves, perform efficiently or at all. Moreover, they are organized for the explicit purpose of providing education-related services to entities with governing authority over schools and their students.

We propose that LEAs may receive up to $1,000,000 during the 60-month project period. This is an increase from the maximum range of awards ($550,000 to $770,000) that we established in the previous SLC program competitions, plus an additional $230,000 to cover additional expenses related to participation in the research evaluation.

In its budget calculations, each school would reserve $150,000 for implementation of the supplemental reading program during the 2005-06 school year and $80,000 for the implementation of the program during the 2006-07 school year. These funds will support the salary and benefits of one full-time equivalent teacher who will be responsible for providing the supplemental reading program instruction and performing administrative functions related to the conduct of the research evaluation, professional development and technical assistance provided by the program developer, and the purchase of curriculum and the technology necessary to deliver instruction. The remaining $770,000 will be available to support other activities related to the creation or expansion of smaller learning communities in the school. For one application, LEAs could receive up to $4,000,000. Grants would be designed to support participation in the research evaluation over the first two years of the project period, and a broader SLC project, including such activities as extensive redesign and improvement efforts, professional development, or direct student services, over five years.

Applicants would be required to provide detailed, yearly budget information for the total grant period requested. Understanding the unique complexities of implementing a program that affects a school's organization, physical design, curriculum, instruction, and preparation of teachers, we anticipate awarding the entire amount at the time of initial awards.

The actual size of awards would be based on a number of factors. These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the proposed program, and the range of awards indicated in the application notice.

Rationale: Requiring applicants to provide detailed, yearly budget information for the total grant period requested is necessary for us to determine appropriate grant amounts based on the needs of the LEA and high schools.

We propose that applicants must include a description of how students will be selected or placed in the broader SLC project such that students will not be placed according to ability or any other measure, but will be placed at random or by student/parent choice and not pursuant to testing or other judgments.

Rationale: The Department needs this information to ensure that each funded project complies with the requirements of the statute regarding random assignment or student/parent choice for SLC placement of students. Section 5441(b)(13) of the ESEA requires applicants for SLC grants to describe the method of placing students in the SLC or SLCs, such that students are not placed according to ability or any other measure, but are placed at random or by student/parent choice and not pursuant to testing or other judgments. For instance, projects that place students in any SLC on the basis of their prior academic achievement or performance on an academic assessment are not eligible for assistance under this program. Note that the supplemental reading programs are not SLCs. Enrollment in a supplemental reading program would be contingent on student performance, but enrollment in broader SLCs funded through this program may not be based on ability.

We propose to require applicants to identify in their application specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for these indicators and one core indicator. Specifically, we propose to require applicants to use the following performance indicators to measure the progress of each school:

(1) The percentage of students who score at the proficient and advanced levels on the mathematics assessments used by the State to measure adequate yearly progress under part A of title I of the ESEA, as well as these percentages disaggregated by the following subgroups:

(A) Major racial and ethnic groups;

(B) Students with disabilities;

(C) Students with limited English proficiency; and

(D) Economically disadvantaged students.

(2) At least two other appropriate indicators the LEA would identify, such as rates of average daily attendance, year-to-year retention, achievement and gains in English proficiency of limited English proficient students; incidence of school violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; or the percentage of students completing advanced placement courses or passing advanced placement tests.

Applicants must identify annual performance objectives for each indicator in their application.

Rationale: The fundamental purpose of SLCs is to improve the academic achievement of students and prepare them to participate successfully in postsecondary education or advanced training, the workforce, our democracy, and our communities. It is important, therefore, that projects measure their progress in improving student academic achievement and other related outcomes.

We propose to require each applicant to provide an assurance that it will support an evaluation of its broader SLC project that provides information to the project director and school personnel and that will be useful in gauging the project's progress and in identifying areas for improvement. We propose that each evaluation include an annual report for each of the five years of the project period and a final report that would be completed at the end of the fifth year. We would require grantees to submit each of these reports to the Department. We propose to require that the evaluation be conducted by an independent third party evaluator selected by the LEA whose role in the project is limited to conducting the evaluation.

Rationale: Implementing or expanding an SLC project is difficult and complex work that administrators, teachers, and other school personnel must carry out at the same time that they are carrying out other demanding, day-to-day responsibilities. An evaluation that provides regular feedback on the progress of implementation and its impact can help the project director and school personnel identify their successes and how they may need to revise their strategies to accomplish their goals. To be most useful, the evaluation should be objective and be carried out by an independent third party who has no other role in the implementation of the project.

We propose to require each applicant to provide an assurance that it and each participating high school will take several actions to assist in implementing the research evaluation, including:

(1) The LEA must implement the supplemental reading program(s) adhering strictly to the design of the program(s), including purchasing all necessary instructional materials, technology, professional development, and student materials in sufficient time for the program(s) to be implemented at the start of the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.

(2) The LEA or the participating high school(s) must use a lottery to assign randomly 50 of the expected 125 or more students determined to be eligible to participate in the supplemental reading class and the remainder to serve as non-participants.

(3) The LEA must provide a language arts teacher for each participating high school who would receive professional development in the supplemental reading program (three days during Summer 2005 and two follow-up days during each of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years) and would teach the supplemental reading program to the participating students for a minimum of 225 minutes per week for each week of the 2005-2006 and 2006-07 school years. This teacher would complete four surveys (at the beginning and end of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years) to provide information on his or her preparation, professional development, and experiences.

(4) The LEA must administer, in conjunction with the contractor selected to conduct the evaluation, a diagnostic group assessment of reading skills at the beginning and the end of the ninth-grade year to assess whether or not those students participating and not participating in the supplemental reading program have made gains in reading skills. This reading assessment might also need to be administered again at the end of the tenth-grade year.

(5) The LEA must provide transcripts and State assessment data for the entire pool of eligible students for the 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 school years, in a manner and to the extent consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR part 99).

(6) The LEA must designate a project coordinator who would participate in the professional development and serve as a resource and coordinator for teachers involved in the research study. This project coordinator would also work with the LEA's technology office (if necessary) and the curriculum developers to organize the purchase of computer equipment and software needed to implement the supplemental reading program. The project coordinator would not also be the language arts teacher responsible for teaching the supplemental literacy program.

(7) The LEA and participating high schools must allow enough flexibility in developing the participating students' daily schedules to accommodate the supplemental literacy instruction, which might be scheduled as the typical 45-minute language arts period or as a larger block of 90 minutes for literacy instruction and practice.

(8) The LEA and participating high schools must allow the evaluation team to observe both the classrooms implementing the supplemental literacy program and other English or language arts classrooms in the school.

Rationale: The administration of a complex national research evaluation requires careful planning on the part of each LEA, high school, evaluator, and project director involved. It is essential that all schools participating in the study adhere to the research design to ensure that data collected from the project will be valid.

The use of a lottery to determine the participation of eligible students maintains the integrity of the comparison group. Each school's participation will require the efforts of a language arts teacher trained and dedicated to the faithful implementation of the research design. The language arts teacher will be responsible for working with the contractor selected to conduct the evaluation and administering group assessments of participating students. In a manner consistent with FERPA, the evaluator must have access to student transcripts and assessment data in order to gauge the effectiveness of the supplemental reading program.

Because the requirements listed in this notice are material requirements, we propose that failure to comply with any requirement or with any elements of the grantee's application would subject the grantee to administrative action, including but not limited to designation as a “high-risk” grantee, the imposition of special conditions, or termination of the grant. Circumstances that might cause the Department to take such action include, but are not limited to: The grantee's failure to implement the designated supplemental reading programs in a manner that adheres strictly to the design of the program; the grantee's failure to purchase all necessary instructional materials, technology, professional development, and student materials in sufficient time for the programs to be implemented at the start of the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years; and the grantee's failure to adhere to any requirements or protocols established by the evaluator.

Rationale: Part of the Department's role in administering grant funds under the SLC program is to ensure that those taxpayer funds are used in a manner that is consistent with the aims of the grant program. To help ensure proper use of taxpayer funds, the Department reserves the right to use the enforcement actions listed above if a grantee fails to meet the requirements established by this notice and the law authorizing the SLC program.

In addition to the definitions set out in the authorizing statute and 34 CFR 77.1, we propose that the following definitions also apply to this special competition. We may apply these definitions in any year in which we run an SLC supplemental reading program competition.

Broader SLC Project means an SLC project at the site of the high school aside from and in addition to that high school's implementation of a supplemental reading program and participation in the research evaluation.

Freshman Academy means a form of SLC structure that groups ninth-grade students into an environment in which a core group of teachers and other adults within the school know the needs, interests, and aspirations of each ninth-grade student well, closely monitor each student's progress, and provide the academic and other support each student needs to transition to high school and succeed. Student enrollment in (or exclusion from) a freshman academy is not based on ability, testing, or measures other than ninth-grade status and student/parent choice or random assignment. A freshman academy differs from a simple grouping of ninth-graders in that it incorporates programs or strategies designed to ease the transition for students from the eighth grade to the high school. A freshman academy may include ninth-grade students exclusively or it may be part of an SLC, sometimes called a “house,” which groups together a small number of ninth- through twelfth-grade students for instruction by the same core group of academic teachers. The freshman academy refers only to the ninth-grade students in the house.

Large High School means an entity that includes grades 11 and 12 and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 and above.

Research evaluation means the study of the effectiveness of supplemental reading programs that are implemented within freshman academies and that is being sponsored by the Department of Education and is described elsewhere in this notice.

Smaller Learning Community (or SLC) means an environment in which a core group of teachers and other adults within the school know the needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, closely monitor each student's progress, and provide the academic and other support each student needs to succeed.

Striving Ninth-Grade Readers means those students who are enrolled in the ninth grade for the first time and who read English at a level that is two to four grades below their current grade level, as determined by an eighth-grade standardized test of reading. The term includes those students with limited English proficiency who are enrolled in ninth grade for the first time, who read English at a level that is two to four grades below their current grade level, and who took the State's eighth-grade standardized reading or language arts assessment with minimal accommodations (defined as having the test directions read to them orally, having access during the test to a dictionary, and/or being able to take the test without a time limit). The term does not include students with learning disabilities who have been designated to receive special education services in reading.

We propose that the following selection criteria be used to evaluate applications for new grants under this special competition. We may apply these criteria in any year in which we conduct an SLC supplemental reading program competition.

In determining the need for participation in the supplemental reading program, we will consider the extent to which the applicant will—

(1) Involve schools that have the greatest need for assistance as indicated by such factors as: Student achievement scores in English or language arts; student achievement scores in other core curriculum areas; enrollment; attendance and dropout rates; incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; percentage of students who have limited English proficiency, come from low-income families, or are otherwise disadvantaged; or other need factors as identified by the applicant;

(2) Address the needs it has identified in accordance with paragraph (1) through participation in the supplemental reading program activities; and

(3) Employ strategies and carry out activities in its implementation of broader SLC activities that address the needs it has identified in accordance with paragraph (1).

