This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the January 18, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 2844), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the State of California to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by February 17, 2005.

There were four applicants for the State of California: Farwell Commodity and Grain Services, Inc. (Farwell Southwest) an official agency designated effective April 1, 2005; a company proposing to do business as California Agri Inspection Co., Ltd. (California Agri) with the parent company of Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co., Ltd.; California Grain Inspection Services (California Grain), a partnership owned by Robert Chavez and Tim A. Walters; and Imperial Grain Inspection Service (Imperial) a partnership owned by Tim A. Walters and Debra J. Walters. Each applied for designation to provide official services in all or part of the entire area named in the January 18, 2005, Federal Register.

GIPSA asked for comments on Farwell Southwest, California Agri, California Grain, and Imperial, in the March 10, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 11933) and specified the geographic areas for which they had applied for designation. Imperial subsequently withdrew their application for designation.

Comments were due by April 11, 2005. GIPSA received six comments supporting the designation of California Grain, three comments supporting the designation of California Agri, and two comments supporting the designation of Imperial by the closing date.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Farwell Southwest and California Agri are better able to provide official services in the portions of the geographic area specified below. The geographic area specified in this document includes additional area for which Farwell Southwest and California Agri applied, as both applicants indicated they would be willing to accept more or less area in order to provide needed services to all requestors, and it was GIPSA's desire to designate the entire State.

Effective May 16, 2005, and terminating March 31, 2008, concurrent with their present designation, Farwell Southwest is designated, pursuant to section (7)(2) of the Act, for the following geographic area:

Bounded on the north by the northern San Luis Obispo, Kings, Fresno, Merced, Madera, and Inyo County lines east to the California State line;

Bounded on the east by the eastern California State line south to the southern California State line;

Bounded on the south by the southern California State line west to the western California State line;

Bounded on the west by the western California State line north to the northern San Luis Obispo County line, excluding those export port locations served by GIPSA.

Interested persons may obtain official services by calling Farwell Southwest's headquarters in Casa Grande, Arizona, at telephone number 520-421-1027.

Effective June 1, 2005, and terminating December 31, 2006, California Agri is designated, pursuant to section (7)(2) of the Act, in the following geographic area:

Bounded on the north by the California State line east to the eastern California State line;

Bounded on the east by the eastern California State line south to the southern Mono County line;

Bounded on the south by the southern Mono, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Monterey County lines west to the western California State line;

Bounded on the west by the western California State line north to the northern California State line, excluding those export port locations served by GIPSA.

Interested persons may obtain official services by calling California Agri's headquarters in West Sacramento, California, at telephone number 916-375-5809.

On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea. See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). Based on adequate responses from the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting expedited sunset reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy. The Department's final results of these reviews were scheduled for May 3, 2005; however, the Department needs additional time for its analysis.

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department may extend the period of time for making its final determination in a sunset review by not more than 90 days, if it determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in 751(c)(5)(C), the Department may, among other reasons, treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if: (i) There are a large number of issues, (ii) the issues to be considered are complex or (iii) there are a large number of firms involved. In these proceedings, one or more of these reasons apply. Specifically, the sunset reviews of the four countervailing duty orders on CTL plate contain a large number of complex issues, including privatization, directed credit and section 129 implementation, while the sunset reviews of the six antidumping duty orders include complex issues related to the appropriate margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked and, in some instances, involve a large number of companies. The Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C) of the Act that the sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders of CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea are extraordinarily complicated and require additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. Therefore, the Department will extend the deadlines in these proceedings, and, as a result, intends to issue the final results of the sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders of CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea on or about August 1, 2005, 90 days from the original scheduled date of the final results of these reviews. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and (C) of the Act.

On June 18, 1998, the Department published Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998), as amended by Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 40878 (July 31, 1998) (collectively AFBs 8), which covered the period of review (POR) May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof.

FAG Italia S.p.A., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearings Corporation appealed the Department's decisions in AFBs 8. In FAG Italia S.p.A., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearings Corporation v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (CIT August 4, 2000) (FAG-Barden), the CIT ordered a remand concerning the margin the Department determined for BBs from the United Kingdom covered by AFBs 8.

In FAG-Barden, the CIT remanded AFBs 8 to the Department to disregard The Torrington Company's below-cost sales allegation and to recalculate the dumping margin without regard to the results of the below-cost sales test. This remand affected Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation, and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively, Barden) directly with respect to the antidumping duty order on BBs from the United Kingdom for the POR.

On November 2, 2000, the Department filed its final results of redetermination with the CIT. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand in FAG-Barden (November 2, 2000) (Remand Results). In its redetermination, the Department disregarded The Torrington Company's below-cost allegation and recalculated the dumping margin with respect to Barden and, as a result, Barden's weighted-average margin for the POR changed from 6.63 percent to 5.06 percent with respect to BBs. On January 9, 2001, the CIT affirmed the Department's Remand Results in their entirety. See FAG Italia S.p.A, Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearing Corporation v. the United States, Court No. 98-07-02528, Slip. Op. 01-1 (CIT January 9, 2001).

FAG Italia S.p.A, Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation, and FAG Bearing Corporation (the plaintiffs) and The Torrington Corporation (defendant-intervenor) appealed the CIT's remand affirmation but later filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) motions to sever and dismiss their appeals voluntarily.

On February 12, 2004, the CAFC granted the plaintiffs' and the defendant-intervenor's motions to dismiss their appeals.