In determining the foundation for implementation of the supplemental reading program, we will consider the extent to which—

(1) Administrators, teachers, and other school staff within each school support the school's proposed involvement in the supplemental reading program and have been and will continue to be involved in its planning, development, and implementation, including, particularly, those teachers who will be directly affected by the proposed project;

(2) Parents, students, and other community stakeholders support the proposed implementation of the supplemental reading program and have been and will continue to be involved in its planning, development and implementation;

(3) The proposed implementation of the supplemental reading program is consistent with, and will advance, State and local initiatives to increase student achievement and narrow gaps in achievement between all students and students who are economically disadvantaged, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, or students with limited English proficiency;

(4) The applicant demonstrates that it has carried out sufficient planning and preparatory activities, outreach, and consultation with teachers, administrators and other stakeholders to enable it to participate effectively in the supplemental reading program at the beginning of the 2005-6 school year; and

(5) The applicant articulates a plan for using information gathered from the evaluation of the supplemental reading program to inform decision and policymaking at the LEA and school levels.

In determining the quality of the project design for the broader SLC project we will consider the extent to which—

(1) The applicant demonstrates a foundation for implementing the broader SLC project, creating or expanding SLC structures or strategies in the school environment, including demonstrating:

(A) That it has the support and involvement of administrators, teachers, and other school staff;

(B) That it has the support of parents, students, and other community stakeholders;

(C) The degree to which the proposed broader SLC project is consistent with, and will advance, State and local initiatives to increase student achievement and narrow gaps in achievement; and

(D) The degree to which the applicant has carried out sufficient planning and preparatory activities to enable it to implement the proposed broader SLC project at the beginning of the 2005-6 school year.

(2) The applicant will implement or expand strategies, new organizational structures, or other changes in practice that are likely to create an environment in which a core group of teachers and other adults within the school know the needs, interests, and aspirations of each student well, closely monitor each student's progress, and provide the academic and other support each student needs to succeed; and

(3) The applicant will provide high-quality professional development throughout the project period that advances the understanding of teachers, administrators, and other school staff of effective, research-based instructional strategies for improving the academic achievement of students, including, particularly, students with academic skills that are significantly below grade level; and provide the knowledge and skills they need to participate effectively in the development, expansion, or implementation of a smaller learning community.

In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, we consider the following factors—

(1) The adequacy of the proposed management plan to allow the participating schools to implement effectively the research evaluation and broader SLC project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

(2) The extent to which time commitments of the project director and other key personnel, including the teachers who will be responsible for providing instruction in the supplemental reading program, are appropriate and adequate to implement effectively the supplemental reading program and broader SLC project;

(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, the program coordinator, the teachers who will be responsible for providing instruction in the supplemental reading program, and other key personnel who will be responsible for implementing the broader SLC project; and

(4) The adequacy of resources, including the extent to which the budget is adequate, the extent to which the budget provides sufficient funds for the implementation of the supplemental reading program, and the extent to which costs are directly related to the objectives and design of the research evaluation and broader SLC activities.

In determining the quality of the broader SLC project evaluation to be conducted on the applicant's behalf by an independent, third party evaluator, we consider the following factors—

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed broader SLC project;

(2) The extent to which the evaluation will collect and annually report accurate, valid, and reliable data for each of the required performance indicators, including student achievement data that are disaggregated for economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency;

(3) The extent to which the evaluation will collect additional qualitative and quantitative data that will be useful in assessing the success and progress of implementation, including, at a minimum, accurate, valid, and reliable data for the additional performance indicators identified by the applicant in the application;

(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely and regular feedback to the LEA and the school on the success and progress of implementation and will identify areas for needed improvement; and

(5) The qualifications and relevant training and experience of the independent evaluator.

This notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria justify the costs.

We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

On December 3, 2004, the President signed into law Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Copies of the new law may be obtained at the following Web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html

Enactment of the new law provides an opportunity to consider improvements in the regulations implementing the IDEA (including both formula and discretionary grant programs) that would strengthen the Federal effort to ensure every child with a disability has available a free appropriate public education that—(1) is of high quality, and (2) is designed to achieve the high standards reflected in the No Child Left Behind Act and regulations.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services will be holding a series of public meetings during the first few months of calendar year 2005 to seek input and suggestions for developing regulations, as needed, based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

This notice provides specific information about the fifth of these meetings, scheduled for Atlanta, GA ( see “Date and Time of Public Meeting” earlier in this notice). Other meetings will be conducted in the following locations:

• Laramie, WY; and

• Washington, DC.

In subsequent Federal Register notices, we will notify you of the specific dates and locations of each of these meetings, as well as other relevant information.

Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting ( i.e. , interpreting services, assistive listening devices, and material in alternative format) should notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The meeting location is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 22, 2004, (69 FR 56754), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has addressed the comments received.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA-2004-0045, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted materials, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Region 7 Lead Education and Awareness Project in St. Louis, Missouri.

Abstract: EPA Region 7 and the Office of Compliance (OC) within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) are planning to conduct a performance baseline survey and follow-up survey for the Lessors and Lessees sectors. OC is interested in having a baseline performance survey conducted and compliance assistance needs assessment for the Lessors sector. In addition, OC is interested in assessing the awareness and behavioral change of Lessees through a survey. There are three main purposes for these Lessor and Lessee surveys:

• To determine a baseline level of regulatory awareness of and compliance with the “Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992” (Title X) and the “Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing” rule (Disclosure Rule), from which to measure the success of the Agency's compliance outreach efforts for reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). For key sectors for which EPA is planning to initiate compliance assistance, a baseline level of compliance and regulatory awareness is needed from which to measure future progress.

• To determine the effectiveness of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) education and outreach efforts.

• To determine whether lessees are reading and understanding the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and whether they are implementing methods to reduce lead exposure as a result.

The EPA Region 7 is planning targeted Disclosure Rule inspections in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri during FY2005 and/or FY2006. The activities planned under the Statistically Valid Compliance Assistance Rate study are designed to determine the baseline rate of lessors' compliance with the Disclosure Rule and whether lessees are reading and understanding the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and implementing methods to reduce exposure to lead. The EPA would like to conduct statistically valid voluntary surveys with a sample size of approximately 150 respondents. These surveys will be used to establish a performance baseline at the start of the study. A follow-up survey will then be conducted to determine progress against the baseline.

The OECA has adopted a sector approach for many of its compliance assistance activities. The lessor sector is an example of a sector for which EPA has focused many of its compliance assistance activities. There is considerable debate as to the extent of regulatory compliance, the need for additional compliance assistance, and the effectiveness of compliance assistance methods and materials developed for this sector. The OECA would like to conduct a statistically valid voluntary survey and site-visit survey of a sample of lessor venues in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri to determine a performance snapshot of this sector which reflects current sector performance with respect to the Disclosure Rule. The surveys will be conducted as a voluntary blind sample ( i.e. , the lessors' identities will be unknown to EPA and the lessors will participate voluntarily). The results of the survey will provide OECA with information on compliance assistance applicable to this sector and information from which to measure the success of OECA's compliance assistance programs for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reporting purposes.

The EPA Region 7 will evaluate the need for educational outreach for an additional sector: lessees in areas of St. Louis, Missouri at high risk for lead poisoning. Sufficient data are not available in EPA's databases to evaluate the current rate at which lessees are reading the EPA pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home, and are implementing behavioral changes to reduce lead exposure as a result. Therefore, OECA is interested in determining:

• The level of regulatory awareness and compliance in the lessor sector;

• Areas of noncompliance and root causes of noncompliance;

• The need for compliance assistance for the lessor sector

• The need for educational outreach for the lessee sector.

The OECA is soliciting comment on whether to conduct a statistically valid voluntary survey and site-visit survey of a sample of lessors and a site-visit survey of a sample of lessees in high risk areas of St. Louis.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or other wise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Lessors conducting business in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri; Lessees living in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri.

Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 150 respondents in areas of high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis Missouri.

Frequency of Response: Twice (EPA Region 7 will conduct a follow-up survey in FY2007).

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 225 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $11,000, which includes $0 annual capital/startup and O&M costs, and $11,000 annual labor costs.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51282), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA-2004-0028, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Assessment of Compliance Assistance Projects (Renewal)

Abstract: This information collection determines how well EPA compliance assistance tools and services meet customers needs and to assess the effectiveness of the assistance activities. This will be a voluntary collection of information to gauge customer satisfaction with the compliance assistance projects, measure any resulting changes in knowledge and/or behavior, and evaluate any environmental and human health impacts. EPA proposes to use assessment surveys to provide the agency with feedback on the compliance assistance documents, onsite visits, telephone assistance, web sites, and compliance assistance seminars and workshops delivered by headquarters and regional compliance assistance programs to the regulated community. This feedback will help EPA improve the quality and delivery of compliance assistance tools and services. This ICR will only provide anecdotal data for the purpose of informing EPA of the effectiveness of compliance assistance tools, and customer satisfaction with those tools. All assessments undertaken under this ICR will adhere to specific conditions to ensure that data is collected and used properly and efficiently. The information collection is voluntary, and will be limited to non-sensitive data concerning the quality of compliance assistance activities.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Business or other for profit, Farms, Federal Government, or State, Local, and Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,776.

Frequency of Response: One time.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,973.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $273,000, which includes $0 annual capital or O&M costs, and $273,000 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a small change in the burden as we anticipate a higher response rate for pre/post test surveys as compared to phone and mail surveys.

The National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the U.S. Government Representative to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation advise the Administrator of the EPA in the Administrator's capacity as the U.S. Representative to the Council of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation. The Committees are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182 and as directed by Executive Order 12915, entitled “Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.” The Committees are responsible for providing advice to the United States Representative on a wide range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory and economic issues related to implementation and further elaboration of the (NAAEC). The National Advisory Committee consists of 12 representatives of environmental groups and non-profit entities, business and industry, and educational institutions. The Governmental Advisory Committee consists of 12 representatives from state, local, and tribal governments. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a two-year term with the possibility of reappointment. The Committees usually meet 3 times annually and the average workload for Committee members is approximately 10 to 15 hours per month. Members serve on the Committees in a voluntary capacity. However, EPA provides reimbursement for travel expenses associated with official government business.

The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:

• Extensive professional knowledge of the subjects the Committees examine, including trade and the environment, the NAFTA, the NAAEC and the CEC.

• Represent a sector or group that is involved in the issues the Committees evaluate.

• Senior-level experience that will fill a need on the Committees for their particular expertise.

• A demonstrated ability to work in consensus building process with a wide range of representatives from diverse constituencies.

• Nominees will also be considered with regard to the mandates of the Federal Advisory Committee Act that require the Committees to maintain diversity across a broad range of constituencies, sectors, and groups.

Nominations for membership must include a cover letter and a resume describing the professional and education qualifications of the nominee and the nominee's current business address and daytime telephone number.

Principal Campaign Committees

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the California Special General and Special Runoff Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on February 24, 2005; a Pre-Runoff Report on April 21, 2005; and a Post-Runoff Report on June 2, 2005. ( See chart below for the closing date for each report).

All principal campaign committees of candidates in the Special General Election only shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on February 24, 2005; and a Post-General Report on April 7, 2005. ( See chart below for the closing date for each report).

Political committees filing on a semiannual basis in 2005 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the California Special General or Special Runoff Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). ( See chart below for the closing date for each report).