As there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to the company affected by this remand order directly, we are amending our final results of review for this company and we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate the relevant entries subject to this review in accordance with our remand results.

We are now amending the final results of the 1996-1997 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on BBs from the United Kingdom to reflect a revised weighted-average margin for Barden. We determine that a revised weighted-average margin of 5.06 percent exists for Barden on BBs from the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997.

Accordingly, the Department will determine and CBP will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise produced by the affected company. Individual differences between U.S. price and foreign market value may vary from the above percentage. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Background:

On January 14, 2005, Mittal, requested that the Department determine that it had become the successor-in-interest of Ispat, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3). On March 9, 2005, the Department this investigation. See Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 70 FR 11612 (Initiation Notice). On March 25, 2005, the Department issued Ispat/Mittal a questionnaire requesting further details on Mittal's successor-in-interest claims. The company's response was received by the Department on April 1, 2005.

For purposes of the order, the products covered are Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Initiation Notice.

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 (January 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 (March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 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.

In its submission to the Department, dated April 1, 2005, Mittal provided documentation supporting its contention that Mittal was functionally the same company as the former Ispat. According to Mittal, Ispat changed its name to Mittal Canada Inc. to align worldwide corporate names of the Mittal Steel Company. Evidence on the record indicates that Ispat's ultimate parent company, Ispat International N.V., purchased LNM Holdings, a holding company with interests in steel producers in Europe, Africa, and Asia. None of the LNM Holdings companies produced any steel in Canada.

We preliminarily find that no operational changes to Isapt/Mittal have occurred, or are planned, in terms the organizational structure, production facilities, management, customer base, or suppliers as a result of Ispat International N.V./Mittal Steel Company's acquiring LNM Holdings. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Mittal is the successor-in-interest to Ispat.

If the above preliminary results are affirmed in the Department's final results, the cash deposit rate most recently calculated for Ispat will apply to all entries of subject merchandise by Mittal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. See Granular Polytetraflouroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which Mittal participates.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs, must be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.

The Department will 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 of the Department's regulations.

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is certain corrosion-resistant steel, and includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)-- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

On March 21, 2005, the Department published the Final Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (subject merchandise) from Canada for the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. Dofasco alleged a ministerial error in the Department's programming with respect to the classification of Dofasco's U.S. sales as either Constructed Export Price (CEP) or Export Price (EP). In addition, we identified an inadvertent error in the Final Results regarding the timing of the issuance of assessment instructions.

First, we are amending our Final Results to correct a ministerial error alleged by Dofasco pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act. On March 29, 2005, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), Dofasco filed a timely allegation that the Department erred in its calculation of the antidumping duty margin by treating all of Dofasco's U.S. sales as CEP sales. Dofasco has four separate channels of U.S. sales. As indicated in the Final Results, the Department intended to classify Channels 1 and 4 as EP sales, and Channels 2 and 3 as CEP sales. However, Dofasco contends that the SAS code in the U.S. Sales program resulted in all four channels of U.S. sales being classified as CEP sales.

After reviewing Dofasco's allegation, we have determined that the alleged error is a ministerial error pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.244(f). We agree with Dofasco that the Department inadvertently used SAS language that resulted in the classification of all Dofasco's U.S. sales as CEP sales. Therefore, we have amended the SAS programming to correct an above-described ministerial error.

Second, in the “Assessment” section of the Final Results, the Department indicated that it would “issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.” The “within 15 days of publication” description is incorrect in the notice. Section 356.8 of the Department's regulations provides that the Department shall not order liquidation until the “forty-first day after the date of publication of the notice ...” following an administrative review of merchandise exported from Canada or Mexico. Accordingly, the Department will send assessment instructions to CBP “on or after the 41st day after publication.”

In the Final Results, the Department determined the antidumping margin for Dofasco to be 2.31 percent. As a result of correcting the ministerial error, the amended antidumping margin for Dofasco is 2.15 percent.

This correction is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“steel plate”) from Romania. See Order. Since publication, there have been eleven review periods, and three fully completed administrative reviews of this order. Sidex was a participant in all three reviews. In a letter dated March 14, 2005, Sidex advised the Department that on February 7, 2005, it changed its corporate name to Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“Mittal Steel”) and that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex. As such, Sidex requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review to confirm that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex for purposes of determining antidumping duty liabilities. Sidex also requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review on an expedited basis, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations. Petitioners provided no comments.

For purposes of the order, the products covered include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005).

Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty finding or order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Mittal Steel claiming that it is the successor-in-interest to Sidex demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. See 19 CFR 351.216(d).

In accordance with the above-referenced regulations, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex. In determining whether one company is the successor to another for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in (1) management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). While no one or several of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, the Department will generally consider one company to be a successor to another company if its resulting operation is similar to that of its predecessor. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992), and the attached Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 1 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 prior company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.

On March 14, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted information demonstrating that it is the successor to Sidex. Specifically, Mittal Steel provided the minutes to its January 10, 2005, “Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders” at which the name change was approved. In addition, Mittal Steel provided a copy of the new company registration certificate filed with the Trade Register Office of the Galati Tribunal on February 7, 2005, the decision of Galati Tribunal to allow the name change (notarized by a delegated, tribunal judge) and the certificate issued by the National Office of the Trade Registry, Romanian Ministry of Justice, which established that Sidex would adopt the Mittal Steel name and logo. See Request for Change Circumstances Review, dated March 14, 2005, at Exhibit 1.