Committees filing monthly that support candidates in the California Special General or Special Runoff Election should continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

As required by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the Federal Election Commission promulgated new electioneering communications rules governing television and radio communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are distributed within 60 days prior to a special general election (including a special general runoff). 11 CFR 100.29. The statute and regulations require, among other things, that individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who make electioneering communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregate in a calendar year disclose that activity to the Commission within 24 hours of the distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 104.20.

The 60-day electioneering communications period in connection with the California Special General runs from January 7, 2005 through March 8, 2005. The 60-day electioneering communications period in connection with the California Special Runoff runs from March 4, 2005 through May 3, 2005.

GSA published a notice in the August 2, 2004, Federal Register to make this requirement available to the public and requested comments. One respondent submitted comments in response to the notice. The commenter believes that the information collection requirement for the industrial funding fee and sales reporting could be conducted every two years in order to save taxpayers dollars. In response, collection of the industrial funding fee and sales information every two-year jeopardizes the Government ability to effectively manage the Federal Supply Schedules Program. The Government collects the data quarterly in order to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the schedule program and to negotiate better prices based on volume, which saves taxpayers dollars. As a result of collecting the data quarterly, the Government has the ability to provide upon request current schedule sales information to the federal agencies and the public.

Respondents: 15,710.

Responses Per Respondent: 20.

Total Responses: 314,200.

Hours Per Response: .0833.

Total Burden Hours: 26,173.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (V), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0121, Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of service contracts. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of service contracts for guards, childcare, cleaning, and maintenance. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection/reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives.

Respondents: 15,496.

Total Responses: 15,496.

Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 15,496.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0006, GSAR Clause 552.237-71, Qualifications of Employees, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration (GSA) has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of service contracts. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of contracts for building services. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection and reporting requirements on contractors not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives.

Respondents: 6794.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 6794.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0197, GSAR Provision 552.237-70, Qualifications of Offerors, in all correspondence.

Notice of appeal is hereby given as set forth in the following letter, which has been sent to the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

This letter is in response to the request of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (State) for a hearing to contest the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) disapproval of an amendment to the State's plan for implementing title IV-E of the Social Security Act (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance).

The basis for the disapproval is that the plan amendment alters the eligibility criteria for title IV-E Foster Care in a manner that is inconsistent with the criteria at section 472 of the Social Security Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 672).

Section 472(a) requires that each state with an approved plan under title IV-E make foster care maintenance payments with respect to a child who has been removed from his or her home and placed in foster care pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or court order, and who would have been eligible for benefits under the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program at former title IV-A of the Act (as in effect on July 16, 1996) in the month in which the agreement was entered or court proceedings initiated, or within six months prior to such month, if the child had still been in the home from which the child was removed.

The State's plan amendment (Transmittal No. 03-4) would alter the eligibility requirements with respect to whether the child must have been eligible for AFDC in the home from which he or she was removed, consistent with the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rosales v. Thompson , 321 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2003). That case involved a child who was removed from his parent's home and placed informally with a grandparent who later became the child's foster care parent upon entry of the court order legally removing the child from the parent's home. The child would not have been eligible for AFDC payments while in the parent's home, but was eligible in the grandparent's home. The court found that the child was eligible for title IV-E Foster Care, based on the child's eligibility for AFDC while residing informally in the grandparent's home.

ACF has determined that the holding in Rosales v. Thompson misinterprets the Act and conflicts with Department regulations and policy, and has declined to apply it with respect to states outside the Ninth Circuit. ACF has determined that the child's eligibility for AFDC must be based on the home of the parent or other specified relative who was the child's legal guardian and from which the child is legally removed, and not on the home of a specified relative with whom the child resides informally after the child has been physically removed from home of the child's parent or specified relative who was the child's legal guardian, but prior to the judicial determination or voluntary placement agreement legally removing the child from the home of the child's parent or other specified relative who was the child's legal guardian.

I have designated Donald F. Garrett, a member of the Departmental Appeals Board, as the presiding officer pursuant to 45 CFR 213.21. ACF and the State are now parties in this matter. 45 CFR 213.15(a). The parties have agreed that there are no disputed issues of fact, and that an in-person hearing is not necessary to resolve the State's request for reconsideration. Accordingly, the parties have agreed that the appeal be decided based on their written submissions.

A copy of this letter will appear as a notice in the Federal Register and any individual or group wishing to request recognition as a party will be entitled to file a petition pursuant to 45 CFR 213.15(b) with the Departmental Appeals Board within 15 days after that notice has been published. A copy of the petition should be served on each party of record at that time. The petition must explain how the issues to be considered have caused them injury and how their interest is within the zone of interests to be protected by the governing Federal statute. 45 CFR 213.15(b)(1). In addition, the petition must concisely state petitioner's interest in the proceeding, who will represent petitioner, and the issues on which petitioner wishes to participate. 45 CFR 213.15(b)(2). Additionally, if petitioner believes that there are disputed issues of fact which require an in-person hearing, petitioner should concisely specify the disputed issues of fact in the petition, and also state whether petitioner intends to present witnesses. Petitioners may also, within 15 days after this notice has been published, request extensions of the time for requesting participation for the purpose of obtaining and reviewing copies of the parties' written submissions.

Any party may, within 5 days of receipt of such petition, file comments thereon; the presiding officer will subsequently issue a ruling on whether and on what basis participation will be permitted.

Any interested person or organization wishing to participate as amicus curiae may also file a petition with the Board, which shall conform to the requirements at 45 CFR 213.15(c)(1). This petition, or a request for an extension of time to review the briefs, must be filed within 15 days after this notice has been published, to permit the presiding officer an adequate opportunity to consider and rule upon it.

Upon the conclusion of proceedings in this matter, the presiding officer will issue a proposed decision. I will then issue the final decision of the Department. 45 CFR 213.22, 213.32.

Any further inquiries, submissions, or correspondence regarding this matter should be filed in an original and two copies with Mr. Garrett at the Departmental Appeals Board, Appellate Division, MS-6127, Room G-644, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. For convenience please refer to Board Docket No. A-04-82. Electronic inquiries, submissions, or correspondence may be submitted by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to Jeffrey Sacks, Departmental Appeals Board Staff Attorney, at jeffrey.sacks@hhs.gov . Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. The Board also accepts comments and data on disks in Word, WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Identify all submissions by Board Docket No. A-04-82.

The record in this matter, including the parties' written submissions, is available for public inspection. Interested persons or organizations may contact Jeffrey Sacks, Board Staff Attorney, at 202-565-0123 (or at jeffrey.sacks@hhs.gov ) to arrange for inspection and copying of the record. Each submission must include a statement that a copy of the submission has been sent to the other parties, identifying when and to whom the copy was sent. For convenience please refer to Board Docket No. A-04-82.

In the Federal Register of August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53077) (August 2004 notice), FDA announced a public workshop entitled “From Concept to Consumer: Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Working With Stakeholders on Scientific Opportunities for Facilitating Development of Vaccines, Blood and Blood Products, and Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies.” The public workshop was held on October 7, 2004. The goal of the public workshop was to provide a forum for stakeholders to discuss opportunities for and potential approaches to the development of innovative scientific knowledge and tools to facilitate the development and availability of new biological products including vaccines, blood and blood products, and cellular, tissue, and gene therapies.

Interested persons were originally given until September 23, 2004, to comment on the topic of the workshop.

Following publication of the August 2004 notice, FDA received several requests to allow interested persons additional time to comment. The requesters asserted that the time period of 23 days was insufficient to respond fully to FDA's specific requests for comments and to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent issues.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The NIH is providing notice of a “List of Drugs for Which Pediatric Studies Are Needed,” as authorized under Section 3, Pub. L. 107-109 (42 U.S.C. 409I). On January 4, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA). The BPCA mandates that not later than one year after the date of enactment, the NIH in consultation with the FDA and experts in pediatric research shall develop, prioritize, and publish an annual list of certain approved drugs for which pediatric studies are needed. For inclusion on the list, an approved drug must meet the following criteria: (1) There is an approved application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)); (2) there is a submitted application that could be approved under the criteria of section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (3) there is no patent protection or market exclusivity protection under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or (4) there is a referral for inclusion on the list under section 505A(d)(4)(c); and additional studies are needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the use of the drug in the pediatric population. The BPCA further stipulates that in developing and prioritizing the list, the NIH shall consider for each drug on the list: (1) The availability of information concerning the safe and effective use of the drug in the pediatric population; (2) whether additional information is needed; (3) whether new pediatric studies concerning the drug may produce health benefits in the pediatric population; and (4) whether reformulation of the drug is necessary. In developing this list, the NIH consulted with the FDA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other experts in pediatric research and practice. A preliminary list of drugs was drafted and categorized as a function of indication and use. The drugs were then prioritized based on frequency of use in the pediatric population, severity of the condition being treated, and potential for providing a health benefit in the pediatric population.

The following off-patent drugs were reviewed by expert consultants at an October 25 and 26, 2004, scientific meeting at NICHD and recommended for further study: Ivermectin for scabies; hydrocortisone valerate ointment and cream for dermatitis; hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension; ethambutol for tuberculosis; griseofulvin for tinea capitis; methadone for opiate addicted neonates; hydroxychloroquine for connective tissue disorders.

The following off-patent drugs were recommended for re-labeling based on evidence available in the literature: Acyclovir for herpetic infections.

The following off-patent drugs were recommended for systematic literature review and/or further consultation with scientific community to finalize scientific questions in need of study: Cyclosporine for heart transplant patients; clonidine for autism, attention deficit disorder; flecainide for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

The following on-patent drugs were referred to the NICHD by the Foundation for NIH, reviewed by expert consultants at the October 25 and 26, 2004, scientific meeting, and recommended for further study: Sevelamer for renal failure; morphine for analgesia.

The following on-patent drugs were recommended for systematic literature review and/or further consultation with the scientific community to finalize scientific questions in need of study: Bupropion for depression.

The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Title: DHS Individual complaint of Employment Discrimination Form (DHS 3090-1).

OMB No.: 1610—NEW.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Federal Government and Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes per response.

Total Burden Hours: 600.

Total Cost Burden: None.

Description: This form will allow a complainant to submit required information used by the Department to process an employment discrimination complaint with the Department of Homeland Security. The information contained in this form will allow the Department to accept, investigate and further process, or to dismiss issues.

Sector Baltimore is located at 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Bldg. 70, Baltimore, MD 21226-1791 and contains a single Command Center. Sector Baltimore is composed of a Response Department, Prevention Department, and Logistics Department. All existing missions and functions performed by Activities Baltimore have been realigned under this new organizational structure as of January 1, 2005. Activities Baltimore no longer exists as an organizational entity. Sector Baltimore is responsible for all Coast Guard missions in the following zone: “the boundary of Sector Baltimore Marine Inspection zone and Captain of the Port zone starts at a point at 75° 30.0′ W. longitude on the Delaware-Maryland boundary and proceeds along the Delaware-Maryland boundary West and North to the Pennsylvania boundary; thence West along the Pennsylvania-Maryland boundary to the West Virginia boundary; thence Southerly and Easterly along the Maryland-West Virginia boundary to the intersection of the Maryland-Virginia-West Virginia boundaries; thence Southwestward along the Loudoun County, Virginia boundary to the intersection with Fauquier County, Virginia; thence Easterly along the Loudoun County, Virginia boundary to the intersection with the Prince William County, Virginia boundary; thence Southerly along the Prince William County boundary to the intersection with Stafford County, Virginia; thence Easterly along the Prince William County, Virginia Boundary to the Maryland-Virginia boundary as those boundaries are formed along the Southern bank of the Potomac River; thence Easterly along the Maryland-Virginia boundary as it proceeds across the Chesapeake Bay, Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds, Pocomoke River, and Delmarva Peninsula to a Point West of the Atlantic Coast on the Maryland-Virginia boundary at a point 75° 30.0′ W. longitude on the Maryland-Virginia boundary; thence Northerly to a point 75° 30.0′ W. longitude on the Delaware-Maryland boundary.” A chart that depicts this area can be found on the Fifth District Web page at http://www.uscg.mil/d5/D5_Units/Sectors.htm .

The Sector Baltimore Commander is vested with all the rights, responsibilities, duties, and authority of a Group/Activities Commander and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office, as provided for in Coast Guard regulations, and is the successor in command to the Commanding Officer, Activities Baltimore. The Sector Baltimore Commander is designated: (a) Captain of the Port (COTP) for the Baltimore COTP zone; (b) Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC); (c) Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the Baltimore COTP zone, consistent with the National Contingency Plan; (d) Officer In Charge of Marine Inspection (OCMI) for the Baltimore Marine Inspection Zone and, (e) Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator (SMC). The Deputy Sector Commander is designated alternate COTP, FMSC, FOSC, SMC and Acting OCMI. A continuity of operations order has been issued ensuring that all previous Activities Baltimore practices and procedures will remain in effect until superseded by Commander, Sector Baltimore. This continuity of operations order addresses existing COTP regulations, orders, directives and policies.

The following information is a list of updated command titles, addresses and points of contact to facilitate requests from the public and assist with entry into security or safety zones:

Name: Sector Baltimore.

Address: Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Bldg. 70, Baltimore, MD 21226-1791.

Contact: General Number, (410) 576-2561, Sector Commander: CAPT C. Springer; Deputy Sector Commander: CDR J. Burton.

Chief, Prevention Department: (410) 576-2586, Chief, Response Department: (410) 576-2525, Chief, Logistics Department: (410) 576-2546.

The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (CMPPA) of 1988, an amendment to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), OMB's guidance on this statute entitled “Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the CMPPA of 1988” (OMB Guidance), and OMB Circular No. A-130 requires publication of notices of computer matching programs. Appendix I to OMB's Revision of Circular No. A-130, “Transmittal Memorandum No. 4, Management of Federal Information Resources,” prescribes federal agency responsibilities for maintaining records about individuals. In compliance with the CMPPA and Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, copies of this notice are being provided to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

This matching program is being conducted pursuant to section 904 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3544); section 165 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 3543); the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701-1750g); the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437-1437z); section 101 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq. ); and the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(f)); the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3); and 39 U.S.C. sec. 404.

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 authorizes HUD and Public Housing Agencies (but not private owners/management agents for subsidized multifamily projects (hereafter collectively referred to as “POAs”)) to request wage and claim information from SWICAs responsible for administering State unemployment laws in order to undertake computer matching. This Act authorizes HUD to require applicants and participants to sign a consent form authorizing HUD or the POA to request wage and claim information from the SWICAs.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 authorizes HUD to require applicants and participants (as well as members of their household six years of age and older) in HUD-administered programs involving rental assistance to disclose to HUD their social security numbers (SSNs) as a condition of initial or continuing eligibility for participation in the programs.

The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), section 508(d), 42 U.S.C. 1437a(f) authorizes the Secretary of HUD to require disclosure by the tenant to the public housing agency of income information received by the tenant from HUD as part of income verification procedures of HUD. The QHWRA was amended by Public Law 106-74, which extended the disclosure requirements to participants in section 8, section 202, and section 811 assistance programs. The participants are required to disclose the HUD-provided income information to owners responsible for determining the participants' eligibility or level of benefits.

The Inspector General Act authorizes the HUD Inspector General to undertake programs to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in all HUD programs.

Section 404 of Title 39, United States Code, gives the USPS the power to investigate postal offenses and civil matters relating to the Postal Service. It is USPS policy that each employee will not engage in criminal, dishonest, disgraceful, or immoral activity, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service. The USPS also expects that each employee will pay every just financial obligation in a proper and timely manner. The obtainment of benefits by misrepresentation or failure to pay just debts owed is considered unacceptable conduct for a Postal Service employee.

The USPS's disclosure of income data on current and retired federal employees is authorized by subsection (b)(3) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3). The disclosures from the USPS 050.020 system of records will be made pursuant to routine use “20”. ((USPS 050.020, Finance Records-Payroll System), last published on February 23, 1999, 64 FR 8876, and last published fully on October 26, 1989, 54 FR 43652). The routine uses permit disclosure to agencies to help eliminate fraud and abuse in federal benefits programs.

HUD's primary objective in implementing the computer matching program is to increase the availability of rental assistance to individuals who meet the requirements of the rental assistance programs. Other objectives include determining the appropriate level of rental assistance, and deterring and correcting abuse in assisted housing programs. In meeting these objectives HUD also is carrying out a responsibility under 42 U.S.C. 1437f(K) to ensure that income data provided to POAs by household members is complete and accurate.

HUD's various assisted housing programs, available through POAs, require that applicants meet certain income and other criteria to be eligible for rental assistance. In addition, tenants generally are required to report the amounts and sources of their income at least annually. However, under the QHWRA of 1998, public housing agencies may now offer tenants the option to pay a flat rent, or an income-based rent. Those tenants who select a flat rent will be required to recertify income at least every three years. In addition, the Changes to the Admissions and Occupancy Final Rule (March 29, 2000, 65 FR 16692;) specified that household composition must be recertified annually for tenants who select a flat rent and/or income-based rent.

The matching program identifies tenants receiving inappropriate (excessive or insufficient) rental assistance resulting from under or over-reported household income. When excessive rental assistance amounts are identified, some tenants move out of assisted housing units; other tenants agree to repay excessive rental assistance. These actions may increase rental assistance or number of units available to serve other beneficiaries of HUD programs. When tenants continue to be eligible for rental assistance, but at a reduced level, the tenants will be required to increase their contributions toward rent.

This computer matching program, to the extent that it involves the use of SSA, IRS or SWICA data is fully described at 69 FR 11033, March 9, 2004. With respect to OPM data, the computer matching program is described at 69 FR 62281, October 25, 2004. The objectives of this matching program will be accomplished by comparing income data for individuals participating in HUD's assisted housing programs and subsidized multifamily housing programs with wage, benefit, and salary data maintained by USPS in its systems of records known as the 050.020, Finance Records-Payroll System. This system of records was last amended and published at 64 FR 8876, February 23, 1999, and last published fully at 54 FR 43652, October 26, 1989. The routine uses permit disclosure to agencies to help improve the integrity of the federal benefits programs and prevent overpayment, in sum, to eliminate fraud and abuse in federal benefits programs. The common identifier that we will use is the tenant's and employee's social security number. Using that identifier, HUD and the USPS will compare the USPS payroll data to tenant-reported income data included in HUD's systems of records known as the Tenant Assistance and Contract Verification Data (HUD/H-11) and the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (HUD/PIH-4). The notices for these systems were published at 65 FR 52777, August 30, 2000 and 67 FR 20986, April 29, 2002 respectively. The tenant income comparisons identify, based on criteria established by HUD, tenants whose incomes require further verification to determine if the tenants received appropriate levels of rental assistance.

Any match ( i.e. , a “hit”) will be further reviewed by HUD, the POA, or the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) to determine whether the income reported by tenants to the POA is correct and complies with HUD and POA requirements. Specifically, current or prior wage information and other data will be sought directly from employers.

Regarding all the matching described in this notice, HUD anticipates that POAs will take appropriate action in consultation with tenants to: (1) Resolve income disparities between tenant-reported and independent income source data, and (2) use correct income amounts in determining housing rental assistance.

POAs must compute the rent in full compliance with all applicable occupancy regulations. POAs must ensure that they use the correct income and correctly compute the rent.

The POAs may not suspend, terminate, reduce, or make a final denial of any housing assistance to any tenant as the result of information produced by this matching program until: (a) the tenant has received notice from the POA of its findings and informing the tenant of the opportunity to contest such findings and (b) either the notice period provided in applicable regulations of the program, or 30 days, whichever is later, has expired. In most cases, POAs will resolve income discrepancies in consultation with tenants.

Additionally, serious violations, which POAs, HUD Program staff, or HUD OIG verify, should be referred for full investigation and appropriate civil and/or criminal proceedings.

This computer matching program, to the extent that it involves the use of SSA, IRS or SWICA data is fully described at 69 FR 11033, March 9, 2004. With respect to OPM data, the program is described at 69 FR 62281, October 25, 2004. The match under this notice, between the HUD/H-11 and HUD/PIH-4 data and USPS 050.020 data, will involve tenant records obtained directly from POAs and subsidized multifamily projects included in HUD/H-11, Tenant Assistance and Contract Verification Data and HUD/PIH-4, Public and Indian Housing Information Center Files. These records contain information about individuals who are participants in the federal low income and Section 8 housing assistance programs. The USPS will provide HUD with data from the USPS 050.020 payroll system of records. These records include current and former employees.

The tenant records (one record for each family member) includes these data elements: (1) SSNs for each family member; (2) family control number to identify each tenant with a particular family; (3) Head of Household Indicator; (4) Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial, and Address for household; (5) Sex; (6) Birth Date; (7) Reported Income by source, description and amount; (8) Program Code; and (9) Recertification Date. For matched employee SSNs ( i.e. , “hits”), USPS will provide HUD with the following information from USPS 050.020 records, name, SSN, Date of Birth, home address, employment status, the amount of Annual Salary. In addition, HUD will use the Submitting Office Number (SON) Master File to obtain the address of the agencies so that employer verification letters can be sent to such agencies. This information includes: SON, Agency Code and sub-element, SON name and address, zip code, and File Date.

The computer matching program will be conducted according to agreements between HUD and the SSA, IRS, OPM, SWICA, and the USPS. The computer matching agreements for the planned matches will terminate either when the purpose of the computer matching program is accomplished, or 18 months from the date the agreement is signed, whichever comes first.

The agreements may be extended for one 12-month period, with the mutual agreement of all involved parties, if the following conditions are met:

(1) Within 3 months of the expiration date, all Data Integrity Boards review the agreement, find that the program will be conducted without change, and find a continued favorable examination of benefit/cost results; and

(2) All parties certify that the program has been conducted in compliance with the agreement. The agreement may be terminated, prior to accomplishment of the computer matching purpose or 18 months from the date the agreement is signed (whichever comes first), by the mutual agreement of all involved parties within 30 days of written notice.

Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the approved Tribal State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Class III gaming compacts between the Absentee Shawnee Tribe, Comanche Nation, Miami Tribe and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma. These Compacts authorize Indian tribes to engage in certain Class III gaming activities, provides for certain geographical exclusivity, limits the number of gaming machines at existing racetracks, and prohibits non-tribal operation of certain machines and covered games.