We also obtained information in the context of the 2002-2003 review demonstrating that no major changes occurred with respect to Mittal Steel's management, plant facilities, customer base, or suppliers. See Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses for Sections A, B and C, submitted in the on-going 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, (A-485-803), dated November 5, 2005, and November 11, 2005, respectively. This information is currently on the record of this review and is on file in the Central Records Unit of the main Department of Commerce Building, Room B-099. We also noted that the headquarters remained the same and that Mittal Steel's suppliers and customers were consistent with the suppliers and customers it had in the previous review. 2

Mittal Steel provided excerpts from the 15th edition of Iron and Steel Works of the World, published in 2004, which details Sidex's production facilities, and also included a print-out from the Mittal Steel website (dated February 23, 2005), indicating that the production facilities have not changed location, nor the equipment used for the production of merchandise following the name change from Sidex to Mittal Steel. Mittal Steel states in its request for initiation that it is still part of the same corporate group to which Sidex belonged. As such, the affiliated parties of Sidex are the affiliated parties of Mittal Steel, which continues the same relationship with affiliated suppliers that Sidex had used. Similarly, the relationships with unaffiliated suppliers have not been altered as a consequence of the name change. The company provided reports identifying Mittal Steel's suppliers of raw materials for the production of subject merchandise from September to December 2004 (i.e., before the name change), and from January to February 28, 2005, and we noted no changes or alterations. See id at Exhibit 9. Finally, Mittal Steel attached a copy of a February 15, 2005, customer contract, where the company's name is amended in the contract, transferring legal rights and obligations of Sidex to Mittal Steel, and is signed by the customer. See id at Exhibit 10.

When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results for a changed circumstances review concurrently. See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). See also Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 69 FR 30878 (June 1, 2004). Based on the information on the record, we have determined that expedition of this changed circumstances review is warranted. In this case, we preliminarily find that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex and, as such, is entitled to Sidex's cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. 3

Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assign Mittal Steel the antidumping duty cash deposit rate applicable to Sidex.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 28 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and sections 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the Department's regulations.

On May 22, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Products From Canada, 67 FR 36070 (May 22, 2002). On May 28, 2004, we received a request from Seed Timber, a respondent company, for a new shipper review covering Seed Timber's shipments of subject merchandise. On June 30, 2004, we initiated a new shipper review for Seed Timber covering the review period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 (POR). See Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for the Period May 1, 2003, Through April 30, 2004, and Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review for the Period January 1, 2003, Through December 31, 2003, 69 FR 41229 (July 8, 2004).1

On August 10, 2004, we issued a questionnaire to Seed Timber. On September 30, 2004, Seed Timber submitted its questionnaire response. On October 26, 2004, we extended the period for the completion of the preliminary results pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review, 69 FR 63366 (November 1, 2004). On March 18, 2005, and March 24, 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires and received Seed Timber's questionnaire responses on April 7, 2005.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(a), this new shipper review covers only the exporter or producer for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this new shipper review only covers subject merchandise exported and produced by Seed Timber.

The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under subheadings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:

(1) Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;

(2) Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;

(3) Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and

(4) Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

As specifically stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 67 FR 15539 (April 2, 2002) (see comment 53, item D, page 116, and comment 57, item B-7, page 126), available at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber are covered by the scope of this order.

The following softwood lumber products are excluded from the scope of this order provided they meet the specified requirements detailed below:

(1) Stringers (pallet components used for runners): If they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.

(2) Box-spring frame kits: If they contain the following wooden pieces—two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length.

(3) Radius-cut box-spring-frame components, not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner.

(4) Fence pickets requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1” or less in actual thickness, up to 8″ wide, 6′ or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.

(5) U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met: (1) The processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and (2) if the importer establishes to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the lumber is of U.S. origin.

(6) Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits, 2 regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of this order if the importer certifies to items 6 A, B, C, D, and requirement 6 E is met:

A. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint;

B. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, sub floor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors, and if included in the purchase contract, decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint.

C. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;

D. Softwood lumber products entered as part of a single family home package or kit, whether in a single entry or multiple entries on multiple days, will be used solely for the construction of the single family home specified by the home design matching the entry.

E. For each entry, the following documentation must be retained by the importer and made available to CBP upon request:

i. A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry;

ii. A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer;

iii. A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered;

iv. In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed in E(iii) which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well.

Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.45.90, 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.97.40.

Finally, as clarified throughout the course of the investigation, the following products, previously identified as Group A, remain outside the scope of this order. They are:

1. Trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90;

2. I-joist beams;

3. Assembled box spring frames;

4. Pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4415.20;

5. Garage doors;

6. Edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40;

7. Properly classified complete door frames;

8. Properly classified complete window frames;

9. Properly classified furniture.

In addition, this scope language was further clarified to specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the countervailing duty order, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope.3 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada.

Seed Timber, located in the province of British Columbia, was incorporated in July 2001, and commenced active operations in September 2001. Seed Timber purchases logs from various suppliers and then rents either a sawmill or remanufacturing facility to custom cut the logs into softwood lumber products, which the company sells directly to customers in Canada and the United States. During the review period (i.e., calendar year 2003) Seed Timber purchased Western Red Cedar (WRC) Crown-origin logs from a number of suppliers. Until December 1, 2003, Seed Timber was affiliated with and cross-owned by Storey Creek Trading Ltd. (Storey Creek), a log broker, also located in British Columbia. Storey Creek reported that it does not and has never produced or exported the subject merchandise.