The 15 member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Royal Gorge Field Office and San Luis Valley, Colorado. Planned agenda topics include: Manager updates on current land management issues; BLM law enforcement partnerships in Colorado and a travel management plan update. All meetings are open to the public. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Councils consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Council Meeting will be maintained in the Royal Gorge Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Meeting Minutes and agenda (10 days prior to each meeting) are also available at: http://www.blm.gov/rac/co/frrac/co_fr.htm .

On February 24, 2005, the BLM Lewistown Field Office will move/relocate to 220 Cattail Drive, Lewistown, Montana 59457. The following business practices will be in effect from February 24 through March 1, 2005.

(A) The old office will be closed on February 24-28, 2005. There will be no over-the-counter transactions or phone business during this period. The official records (case files, maps, plats, etc.) will not be available for pubic inspection. Emergency calls may be directed to (406) 538-7461 or (406) 366-1535.

(B) The shipping address will change. Effective February 25, 2005, all shipments should be sent to: 220 Cattail Drive, Lewistown, Montana 59457. The general mail address will remain the same: P.O. Box 1160, Lewistown, Montana 59457.

(C) The main office telephone number will remain the same: (406) 538-7461.

(D) The BLM Lewistown Field Office will resume full services on March 1, 2005, at 220 Cattail Drive, Lewistown, Montana 59457.

The Commission instituted this investigation on June 20, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Auto Meter Products, Inc. (“Auto Meter”) of Sycamore, Illinois. 68 FR 37023. The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation and sale of certain automotive measuring devices, products containing same, and bezels for such devices, by reason of infringement of U.S. Registered Trademark Nos. 1,732,643 and 1,497,472, and U.S. Supplemental Register No. 1,903,908, and infringement of the complainant's trade dress. The complaint alleged that twelve respondents violated section 337. Subsequently, seven more firms were added as respondents. 68 FR 75280 (Dec 30, 2003); 69 FR 2732 (January 20, 2004).

The investigation was terminated as to all respondents on the basis of consent orders and/or settlement agreements except as to the following five respondents who have been found in default: Tenzo R, dba Autotech Systems and Accessories, of Santa Clarita, California (“Tenzo”); Auto Gauge Co., Ltd., of Taipei, Taiwan (“AGT”); Dynamik Exhaust Industry Co., Ltd., of Taipei, Taiwan (“Dynamik”); Modern Work, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan (“Modern Work”), and LPL Trans Trade Co. of Taipei, Taiwan (“LPL”) (collectively, “defaulting respondents”).

Having determined that a violation of section 337 has occurred, and having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written submissions of the parties, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of automotive measuring devices and products containing same, and bezels for such devices, that misappropriate Auto Meter's trade dresses and infringe its trademarks and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, the defaulting respondents; and (2) a cease and desist order directed to the U.S. respondent Tenzo. Specifically, the limited exclusion order prohibits the above described importation by respondents AGT and Dynamik with respect to the Logo Trademark, the Auto Gage Trademark, the Super Bezel trademark and trade dress, and the Monster Tachometer trade dress. The limited exclusion order prohibits such importation by respondent Tenzo with respect to the Super Bezel and Monster Tachometer trade dresses. It also prohibits such importation by respondent Modern Work with respect to the Monster Tachometer trade dress, and by respondent LPL with respect to the Super Bezel trade dress. The cease and desist order mandates that the U.S. respondent Tenzo cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, advertising, distributing, marketing, consigning, transferring (except for exportation), offering for sale in the United States, and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for certain automotive measuring devices and products containing same, and bezels for such devices, in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337.

The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and the cease and desist order, and that the bond during the Presidential review period shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.16 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16).

Effective August 26, 2004, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject reviews (69 FR 53946, September 3, 2004). Subsequently, counsel for domestic interested parties requested that the Commission reschedule its hearing from Tuesday, March 29 to Wednesday, March 30, 2005, to avoid travel during a holiday period. 1 Counsel suggested no other change to the schedule. In light of the justification provided by counsel, and absent objection from any other party, the Commission is revising its schedule. The Commission's hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on March 30, 2005. The Commission's original schedule is otherwise unchanged.

For further information concerning these reviews see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

The purpose of the panel is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and Congress pursuant to Section 1423 of the Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. The panel's charter is to review Federal contracting laws, regulations, and government-wide policies, including the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and government-wide contracts.

Requests for additional information or written statements should be directed to Ms. Laura Auletta, Designated Federal Officer, at laura.auletta@gsa.gov or (202) 208-7279.

Appearing in the listing below are the individual authorities established under Schedule C between December 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 is published each year.

No Schedule A's for December 2004.

No Schedule B's for December 2004.

The following Schedule C appointments were approved for December 2004:

BOGS60026 Confidential Assistant to the Associate Director for General Government Programs. Effective December 21, 2004.

BOGS60141 Deputy to the Associate Director for Legislative Affairs (Senate). Effective December 29, 2004.

DSGS60803 Public Affairs Specialist to the Office Director, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking In Persons. Effective December 10, 2004.

DSGS60804 Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Equal Employment Opportunity. Effective December 16, 2004.

DYGS60317 Public Affairs Specialist to the Director, Public Affairs. Effective December 17, 2004.

DDGS16837 Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective December 8, 2004.

DDGS16849 Program Support Specialist to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Internal Communications). Effective December 14, 2004.

DDGS16851 Personal and Confidential Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). Effective December 29, 2004.

DNGS60069 Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary of the Navy. Effective December 8, 2004.

DJGS00444 Associate Director to the Director, Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison. Effective December 10, 2004.

DJGS00208 Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective December 21, 2004.

DMGS00285 Policy Analyst to the Special Assistant to the Secretary (Private Sector). Effective December 2, 2004.

DMGS00286 Staff Assistant to the Officer of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Effective December 3, 2004.

DMGS00279 Briefing Coordinator to the Executive Secretary. Effective December 7, 2004.

DMGS00282 Writer-Editor to the Executive Secretary. Effective December 7, 2004.

DMOT00224 Director of Legislative Affairs for Transportation Security Administration to the Administrator, Transportation Security Administration. Effective December 7, 2004.

DMGS00289 Program Analyst to the Special Assistant to the Secretary (Private Sector). Effective December 21, 2004.

DMGS00292 Legislative Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. Effective December 30, 2004.

DIGS61026 Deputy Director, External and Intergovernmental Affairs to the Director, External and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 28, 2004.

DIGS61027 Special Assistant to the Associate Deputy Secretary. Effective December 28, 2004.

DCGS00160 Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary and Director General of United States Commercial Services. Effective December 2, 2004.

DCGS00465 Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of White House Liaison. Effective December 10, 2004.

DLGS60273 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Effective December 21, 2004.

DHGS00011 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Legislation. Effective December 17, 2004.

JCGS60048 Secretary (Confidential Assistant) to the Chief Judge. Effective December 3, 2004.

SBGS00540 Director of Small Business Administration's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to the Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer. Effective December 10, 2004.

DUGS60543 Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief Information Officer/Chief Human Capital Officer. Effective December 21, 2004.

BGSL00039 Executive Director to the Chairman. Effective December 17, 2004.

DTGS60288 Associate Director for Governmental Affairs to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. Effective December 9, 2004.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. AIG SAAMCo, a Delaware corporation, is registered with the Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and serves as investment adviser to nine registered investment companies. It is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG SunAmerica Inc., a financial services company and wholly-owned subsidiary of American International Group, Inc., (“AIG”). VALIC, a Texas company and indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG, is registered with the Commission under the Advisers Act and serves as investment adviser to two registered investment companies. Each Fund will be registered under the Act as, or be a series of, a management investment company.

2. Each Fund proposes to provide Principal Protection, pursuant to which shareholders who hold their Fund shares for a prescribed period of time (the “Protection Period”)  2 will be able, at the end of the period (the “Maturity Date”), to redeem their shares and receive no less than the amount of their initial investment, subject to certain adjustments (the “Protected Amount”). Applicants state that Principal Protection will be achieved primarily through the use of a mathematical formula that allocates assets based on the “constant proportion portfolio insurance” model (the “Formula”). 3 In addition to using the Formula, the Fund may also enter into a financial guarantee agreement, warranty agreement or other principal protection agreement  4 or may acquire an insurance policy (each a “Protection Agreement”), in order to ensure that the Fund can meet its obligation to pay each redeeming shareholder the Protected Amount on the Maturity Date. 5 The entity providing Principal Protection (“Protection Provider”) may be a bank, brokerage firm, insurance company, financial services firm or other financial institution. In certain cases, the Protection Provider may seek to hedge all or a portion of its risks by entering into a derivatives contract or reinsurance contract (“Hedging Transaction”) with a Hedging Counterparty. Each Fund will pay a fee to the Protection Provider, typically equal to a percentage of the Fund's average daily net assets.

3. Each Protection Agreement will require the Protection Provider to pay the Fund an amount equal to any shortfall between the aggregate Protected Amount and the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Fund on the Maturity Date (the “Shortfall Amount”). Under the terms of each Protection Agreement, the Fund will be required to manage its assets within certain investment parameters, based in large part on the asset allocations determined by the Formula. If the Fund fails to comply with these allocations or upon the occurrence of certain other conditions (“Trigger Event”), the Protection Provider may cause the Fund to defease its portfolio and allocate all of its assets to the Fund's Protection Component (a “Defeasance Event”).

4. A Protection Agreement and the fee for the Protection Agreement will be subject to approval by the Board of Directors or Trustees of each Fund (the “Board”), including a majority of those Directors or Trustees who are not interested persons of a Fund or an Adviser, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the “Independent Trustees”). In the event that a Fund wishes to consider entering into a Protection Agreement with an AIG Affiliate, or with a Protection Provider that is otherwise not an affiliated person of the Fund or its Adviser, or an affiliated person of such a person (an “Unaffiliated Provider”), but that wants to use an AIG Affiliate as its Hedging Counterparty (each, an “Affiliated Protection Arrangement”), the Adviser will be required to conduct a bidding process to select the Protection Provider. Applicants state that the Adviser will initially solicit at least three other bids in addition to the bid relating to an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, then will engage in negotiations with all of the bidders. At the end of the negotiation process, all bidders who wish to participate will submit final bids. All final bids will be due at the same time and no bidder will be permitted to change its final bid once submitted. After final bids are submitted, no bidder, including an AIG Affiliate, will have access to any competing bids until after the Protection Agreement is entered into by the Fund. In order for the Adviser to recommend the bid relating to an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, the Fund must have also received at least two bona fide final bids that are not Affiliated Protection Arrangements. 6 The Adviser will evaluate final bids and recommend a bid for acceptance by the Board, together with an explanation of the basis for this recommendation and a summary of the material terms of any bids that were rejected. Applicants state that in addition to cost, other factors such as creditworthiness will be significant in the Adviser's evaluation of bids, and thus, the Adviser may recommend to the Board a Protection Provider who does not submit the bid with the lowest fee rate. 7 A majority of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, must approve the acceptance of a bid involving an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, as well as the general terms of the proposed Protection Arrangement. Upon the conclusion of the Adviser's negotiation of the Affiliated Protection Arrangement, the Board must approve the final Protection Agreement, and determine that the terms of the Affiliated Protection Arrangement, as so finalized, are not materially different from the terms of the accepted bid.