In the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004)) (Lumber IV First Review Final), we found the Government of British Columbia's (GOBC) stumpage program to be countervailable. Specifically, we found that the GOBC's stumpage program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a provision of a good within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act; is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the provincial stumpage subsidy program is used by a limited number of enterprises; and conferred benefits through the provision of a good for less than adequate remuneration under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act. In addition, we determined that the stumpage and log markets are closely intertwined and therefore Crown stumpage prices affect both stumpage and log prices. See Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Administrative Review of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (Lumber IV First Review Final Memorandum) (December 13, 2004) at 14. No new information has been provided in this review to warrant reconsideration of our earlier findings.

During the review period, Seed Timber purchased Crown-origin WRC logs. Because of the Department's prior findings that Crown logs are subsidized, we have reason to believe that those purchases may have provided Seed Timber with a “competitive benefit” within the meaning of section 771A(b) of the Act. Therefore, we undertook to evaluate whether a competitive benefit was, in fact, bestowed on Seed Timber.

To determine whether a competitive benefit exists, section 351.523(c)(1) of the CVD Regulations states that the Department will compare the price for the subsidized input product (i.e., logs) to a benchmark input price and outlines five benchmark input price alternatives in order of preference. Based on information available to the Department for these preliminary results, we are using, under tier (v) of the benchmark hierarchy,4 U.S. log prices for WRC as the appropriate benchmark input price. See the April 25, 2005, Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, concerning Benchmark Input Price Hierarchy, which is on file in the CRU. The U.S. log prices are from private transactions between log sellers and sawmills for logs harvested from private lands and are thus market-determined prices. Use of a U.S. log price benchmark is also consistent with our approach in the Lumber IV First Review Final Memorandum (see pages 16-18).

Specifically, we have selected U.S. Pacific Northwest log prices for WRC as an appropriate benchmark to evaluate whether a competitive benefit was bestowed on Seed Timber through the purchase of Crown-origin WRC from various B.C. log suppliers. We obtained U.S. log prices for WRC for calendar year 2003, from publicly available materials, which are on the record of this new shipper review. See the April 20, 2005, Memorandum to the File concerning U.S. Log Price Data.5

Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find that Seed Timber received a competitive benefit through its purchase of Crown-origin logs because the price paid for those logs was lower than the benchmark U.S. log price and that the subsidized logs (the only input product for the production of softwood lumber) had a significant effect on Seed Timber's cost of producing subject merchandise. Therefore, in accordance with section 771A of the Act, we preliminarily determine that Seed Timber received countervailable subsidies in 2003.

To calculate the countervailable benefit conferred on Seed Timber, we multiplied the calculated price differential between benchmark log price and the price Seed Timber paid for the Crown-origin logs by the volume of the Crown-origin logs purchased. We then expensed the total benefit bestowed on Seed Timber in the year of receipt, i.e., the year in which the logs were purchased and entered a sawmill for processing. As in Lumber IV First Review Final, we did not include in our calculation logs which Seed Timber acquired and resold without any processing (i.e., logs that did not enter a sawmill). Also, consistent with our approach in the expedited reviews, we calculated a subsidy rate which applies only to the softwood lumber produced by Seed Timber by dividing the benefit by the appropriate value of Seed Timber's sales (i.e., scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and softwood lumber by-products, net of resales). See, e.g., Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Expedited Review of Companies Covered by the May 8, 2003, Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review (March 9, 2004) at 3. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 2.22 percent ad valorem for Seed Timber.

Seed Timber and its previously affiliated company, Storey Creek, reported that they did not apply for, use, or benefit from the programs listed below; therefore, we preliminarily determine that neither company used these programs.

1. Grants, Loans, and Loan Guarantees Provided from Forest Renewal BC

2. Payments Associated with Tenure Reclamation

3. Land-Base Investment Program

4. Forestry Innovation Investment Program

5. Allowances for Harvesting Beetle-Infested Timber

6. Tax Breaks for Timber Harvesters on Private Timber Land

1. Non-Repayable Grants and Conditionally Repayable Contributions from the Department of Western Economic Diversification

2. Workers Assistance Packages

3. Softwood Marketing Subsidies

4. Litigation Related Payments to Lumber Trade Associations

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined an individual rate for the exporter or producer of the subject merchandise participating in this new shipper review. We preliminarily determine the total net countervailable subsidy rate to be:

If the final results of this new shipper review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP within 41 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate shipments of the subject merchandise produced or exported by Seed Timber entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, at 2.22 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 2.22 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from Seed Timber entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date of submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due.

The Department will issue and publish the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, or at a hearing, if requested within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results.

This review and notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The following documentation is the current contracting policy for surveying and mapping within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS): National Ocean Service, Contracting Policy for Surveying and Mapping Services, June 4, 1996.

A National Ocean Service (NOS) mission, as authorized by the Coast and Geodetic Survey Act of 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a-i)1 is to provide nautical and aeronautical charts and other information products that support safe navigation for marine and air commerce, and to establish and maintain a high precision national coordinate system to provide basic reference data products for engineering and scientific purposes in support of commerce and industry.

This mission encompasses those activities associated with the field collection of surveying and mapping data, the analysis and compilation of the data, and the dissemination of the data in useful products for the full public benefit. For the purposes of this policy, the term “surveying and mapping” is defined as including, but not limited to, the following activities; geodetic control, hydrography, photogrammetry, topography, remote sensing, geophysical (gravity, seismological, geomagnetic) measurements, tide and current observations, and specialized data compilation processes.

The Coast and Geodetic Survey Act also authorizes NOS to utilize state-of-the-art technology to improve the efficiency, as well as the scientific and engineering knowledge, of surveying and mapping activities.

NOS recognizes that qualified commercial sources can provide competent, professional, cost-effective surveying and mapping services to NOS in support of the above mission. In general, it is the intent of NOS to contract for mapping and surveying services when qualified commercial sources exist, and when such contracts are the most cost effective method of conducting these functions. This policy statement documents the framework and conditions under which contracting for surveying and mapping services will be employed to ensure an open, consistent, approach. To support this policy, NOS will maintain a dialogue with professional and business organizations and constituent groups.

It is NOS policy to procure surveying and mapping services from qualified commercial sources in accordance with Federal acquisition regulations and other applicable laws when such procurement is the most cost effective source, unless (l) A product or service is inherently governmental in nature; (2) there is no commercial source capable of providing a needed product or service to NOS at the required standard of performance, and at a price equal to or less than existing government services; (3) Government production, manufacture, or provision of a product or service is necessary for national defense; or, (4) the procured services cannot reasonably be quality controlled to ensure safety of navigation in the national airspace or coastal waters.

NOS surveying and mapping activities considered inherently governmental in nature include services necessary to: (l) Monitor the quality of NOS products; (2) promulgate and promote national technical standards and specifications; (3) conduct basic research and development and ensure the rapid transfer to the private sector of the technology derived therefrom; and (4) maintain the Federal geodetic and navigational data bases. To carry out the above activities, and to adequately monitor contracted services, NOS will maintain a core capability of field and office expertise.

NOS decisions regarding contracting will include consideration of factors such as (l) Sufficiency of resources appropriated to support national programs, (2) Federal laws, regulations, policies, and procedures governing contracting, and utilization of the private sector for commercial activities, (3) Federal laws, regulations, and collective bargaining agreements that ensure fair and equitable treatment for Federal employees, (4) availability of critical in-house technical and managerial capability needed to use commercial sources effectively, (5) Federal policies regarding the liability of independent contractors for their acts or inactions, and (6) Federal requirements to regulate and manage the national airspace and coastal waters.

In general, it is NOS policy to award contracts for surveying and mapping services in accordance with Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.) commonly known as the “Brooks Act”. NOS may, however, elect to employ other contracting methods in accordance with federal acquisition regulations and other applicable laws when conditions determine that alternative contracting methods best serve the Government's interest.

The Brooks Act enables the Government to contract for surveying and mapping services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services required, and at fair and reasonable prices. NOS has determined that the Brooks Act is the appropriate contract basis for surveying and mapping services because the professional nature of the services to be procured require that potential contractors have specialized technical expertise. Surveying and mapping services are of a highly technical nature, and it is critical that all activities, from collection through compilation be performed to high standards of accuracy and quality control to meet the NOS mission of accurate, reliable products. By employing the Brooks Act, NOS is able to utilize a selection process that places priority on potential contractors' qualifications and expertise.

To view the Brooks Act, Pub. L. 92-582 or the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act (which established the HSRP FAC), visit http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/archive/library.htm.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of 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 submission of responses.

Copies of Crop and Market Information Reports, OMB control number 3038-0015—Extension

The information collected pursuant to this rule, 17 CFR 140, is in the public interest and is necessary for market surveillance.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of 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 submission of responses.

Regulations Governing Bankruptcies of Commodity Brokers, OMB control number 3038-0021—Extension.

The information collected pursuant to this rule is intended to protect, to the extent possible, the property of the public in the case of the bankruptcy of a commodity broker.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIAK, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission assigned to the Joint Military Intelligence College.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Evaluation of the Impact of Teacher Induction Programs.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 8,515.

Burden Hours: 2,844.

Abstract: Data collection for impact evaluation of teacher induction programs. A sample of teachers are the primary respondents.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2689. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Bennie Jessup at her e-mail Bennie.Jessup@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 7, 2004 (69 FR 31818), 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. OEI-2004-0001, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket 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 Office of Environmental Information Docket 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: National Survey of Successful Waste Disposal Programs in Rural Areas in the United States.

Abstract: Under a USEPA grant, the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects (RFHEE) will conduct a survey of household waste disposal options. In conjunction with the Rural Community Assistance Program and the National Volunteer Fire Council, RFHEE will develop a targeted survey to find successful methods of household trash disposal in rural areas besides burning, which releases toxic chemicals into the environment. The Partners will conduct telephone interviews with 50 state, local, or tribal officials who have trash burning bans (25 states) or who are concerned about the issue. In addition, 50 volunteer firefighters will be surveyed. Another 400 private citizens who live in areas with trash burning issues or programs will also be surveyed. Each group will respond to the same survey questions. The purpose of the survey is to find alternative, economically-feasible options for disposal. The results of the survey will be available to the public. This survey will not be used for any federal regulatory purposes.

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 20 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: Government officials, fire fighters, and public citizens.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Frequency of Response: One-time response.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 167 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $734, which includes $0. annualized Capital Expense, $0 O&M costs, and $734 Respondent Labor costs.