5. The Board will exercise oversight responsibilities in connection with any Protection Agreement and will establish a special committee (the “Committee”), a majority of the members of which will be Independent Trustees, if the Fund enters into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement. If a Trigger Event or a Defeasance Event occurs under the Protection Agreement (each, a “Protection Event”) or if the Adviser decides to attempt to cure the circumstances leading to a Protection Event pursuant to the terms of the Protection Agreement, the Adviser will be required to notify the Committee as soon as practicable, and absent special circumstances, before a decision is reached by the Protection Provider and the Adviser as to how to effect any cure. On or about the Maturity Date, the Board will review information comparing the aggregate Protected Amount with the Fund's total NAV on the Maturity Date, and will review and approve the amount of any Shortfall Amount to be submitted for payment to the Protection Provider under the Protection Agreement (including the amount of any required Adviser Payment to the Fund) (the “Approved Shortfall Amount”).

1. Section 12(d)(3) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring any security issued by any person who is a broker, dealer, investment adviser, or engaged in the business of underwriting. Rule 12d3-1 under the Act exempts certain transactions from the prohibition of section 12(d)(3) if certain conditions are met. One of these conditions, set forth in rule 12d3-1(c), provides that the exemption provided by the rule is not available when the issuer of the securities is the investment adviser, promoter, or principal underwriter of the investment company, or any affiliated person of such entities. In addition, rule 12d3-1(b) does not permit a registered investment company to (i) own more than five percent of a class of equity securities of an issuer that is engaged in securities-related activities; (ii) own more than ten percent of such an issuer's debt securities; or (iii) invest more than five percent of the value of its total assets in the securities of any such issuer. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act.

2. Applicants state that by virtue of entering into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement with an AIG Affiliate that is a broker, dealer, underwriter or investment adviser to a registered investment company or an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act, a Fund may be deemed to have acquired a security from the AIG Affiliate. 8 In addition, applicants state that it is possible that a Protection Agreement entered into by the Fund (whether pursuant to an Affiliated Protection Agreement or otherwise) may represent more than ten percent of the debt securities of a Protection Provider that is involved in securities-related activities or more than five percent of the total assets of the Fund. Therefore, applicants seek an exemption from section 12(d)(3) to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to enter into Affiliated Protection Arrangements with an AIG Affiliate or a Protection Agreement with another Protection Provider that is involved in securities-related activities.

3. Applicants state that section 12(d)(3) was intended to prevent investment companies from exposing their assets to the entrepreneurial risks of securities-related businesses and to prevent reciprocal practices between investment companies and securities-related businesses. Applicants assert that the proposed transactions are consistent with the policy and intent underlying section 12(d)(3). In terms of the risk-preventing element of section 12(d)(3), applicants state that the Adviser and Board, when evaluating the credentials of a prospective Protection Provider, will take into account the Protection Provider's (and any parent guarantor's) creditworthiness, any ratings assigned by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (“NRSRO”), and the availability of audited financial statements. Applicants state that the purpose of the Fund's Protection Agreement is to provide Principal Protection for the Fund, not to reward an AIG Affiliate (or any other broker-dealer) for sales of Fund shares. Moreover, applicants believe that the conditions set forth in the application will ensure that each Fund is operated in the interests of its shareholders and not in the interests of an AIG Affiliate or any other Protection Provider.

1. Section 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit the promoter or principal underwriter, or any affiliated person of the promoter or principal underwriter, of a registered investment company, acting as principal, knowingly to sell or purchase any security or other property to or from such investment company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include, among other things: (a) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person; (b) any person 5% of more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with power to vote by such other person; and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other person. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from the terms of section 17(a) if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed transaction are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company involved and the purposes of the Act.

2. Applicants state that depending on the structure of a Protection Agreement, it might be deemed to be a security or other property, and the Fund's entering into a Protection Agreement with an AIG Affiliate might be deemed to be the acquisition of a security or other property from an AIG Affiliate. In addition, applicants state that if an AIG Affiliate were to serve as a Hedging Counterparty to an Unaffiliated Provider, the AIG Affiliate might under certain circumstances be deemed to be indirectly involved in the sale of a security or other property to the Fund. Applicants request an exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) to permit the proposed transactions.

3. Applicants submit that the involvement of an AIG Affiliate in an Affiliated Protection Arrangement will benefit a Fund and its shareholders given the expertise of the AIG Affiliates in structuring and providing credit enhancements for Principal Protection arrangements, and the alignment of interests that exist between the AIG Affiliates and the Funds. Applicants argue that the relationship of a Fund and Unaffiliated Provider may be more adversarial, with the protection of the Unaffiliated Provider's rights and remedies being of paramount importance to the Unaffiliated Provider, which could result in the Unaffiliated Provider exhibiting a greater willingness to declare a Defeasance Event or to rely on a clause permitting it to avoid liability to the Fund than would an AIG Affiliate in similar circumstances. Applicants argue that an AIG Affiliate may assume a greater risk to itself by avoiding a Defeasance Event and allowing a greater portion of the Fund's assets to remain invested in the Portfolio Component for the same fee charged by an Unaffiliated Provider. Applicants also argue that the use of an AIG Affiliate as Protection Provider may lower the cost of Principal Protection since there is a limited universe of Protection Providers with which a Fund may enter into a Protection Agreement. In addition, because an AIG Affiliate may have a greater comfort level with the Formula and certain investment strategies to be used by the Advisers than an Unaffiliated Provider, applicants state that this may allow the AIG Affiliate to enter into a Hedging Transaction with an Unaffiliated Provider for a lower fee or spread than would be available through a counterparty unaffiliated with the Fund.

4. Applicants submit that the conditions applicable to each Affiliated Protection Arrangement will ensure that such arrangement will be reasonable and fair to each Fund and that no AIG Affiliate will be able to engage in overreaching. Applicants state that a Fund will not be able to participate in an Affiliated Protection Arrangement until after a bidding process has been completed in which the Fund receives at least two bona fide final bids for Principal Protection from an Unaffiliated Provider not seeking to hedge with an AIG Affiliate, and that an AIG Affiliate will not have an unfair advantage over other bidders in winning the bid. A Fund may not accept a bid or subsequently enter into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement unless it has been approved by the Fund's Board, including a majority of Independent Trustees, who must determine that entering into the Affiliated Protection Arrangement is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders and meets the standards specified in section 17(b) of the Act. In addition, applicants state that if a Fund enters into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, the Fund's Board will establish a Committee to represent the Fund's interests if a Protection Event should occur. Lastly, applicants state that the Board will approve the Approved Shortfall Amount to be submitted for payment to the Affiliated Protection Provider and that the Fund will not accept a lesser amount in settlement of its claim without a further Commission exemptive order.

5. Applicants submit that an Affiliated Protection Arrangement will be consistent with the policies of each Fund, as recited its registration statement. Applicants further submit that an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, subject to the conditions set forth in the application, will be consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act and will be in the best interests of each Fund and its shareholders.

1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally prohibit any affiliated person of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of, or principal underwriter, acting as principal, from effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or other arrangement or profit-sharing plan in which the investment company participates, unless an application regarding the joint transaction has been filed with the Commission and granted by order. Under rule 17d-1, in passing upon such applications, the Commission considers whether the participation of the registered investment company in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different or less advantageous than that of other participants.

2. Applicants state that the fee paid to an AIG Affiliate pursuant to an Affiliated Protection Arrangement (either by the Fund directly under a Protection Agreement or indirectly through a Hedging Transaction) may be deemed to involve a joint enterprise or joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 because an AIG Affiliate may be in control of, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser of a Fund, and the AIG Affiliate's compensation as the Protection Provider or Hedging Counterparty will be based on the Fund's assets. In addition, the AIG Affiliate might make a profit or suffer a loss depending on the performance of the Fund. Applicants also state that an Affiliated Protection Arrangement could be deemed to involve a joint enterprise or joint arrangement because of the coordination and possible ongoing negotiations between a Fund and an AIG Affiliate in managing the Fund's risk exposure. 9 Applicants thus request an order pursuant to section 17(d) and rule 17d-1.

3. Applicants state that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid overreaching by and unfair advantage to insiders. Applicants submit that the conditions proposed in the application will ensure that a Fund and its shareholders are treated fairly and not taken advantage of by an AIG Affiliate. Applicants submit that a Fund and its shareholders will benefit from the participation of an AIG Affiliate in an Affiliated Protection Arrangement. For these reasons, applicants state that the proposed arrangement satisfies the standards of section 17(d) and rule 17d-1.

Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to recommending to the Board that a Fund enter into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, the Adviser will conduct a competitive bidding process in which the Adviser solicits bids on at least three Protection Agreements that would not constitute Affiliated Protection Arrangements. At a reasonable amount of time prior to the date bids are to be submitted, the Adviser will solicit bids by supplying prospective bidders with a bid invitation letter that includes any requirement for a potential Protection Provider (and its parent guarantor, if any) to include audited financial statements in the Fund's registration statement, a copy of the relevant sections of a draft prospectus of the Fund, and a term sheet containing the principal terms of a proposed Protection Agreement. Initial bids will be due at the same time, and no bidder will have access to any competing bids prior to its own submission. After initial bids are received, the Adviser will negotiate in good faith with each of the bidders to obtain more favorable terms for the Fund. During these negotiations, all bidders will have access to equal information about competing bids. At the end of this process, all bidders who wish to participate will submit final bids. All such final bids will be due at the same time, and no bidder will be permitted to change its final bid once submitted. After the final bids are submitted, no bidder, including an AIG Affiliate, will have access to any competing bids until after the Protection Agreement is entered into by the Fund. A Fund may not enter into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement unless two bona fide final bids have been received for Protection Agreements that would not constitute Affiliated Protection Arrangements.

2. If the Adviser recommends that the Board approve an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, the Adviser must provide the Board with an explanation of the basis for its recommendation and a summary of the material terms of any bids that were rejected.

3. The Fund's Board, including a majority of Independent Trustees, must approve the acceptance of a bid involving an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, as well as the general terms of the proposed Protection Agreement. In evaluating the final bids and the recommendations from the Adviser, the Board will consider, among other things: (i) The fee rate to be charged by a potential Protection Provider; (ii) the structure and potential limitations of the proposed Principal Protection arrangement and any legal, regulatory or tax implications of such arrangement; (iii) the credit rating (if any) and financial condition of the potential Protection Provider (and, if applicable, its parent guarantor), including any ratings assigned by any NRSRO; and (iv) the experience of the potential Protection Provider in providing Principal Protection, including in particular to registered investment companies. If the Affiliated Protection Arrangement approved by the Board does not reflect the lowest fee submitted in a proposal to provide the Principal Protection, the Board will reflect in its minutes the reasons why the higher cost option was selected.

4. Upon the conclusion of the Adviser's negotiations of the Affiliated Protection Arrangement, including the Protection Agreement, the Fund's Board, including a majority of Independent Trustees, must approve the final Protection Agreement and determine that the terms of the final Affiliated Protection Arrangement, as so finalized, are not materially different from the terms of the accepted bid. The Board, including a majority of its Independent Trustees, will also determine that entering into the Affiliated Protection Arrangement is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders and meets the standards specified in section 17(b) of the Act. The Board will reflect these findings and their basis in its minutes.