Summary: The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee, in part to provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC PM Review Panel complies with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

This teleconference meeting is a continuation of the CASAC PM Review Panel's peer review of the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (second draft PM Staff Paper, January 2005); and a related draft technical support document, Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas: Second Draft Report (second draft PM Risk Assessment, January 2005).

Background: Under section 108 of the CAA, the Agency is required to establish NAAQS for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria, including PM. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. EPA is also to revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. The purpose of the second draft PM Staff Paper is to evaluate the policy implications of the key scientific and technical information contained in a related document, EPA's revised Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) for PM (October 2004), and to identify critical elements that EPA staff believes should be considered in the review of the PM NAAQS. The Staff Paper for PM is intended to “bridge the gap” between the scientific review contained in the PM AQCD and the public health and welfare policy judgments required of the Administrator in reviewing the PM NAAQS. The Agency's second draft PM Staff Paper and the second draft PM Risk Assessment were made available for public review and comment on January 31, 2005 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), within the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). Detailed summary information on these documents is contained in a previous EPA Federal Register notice (70 FR 5443, February 2, 2005).

Availability of Meeting Materials: The Panel's draft report from its review of the second draft PM Staff Paper and the second draft PM Risk Assessment will be posted on the SAB Web site at URL: http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casacpmpanel.html prior to this teleconference. In addition, a copy of the draft meeting agenda will be posted at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/agendas.htm in advance of this teleconference. The second draft PM Staff Paper and the second draft PM Risk Assessment can be accessed via EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html under “Staff Papers” and “Technical Documents,” respectively. Any questions concerning the second draft Staff Paper and the second draft PM Risk Assessment should be directed to Dr. Mary Ross, OAQPS, at phone: (919) 541-5170, or e-mail: ross.mary@epa.gov.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: It is the policy of the SAB Staff Office to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at its face-to-face meetings and teleconferences will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a CASAC meeting or teleconference is limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). However, no more than 30 minutes total will be allotted for oral public comments at this teleconference; therefore, the time allowed for each speaker's comments will be adjusted accordingly. In addition, for scheduling purposes, requests to provide oral comments must be in writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and received by Mr. Butterfield no later than noon Eastern Time five business days prior to the meeting in order to reserve time on the meeting agenda. Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office no later than noon Eastern Time five business days prior to the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the CASAC PM Review Panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to Mr. Butterfield (preferably via e-mail) at the address/contact information noted above, as follows: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

The ACBSA provides advice to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health on a broad range of policy issues regarding the collection, preparation, and distribution of blood and blood products, and regulations related to the transmission of communicable diseases. The range of policy issues that the ACBSA provides advice on includes: (1) Definition of public health parameters around safety and availability of blood supply; (2) broad public health, ethical and legal issues related to blood safety, and (3) the implications for blood safety availability of various economic factors affecting product cost and supply.

The ACBSA consists of 18 voting members. The Committee is composed of 12 members, including the Chair, and 6 representative members. The public members are selected from State and local organizations, advocacy groups, provider organizations, academic researchers, ethicists, private physicians, scientists, consumer advocates, legal organizations, and from among communities of persons who are frequent recipients of blood or blood products. The representative members are designated to serve as official representatives of the blood and blood products industry or professional organizations. The representative members shall represent the American Association of Blood Banks, one or two major distributors of blood on a rotating basis, a trade organization or manufacturer of blood test kits or equipment, a company that produces leukoreduction processes, a major hospital organization that purchases blood and blood products, and a plasma protein therapeutic association.

The Office of Public Health and Science is seeking nominations to fill several positions on the ACBSA that are scheduled to be vacated on September 30, 2005. The positions to be vacated are from both classifications—the public members and the representative members.

To qualify for consideration as a public member, individuals should possess authoritative knowledge in blood banking, transfusion medicine, plasma therapies, bioethics, and/or related disciplines. Public members will be selected from the categories previously described.

The terms of appointment for the representative member of the following also are scheduled to end: a trade organization or manufacturer of blood test kits or equipment, a company that produces leukoreduction processes, a major hospital organization that purchases blood and blood products, and a plasma protein therapeutic association. This notice is intended to solicit nominations from the blood and blood products industry and professional organizations of qualified candidates to serve as official representatives for the specified interest groups or industry.

Individuals are invited to serve as members of the Committee for overlapping three year terms. Public members of the Committee receive a stipend for attending Committee meetings, as well as for conducting other business in the interest of the Committee.

Pursuant to advance written agreement, members who are appointed as representatives of a particular interest group or industry serve without compensation. All members are authorized to receive prescribed per diem allowances and reimbursement for expenses incurred when performing travel to conduct Committee-related business matters.

Nominations should be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of material submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes which qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), and a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee; (2) the nominator's name, address, and daytime telephone number, and the home and/or work address, telephone number and e-mail address of the person being nominated; and (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae. The names of Federal employees should not be nominated for consideration of appointment for this Committee.

The Department makes every effort to ensure that membership of DHHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, females, ethnic and minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership on DHHS Federal advisory committees. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.

Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of ACBSA and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected candidate. Therefore, individuals selected for nomination will be required to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest.

The current Notice of System of Records covered only employees of OS, AoA, HRSA, SAMHSA, FDA, CDC/ATSDR and the PSC. Since that time, NIH has established a child care subsidy program for its employees. This amendment expands coverage of the Child Care Subsidy Program Records to include employees in NIH who are eligible for this program. The notice is published below in its entirety, as amended. HHS is also revising the name of the General Accounting Office in Routine Use number 5 because the name of that office has changed to the Government Accountability Office.

In the Federal Register of January 13, 2005 (70 FR 2413), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0387. The approval expires on April 30, 2008. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

In the Federal Register of January 5, 2005 (70 FR 821), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0378. The approval expires on April 30, 2008. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirement that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA' s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 355, and 371) require that marketed drugs be safe and effective. In order to know whether drugs that are not safe and effective are on the market, FDA must be promptly informed of adverse experiences occasioned by the use of marketed drugs. In order to help ensure this, FDA issued regulations at §§ 310.305 and 314.80 (21 CFR 310.305 and 314.80) to impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the drug industry that would enable FDA to take action necessary for protection of the public health from adverse drug experiences.

All applicants who have received marketing approval of drug products are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences, as well as followup reports when needed (§ 314.80(c)(1)). This includes reports of all foreign or domestic adverse experiences as well as those obtained in scientific literature and from postmarketing epidemiological/surveillance studies. Under § 314.80(c)(2) applicants must provide periodic reports of adverse drug experiences. A periodic report includes, for the reporting interval, reports of serious, expected adverse drug experiences and all nonserious adverse drug experiences, a narrative summary and analysis of adverse drug experiences and a history of actions taken because of adverse drug experiences. Under § 314.80(i), applicants must keep for 10 years records of all adverse drug experience reports known to the applicant.

For marketed prescription drug products without approved new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications, manufacturers, packers, and distributors are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences as well as followup reports when needed (§ 310.305(c)). Under § 310.305(f), each manufacturer, packer, and distributor shall maintain for 10 years records of all adverse drug experiences required to be reported.

The primary purpose of FDA's adverse drug experience reporting system is to provide a signal for potentially serious safety problems with marketed drugs. Although premarket testing discloses a general safety profile of a new drug's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the marketed drug provides, for the first time, the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. Signals are obtained from a variety of sources, including reports from patients, treating physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Information derived from the adverse drug experience reporting system contributes directly to increased public health protection because the information enables FDA to make important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning) and when necessary, to initiate removal of a drug from the market.

Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers, packers, distributors and applicants. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 allows a veterinarian to prescribe the extralabel use of approved new animal drugs. Also, it permits FDA, if it finds that there is a reasonable probability that the extralabel use of an animal drug may present a risk to the public health, to establish a safe level for a residue from the extralabel use of an animal drug, and to require the development of an analytical method for the detection of residues above that established safe level. Although to date, we have not established a safe level for a residue from the extralabel use of any new animal drug, and therefore have not required the development of analytical methodology, we believe that there may be instances when analytical methodology will be required. We are therefore estimating the reporting burden based on two methods being required annually. The requirement to establish an analytical method may be fulfilled by any interested person. We believe that the sponsor of the drug will be willing to develop the method in most cases. Alternatively, FDA, the sponsor, and perhaps a third party may cooperatively arrange for method development. The respondents may be sponsors of new animal drugs, State or Federal government, or individuals.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Section 412(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 350a(e)) provides that if the manufacturer of an infant formula has knowledge that reasonably supports the conclusion that an infant formula processed by that manufacturer has left its control and may not provide the nutrients required in section 412(i) of the act or is otherwise adulterated or misbranded, the manufacturer must promptly notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). If the Secretary determines that the infant formula presents a risk to human health, the manufacturer must immediately take all actions necessary to recall shipments of such infant formula from all wholesale and retail establishments, consistent with recall regulations and guidelines issued by the Secretary. Section 412(f)(2) of the act states that the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe the scope and extent of recalls of infant formula necessary and appropriate for the degree of risk to human health presented by the formula subject to recall. FDA's infant formula recall regulations (part 107 (21 CFR part 107), subpart E) implement these statutory provisions.

Section 107.230 requires each recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements: (1) Evaluate the hazard to human health, (2) devise a written recall strategy, (3) promptly notify each affected direct account (customer) about the recall, and (4) furnish the appropriate FDA district office with copies of these documents. If the recalled formula presents a risk to human health, the recalling firm must also request that each establishment that sells the recalled formula post (at point of purchase) a notice of the recall and provide FDA with a copy of the notice. Section 107.240 requires the recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements: (1) Notify the appropriate FDA district office of the recall by telephone within 24 hours, (2) submit a written report to that office within 14 days, and (3) submit a written status report at least every 14 days until the recall is terminated. Before terminating a recall, the recalling firm is required to submit a recommendation for termination of the recall to the appropriate FDA district office and wait for written FDA concurrence (§ 107.250). Where the recall strategy or implementation is determined to be deficient, FDA may require the firm to change the extent of the recall, carry out additional effectiveness checks, and issue additional notifications (§ 107.260). In addition, to facilitate location of the product being recalled, the recalling firm is required to maintain distribution records for at least 1 year after the expiration of the shelf life of the infant formula (§ 107.280).

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to monitor the effectiveness of infant formula recalls in order to protect babies from infant formula that may be unsafe because of contamination or nutritional inadequacy or otherwise adulterated or misbranded. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations to help ensure that such products are quickly and efficiently removed from the market.