5. If an AIG Affiliate is chosen as the Protection Provider or Hedging Counterparty, it will not charge a higher fee for its Protection Agreement or Hedging Transaction than it would charge for similar agreements or transactions for unaffiliated parties that are similarly situated to the Fund. Any AIG Affiliate acting as Hedging Counterparty will not be directly compensated by the Fund and the Fund will not be a party to any Hedging Transaction.

6. In the event the Fund enters into an Affiliated Protection Arrangement, the Board will establish a Committee, a majority of whose members will be Independent Trustees, to represent the Fund in any negotiations relating to a Protection Event. If a Protection Event occurs under the Protection Agreement or if the Adviser decides to attempt to cure the circumstances leading to a Protection Event pursuant to the terms of the Protection Agreement, the Adviser will notify the Committee as soon as practicable, and, absent special circumstances, before a decision is reached by the Protection Provider and the Adviser as to how to effect any cure. All Protection Events will be brought to the attention of the full Board at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.

7. The Adviser will present a report to the Board, at least quarterly, comparing the actual asset allocation of the Fund's portfolio with the allocation required under the Protection Agreement, describing any Protection Events, and summarizing any negotiations that were the subject of the previous condition.

8. At the conclusion of the Protection Period, the Adviser of a Fund will report to the Fund's Board any Shortfall Amount potentially covered under an Affiliated Protection Arrangement (including, for this purpose, the amount of any required Adviser Payment). The Board, including a majority of Independent Trustees, will evaluate the Shortfall Amount and will determine the amount of the Approved Shortfall Amount under the Protection Agreement to be submitted to the Protection Provider. The Fund will not settle any claim under the Protection Agreement for less than the full Approved Shortfall Amount determined by the Board without obtaining a further exemptive order from the Commission.

9. Prior to a Fund's reliance on the order, the Fund's Board will satisfy the fund governance standards as defined in rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act, except that the Independent Trustees must be represented by independent legal counsel within the meaning of rule 0-1 under the Act.

10. The Adviser, under the supervision of the Board, will maintain sufficient records to verify compliance with the conditions of the order. Such records will include, without limitation: (i) An explanation of the basis upon which the Adviser selected prospective bidders; (ii) a list of all bidders to whom a bid invitation letter was sent and copies of the bid invitation letters and accompanying materials; (iii) copies of all initial and final bids received, including the winning bid; (iv) records of the negotiations with bidders between their initial and final bids; (v) the materials provided to the Board in connection with the Adviser's recommendation regarding the Protection Agreement; (vi) the final price and terms of the Protection Agreement with an explanation of the reason the arrangement is considered an Affiliated Protection Arrangement; and (vii) records of any negotiations with the Protection Providers related to the occurrence of a Protection Event and the satisfaction of any obligations under a Protection Agreement. All such records will be maintained for a period ending not less than six years after the conclusion of the Protection Period, the first two years in an easily accessible place, and will be available for inspection by the staff of the Commission.

THe FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Monroe Regional Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21.

On January 10, 2005, the FAA determined that the request to release property at Monroe Regional Airport submitted by the City of Monroe met the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations, part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than February 14, 2005.

The following is a brief overview of the request:

The City of Monroe, Louisiana, requests the release of 1.0 acre of airport property. The release of property will allow for construction of a new facility to house a radio station and office space for Media Ministries, Inc., to proceed. The sale is estimated to provide $33,000.00 whereas the proceeds will go for construction of various projects to include but not limited to a Department of Environmental Quality-approved washrack for aircraft and/or airport equipment, fencing to prevent entrance of wildlife and dump truck for maintenance of safety and drainage areas.

Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Monroe Regional Airport, Monroe, Louisiana.

On October 25, 2002, the FAA published a final rule in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 136, National Parks Air Tour Management (67 FR 65662) to fulfill the mandate of The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act), enacted on April 5, 2000. This final rule (part 136) completed the definition of “commercial air tour operation” by establishing the altitude (5,000 feet above ground level) below which an operator flying over a national park for the purpose of sightseeing would be classified as a commercial air tour operator. The rule also codified provisions of the Act. In accordance with 14 CFR 136.7(b), before commencing commercial air tour operations over a unit of the national park system, or tribal lands within or abutting a national park, a commercial air tour operator is required to apply to the Administrator for authority to conduct the operations over the park or tribal lands. Title 14 CFR 136.11(a) states that upon application, the Administrator shall grant interim operating authority (IOA) to a commercial air tour operator for commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal land for which the operator is an existing commercial air tour operator. Consistent with the Act, 14 CFR 136.11(b)(3) also states that IOAs granted under that section would be published in the Federal Register to provide notice and opportunity for comment.

Based on information received from multiple sources and our own review, the FAA believes there may be some errors in the number of commercial air tours initially reported. Consequently, prior to issuing this required notice, the FAA wants to provide an opportunity for air tour operators to review and correct, if necessary, the FAA's current IOA database. There are several reasons why errors could have unintentionally occurred, such as: (1) Operators were not required to keep records of the number of commercial air tours conducted over national parks prior to the adoption of the Act; (2) there was a 2 1/2 -year time lapse between the passage of the Act and the effective date of the rule; and (3) there appears to have been confusion over how to report information, especially for operators flying over more than one park. With regard to the third reason, a number of operators reported operations for more than one park by stating the number of total flights and then listing the parks separately. This alone may have led to over-reporting the number of commercial air tours over national parks.

Thus, the FAA has issued individual letters to each operator in the FAA's Air Tour database notifying them that they should confirm and correct if necessary, their allocation numbers for each park by February 21, 2005. If the operator notices that the number of allocations granted over a park as shown in their operations specifications is incorrect, they should notify the FAA by letter or e-mail of the correct amount. Self-correcting letters may be sent to Gene Kirkendall, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200W, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or e-mailed to Gene Kirkendall@faa.gov. There is no penalty for self-correcting. Any operator not receiving an individual letter from the FAA is hereby noticed through publication that they should confirm their commercial air tour interim operating authority allocations. Operators also should notify the contact person in this notice if they did not receive an individual letter. Operators not submitting a change will be deemed to have confirmed the number originally reported to the FAA and issued as IOAs.

When confirming status and the number of flights issued for each operator, please keep in mind the following principles:

(1) Only operators that conducted operations at any time during the 12-month period prior to April 5, 2000 (the date of enactment of the Act), qualify as existing operators. Only operators reporting to us as existing operators should have received IOA. In situations where an operator has a question about its existing operator status, it should contact its local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and receive confirmation from the FSDO as to its status. The FAA has received several questions regarding corporations that qualified as existing air tour operators and then experienced a change in business management during the time lapse. Whether these operators qualify as existing operators will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the FAA.

(2) The number to be published in the Federal Register must reflect only the number of commercial air tour flights conducted by an operator over a particular park within either (1) the 12-month period prior to April 5, 2000; or (2) the average number of flights per 12-month period for the 3-year period prior to April 5, 2000, and for seasonal operations, the number of flights so used during the season or seasons covered by that 12-month period. The number should not include desired increases above the allowed historical number of new entrant requests. Operators should not have received increases or new entrant authority through this IOA grant. Such requests will be handled through a separate process by FAA and the National Park Service.

(3) Operators should receive an IOA that reflects the actual number of commercial air tours that were conducted during the relevant time period set forth in the statute and the rule. Operators needing to self-correct should identify each park and the number of flights for each park, including whether the flight was part of a circuit, and if so, what parks were included in that circuit. For instance, operators flying over more than one park between takeoff and landing should identify those flights as circuit tours. Thus, if the operator flew over three parks during the same flight (takoff to landing) in 100 flights, then the operator should specify this to the best of its ability. If the operator flew 100 flights with each flight going over one park of three different authorized parks, then the operator should so specify.

Operators are hereby notified that after February 21, 2005, the FAA will prepare a final listing of all existing commercial air tour operators receiving IOAs and the number of flights per park and publish the revised list in the Federal Register for comment, as required by statute. If comments are received in response to that publication that provide substantive information that an operator does not qualify under the law as an existing operator or has erroneously reported the number of flights flown over a park, the FAA may investigate and take corrective action, if necessary, to bring the operator into compliance with the law.

As operator reexamine their records for confirmation in response to this letter, they are encouraged to keep supporting information in their files in case questions subsequently arise that merit investigation. Operators may voluntarily provide such supporting information at this time to FAA but are not required to do so.

The IOA information provided to the FAA will be used solely to determine and confirm the appropriate allocation for IOAs and will not be used to determine noise impacts to national park resources.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Pellston Regional Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On January 7, 2005, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Pellston Regional Airport was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than April 7, 2005.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Proposed charge effective date: July 1, 2011.

Proposed charge expiration date: July 1, 2013.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $280,750.

Brief description of proposed projects: Apron Expansion to the North, Terminal Area Drainage Improvements, Reconstruction of Apron, Animal Control/Security Fencing, Parking Lot Rehabilitation and Reconfiguration, Snow Removal Equipment, Land Acquisition for Ely Road, Relocation of Ely Road, Master Plan Study, Purchase Generator, Apron Expansion to the South, and Expansion of Terminal Building.

Class or classes of air carriers, which the public agency has requested, not be required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/Commercial Service Operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Pellston Regional Airport.

The FHWA in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for potential improvements to the United States Border Plaza at the Blue Water Bridge. Invitations are being sent to other Federal agencies to become cooperating agencies in the development of the environmental impact statement for he subject project.

The Blue Water Bridge is a major passenger and commercial border crossing between the United States and Canada and is the termination point for I-94/I-69 in the United States and for Highway 402 in Canada. MDOT owns and operates the Blue Water Bridge in conjunction with the Canadian Blue Water Bridge Authority (BWBA). MDOT also owns and operates the Blue Water Bridge Border Plaza. Several agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operate on the United States Plaza. These agencies are responsible for inspecting vehicles, goods, and people entering the United States and include: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The inspection agencies lease facilities on the United States Plaza from MDOT through the General Services Administration (GSA), which serves as the Federal-leasing agent. MDOT collects tolls from vehicles departing the United States for Canada on the plaza.

The study area is located within the City of Port Huron and Port Huron Township. The study area consists of approximately 30 blocks (195 acres) of urban land use surrounding the existing plaza and ramps, and its extends to the west along I-94/I-69 for approximately 2.2 miles. The study areas includes the existing plaza, the Black River Bridge, the Water Street interchange, and locations for off-site inspection facilities, located north of I-94/I-69 and west of the Water Street interchange.

In September 2002, this project started as an Environmental Assessment (EA) and has proceeded through the scoping phase, Purpose and Need documentation, and alternatives development. Two resource agency meetings and three public information meetings were held during this time. As a result of identified potentially significant impacts, FHWA and MDOT have concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement should be completed.

A range of plaza and transportation improvement alternatives will be analyzed within the recommended study area. Reasonable alternatives under consideration include: (1) Taking no-action, (2) expanding the existing plaza location in the City of Port Huron, and (3) Relocating the major plaza functions to off-site plaza location in Port Huron township.

Agencies and citizen involvement will continue to be solicited throughout this process. A public meeting and a public hearing will be held on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearing. The DEIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments of questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

Title: Voluntary Child Safety Seat Registration Form.

OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.

Type of Request: Renewal of an Existing Collection of Information.

Abstract: Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States provides that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment contain a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or fail to comply with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, the manufacturer must notify owners and purchasers of the defect or noncompliance and must provide a remedy without charge. Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 577, defect and noncompliance notification for equipment items, including child restraint systems (CRS), must be sent by first class mail to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. To increase the likelihood that CRS manufacturers will be aware of the identity of purchasers, NHTSA adopted S5.8 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, to require manufacturers to include a postage-paid form with each CRS so the purchaser can register with the manufacturer. In addition to the registration form supplied by the manufacturer, NHTSA has implemented a CRS registration system to assist those individuals who have either lost the registration form that came with the CRS or purchased a previously owned CRS. In the absence of a registration system, many owners of child passenger safety seats would not be notified of safety defects and noncompliance issues, and would not have the defects and noncompliance issues remedied, because the manufacturer would not be aware of their identities.

Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 567 hours.

Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

NHTSA began to evaluate the effectiveness of its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in 1975. By October 2004, NHTSA had evaluated the effectiveness of virtually all the life-saving technologies introduced in passenger cars or in light trucks (including pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans) from about 1960 up through the later 1990's. A statistical model estimates the number of lives saved from 1960 to 2002 by the combination of these life-saving technologies. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data for 1975-2002 document the actual crash fatalities in vehicles that, especially in recent years, include many safety technologies. Using NHTSA's published effectiveness estimates, the model estimates how many people would have died if the vehicles had not been equipped with any of the safety technologies. In addition to equipment meeting specific FMVSS, the model tallies lives saved by installations in advance of the FMVSS, back to 1960, and by non-compulsory improvements, such as the redesign of mid and lower instrument panels. FARS data have been available since 1975, but an extension of the model allows estimates of lives saved in 1960-1974.

Vehicle safety technologies saved an estimated 328,551 lives from 1960 through 2002. The annual number of lives saved grew quite steadily from 115 in 1960, when a small number of people used lap belts, to 24,561 in 2002, when most cars and light trucks were equipped with numerous modern safety technologies and belt use on the road achieved 75 percent.

NHTSA likewise began to evaluate the cost of the FMVSS in 1975. Detailed engineering “teardown” analyses for representative samples of vehicles estimate how much specific FMVSS add to the weight and the retail price of a vehicle. This process is also known as “reverse engineering.” By July 2004, NHTSA had evaluated virtually all the cost- and weight-adding technologies introduced by 2001 in passenger cars or in light trucks in response to the FMVSS. The agency estimated the cost and weight added by all the FMVSS, and by each individual FMVSS, to model year 2001 passenger cars and light trucks, and also in all earlier model years, back to 1968. NHTSA estimates that the FMVSS added an average of $839 (in 2002 dollars) and 125 pounds to the average passenger car in model year 2001. Approximately four percent of the cost and four percent of the weight of an average new passenger car could be attributed to the FMVSS. An average of $711 (in 2002 dollars) and 86 pounds was added to the average light truck in model year 2001. Approximately three percent of the cost and two percent of the weight of an average new truck could be attributed to the FMVSS.

NHTSA has evaluated both the life-saving benefits and the consumer cost for a substantial “core” group of safety technologies for passenger cars and light trucks. In 2002, these technologies added an estimated $11,353,000,000 (in 2002 dollars) to the cost of new cars and light trucks of that model year. They saved an estimated 20,851 lives in the cars and light trucks on the road during that calendar year. That amounts to $544,482 per life saved in 2002.

NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report and invites reviewers to submit comments about the data and the statistical methods used in the analyses. NHTSA will submit to the Docket a response to the comments and, if appropriate, additional analyses that supplement or revise the technical report.

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number of this document (NHTSA-2005-20132) in your comments.

Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management, submit them electronically, fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The mailing address is U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. If you submit your comments electronically, log onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov and click on “Help” to obtain instructions. The fax number is 1-202-493-2251. To use the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

We also request, but do not require you to send a copy to Charles Kahane, Evaluation Division, NPO-131, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5208, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (alternatively, fax to (202) 366-2559 or e-mail to ckahane@nhtsa.dot.gov ). He can check if your comments have been received at the Docket and he can expedite their review by NHTSA.

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC-01, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically.

In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:

A. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation ( http://dms.dot.gov ).

B. On that page, click on “Simple Search.”

C. On the next page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm/ ) type in the five-digit Docket number shown at the beginning of this Notice (20132). Click on “Search.”

D. On the next page, which contains Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments.

Through its investigation, RSPA believes that an undetermined number of DOT specifications cylinders owned by the Smiths may have been marked as having been requalified in accordance with the HMR, without being properly requalifed by an authorized retest facility. The HMR require that a cylinder requalification facility hold a current Retester Identification Number (RIN) issued by RSPA. The Smiths have never applied for or received a RIN, therefore they are not an authorized cylinder requalification facility.

Cylinders in the Smiths' possession were marked as having been requalified years after the corresponding RIN numbers had expired. RINs that expire and are not renewed by the authorized holder are never reissued to any other party. So far, RSPA discovered at least four examples of expired RIN markings during the course of its investigation. These RINs are as follows: (1) RIN B773, which expired on August 28, 1995 and was not renewed by the RIN holder, was marked on a cylinder represented as having been requalified in June 1999 and on a cylinder represented as having been requalified in July 1999; (2) RIN B775, which expired on December 4, 1991 and was not renewed, was marked on a cylinder represented as having been requalified in August 1999; (3) RIN B872, which expired on July 31, 1995 and was not renewed, was marked on cylinders represented as having been requalified in May 2000, May 2001, July 2001 and January 2002; and (4) A012, which expired on November 7, 1998 and was not renewed, was marked on a cylinder represented as having been requalified in September 1999.

The RIN and date of retest are marked on the shoulders of cylinders in the following pattern:

M is the month of retest ( e.g. , 12), and Y is the year of the retest ( e.g. , 04).

A RIN is read in a clockwise manner. For example, the above RIN pattern is for RIN A803.

This safety advisory covers all high-pressure DOT specification cylinders obtained from the Smiths or serviced by the Smiths at any time in the past. These cylinders may pose a safety risk to the public and should be considered unsafe for use in hazardous materials service until requalified by an authorized retest facility. Furthermore, cylinders described in this safety advisory must not be filled with a hazardous material unless the cylinders are first properly retested by an authorized retest facility. A list of authorized requalification facilities sorted by state or by RIN number may be obtained at RSPA's Web site: http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/approvals/hydro/hydro_retesters.htm .

Under 49 U.S.C. 13703, the Board may authorize motor carriers (including motor carriers of passengers and household goods) to enter into “bureau” agreements for the collective establishment of rates, fares, classifications, and certain ancillary activities. Board authorization immunizes activities taken under the approved agreements from the antitrust laws. Under section 13703(c), the Board must, every 5 years, institute a proceeding to review the motor carrier bureau agreements previously approved under section 13703 and shall change the conditions of approval of an agreement or terminate it when necessary to protect the public interest. Invoking this provision in a notice served on December 13, 2004, and published in the Federal Register at 69 FR 75597 on December 17, 2004, the Board commenced the statutorily required review proceeding.

In its notice, the Board expressed a desire to update its records as to which bureaus are still operating. The Board stated that its records indicate that approvals for the agreements of the following bureaus have expired for lack of timely compliance with the conditions on renewal imposed by the Board during the prior review cycle:  1 Machinery Haulers Association, Inc.; Motor Carriers Traffic Association; Nationwide Bulk Trucking Association, Inc.; New England Motor Rate Bureau; and Willamette Tariff Bureau, Inc. The Board asked each affected bureau to notify the agency if its records are incorrect.

On December 29, 2004, two of the aforementioned bureaus—the Nationwide Bulk Trucking Association, Inc., and the Machinery Haulers Association, Inc.—filed information showing that the Board's prior assessment of their compliance status was incorrect and that, therefore, Board authorization of their bureau agreements has not expired. By this notice, the Board is notifying the public that its records have been corrected to show that the antitrust immunity for these bureaus continues in force.

Concerning the extension of the deadlines for comments, the Board is taking this action at the request of the National Motor Freight Traffic Association and its subsidiary, the National Classification Committee, by motion filed on January 6, 2005. They state that the extension is necessary to provide sufficient time to make sure that their comments properly reflect the views of their members.

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

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below:

Title: Financial Institution Agreement and Application Forms for Designation as a Treasury Tax and Loan Depositary and Resolution.

OMB Number: 1510-0052.

Form Number: FMS 458 and FMS 459.

Abstract: Financial institutions are required to complete an Agreement and Application to participate in the Federal Tax Deposit/Treasury Tax and Loan Program. The approved application designates the depositary as an authorized recipient of taxpayers' deposits for Federal taxes.

Current Actions: Extension of currently approved collection.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 450.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 225.

Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information.

Information in this system of records is used to furnish administrative and clinical statistical procurement and prescription information, including total cost and summary of activity, including equipment usage, data to VA and other health care providers, both Federal and non-Federal, to aid in furthering the improvement of health care, research and education. The National Prosthetic Patient Database (NPPD) will generate data to provide ad-hoc reporting for clinical and management departments; provide insight into stations' purchasing practices and utilization of contracts; improve budget management; conduct reviews of prescribing practices/best practices; help to develop consistency in the way that service is provided; and help to establish consistent policies and procedures.

VA is amending the following routine use disclosures of information to be maintained in the system:

• Routine use number one (1) is being amended in its entirety. VA must be able to disclose information within its possession on its own initiative that pertains to a violation of law to the appropriate authorities in order for them to investigate and enforce those laws. VA may disclose the names and home addresses of veterans and their dependents only to Federal entities with law enforcement responsibilities under 38 U.S.C. 5701(a) and (f). Accordingly, VA has so limited this routine use as follows:

The Privacy Act permits VA to disclose information about individuals without their consent for a routine use when the information will be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which we collected the information. In the routine use disclosure described above, the recipient of the information will use the information in connection with a matter relating to one of VA's programs or to provide a benefit to VA, or, alternatively, disclosure is required by law or would permit VA to notify appropriate entities about conduct of individuals in this system of records.

Under section 264, Subtitle F of Title II of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. 104-191, 100 Stat. 1936, 2033-34 (1996), the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final rule, as amended, establishing Standards for Privacy of Individually-Identifiable Health Information, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. VHA may not disclose individually-identifiable health information (as defined in HIPAA, 42 U.S.C. 1320(d)(6), and corresponding Privacy Rule, 45 CFR 164.501) pursuant to a routine use unless either: (a) The disclosure is required by law, or (b) the disclosure is also permitted or required by the HHS Privacy Rule. The disclosures of individually-identifiable health information contemplated in the routine uses published in this amended system of records notice are permitted under the Privacy Rule. However, to also have authority to make such disclosures under the Privacy Act, VA must publish these routine uses. Consequently, VA is publishing these routine uses and is adding a preliminary paragraph to the routine uses portion of the system of records notice stating that any disclosure pursuant to the routine uses in this system of records notice must be either required by law or permitted by the Privacy Rule before VHA may disclose the covered information.

The Report of Intent to Publish an Amended System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB, 61 FR 6428, (Feb. 20, 1996).