In the Federal Register of February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5188), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of the collection of information as follows:

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Section 413(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)) provides that a manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements or of a new dietary ingredient is to submit information to FDA (as delegate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services) upon which it has based its conclusion that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe at least 75 days before the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient. FDA's regulations at part 190, subpart B (21 CFR part 190, subpart B) implement these statutory provisions. Section 190.6(a) requires each manufacturer or distributor of a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient, or of a new dietary ingredient, to submit to the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements notification of the basis for their conclusion that said supplement or ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. Section 190.6(b) requires that the notification include the following: (1) The complete name and address of the manufacturer or distributor, (2) the name of the new dietary ingredient, (3) a description of the dietary supplements that contains the new dietary ingredient, and (4) the history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe.

The notification requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to monitor the introduction into the food supply of new dietary ingredients and dietary supplements that contain new dietary ingredients, in order to protect consumers from unsafe dietary supplements. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations to help ensure that a manufacturer or distributor of a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient is in full compliance with the act.

In the Federal Register of February 7, 2005 (70 FR 6444), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received.

The agency believes that there will be minimal burden on the industry to generate data to meet the requirements of the premarket notification program, because the agency is requesting only that information that the manufacturer or distributor should already have developed to satisfy itself that a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient is in full compliance with the act. However, the agency estimates that extracting and summarizing the relevant information from the company's files, and presenting it in a format that will meet the requirements of section 413 of the act, will require a burden of approximately 20 hours of work per submission.

During the past 3 fiscal years, from October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2004, FDA received an average of 47 notifications per year with an average of 1 notification per submitting manufacture or distributor. In comparison, during the previous 3 fiscal years, from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2001, FDA received an average of 23 notifications per year with an average of 1 notification per submitter. The annual average number of notifications FDA received during fiscal years 2002 to 2004 increased by 24. Because the premarket notification program for new dietary ingredients is relatively new, the agency anticipates that this upward trend in receiving more notifications will continue over the next 3 fiscal years, from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2007. Therefore, FDA estimates that the agency will receive an annual average of 71 notifications with an annual average of 1 notification per submitter during fiscal years 2005 to 2007.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each collection of information, including each extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

FDA is requesting OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in § § 315.4, 315.5, and 315.6 (21 CFR 315.4, 315.5, and 315.6). These regulations require manufacturers of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals to submit information that demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of a new diagnostic radiopharmaceutical or of a new indication for use of an approved diagnostic radiopharmaceutical.

In response to the requirements of section 122 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115), FDA published a final rule (64 FR 26657, May 17, 1999) amending its regulations by adding provisions that clarify FDA's evaluation and approval of in vivo radiopharmaceuticals used in the diagnosis or monitoring of diseases. The regulation describes the kinds of indications of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals and some of the criteria that the agency would use to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262). Information about the safety or effectiveness of a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical enables FDA to properly evaluate the safety and effectiveness profiles of a new diagnostic radiopharmaceutical or a new indication for use of an approved diagnostic radiopharmaceutical.

The rule clarifies existing FDA requirements for approval and evaluation of drug and biological products1 already in place under the authorities of the act and the PHS act. The information, which is usually submitted as part of a new drug application (NDA), biologics license application, or as a supplement to an approved application, typically includes, but is not limited to, nonclinical and clinical data on the pharmacology, toxicology, adverse events, radiation safety assessments, and chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. The content and format of an application for approval of a new drug are set forth in § 314.50 (21 CFR 314.50). Under 21 CFR part 315, information required under the act and needed by FDA to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of in vivo radiopharmaceuticals still needs to be reported.

Based on the number of submissions (that is, human drug applications and/or new indication supplements for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals) that FDA receives, the agency estimates that it will receive approximately two submissions annually from two applicants. The hours per response refers to the estimated number of hours that an applicant would spend preparing the information required by the regulations. Based on FDA's experience, the agency estimates the time needed to prepare a complete application for a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical to be approximately 10,000 hours, roughly one-fifth of which, or 2,000 hours, is estimated to be spent preparing the portions of the application that would be affected by these regulations. The regulation does not impose any additional reporting burden for safety and effectiveness information on diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals beyond the estimated burden of 2,000 hours because safety and effectiveness information is already required by § 314.50 (OMB control number 0910-0001 approved by OMB until March 31, 2005). In fact, clarification in these regulations of FDA's standards for evaluation of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals is intended to streamline overall information collection burdens, particularly for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals that may have well established, low risk safety profiles, by enabling manufacturers to tailor information submissions and avoid unnecessary clinical studies. Table 1 of this document contains estimates of the annual reporting burden for the preparation of the safety and effectiveness sections of an application that are imposed by existing regulations. The burden totals do not include an increase in burden. This estimate does not include the actual time needed to conduct studies and trials or other research from which the reported information is obtained.

In the Federal Register of March 4, 2005 (70 FR 10650), FDA published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request comments and scientific data and information to assist the agency in its plans to conduct a risk assessment for L. monocytogenes in smoked finfish (smoked finfish risk assessment) and to evaluate the provisions of the 2001 Food Code that address preventive controls for L. monocytogenes in retail and foodservice establishments.

For the smoked finfish risk assessment, the agency specifically requested information on the following topics:

1. L. monocytogenes levels in raw fish, smoked fish, and finished product,

2. Effect of mitigation measures (e.g., ozonation, acidified sodium chlorite) to reduce L. monocytogenes levels in raw and finished product,

3. Potential for transfer of L. monocytogenes to food from contaminated food contact and noncontact surfaces during manufacturing and/or processing (e.g., equipment, workers, floor drains, etc.),

4. Potential for transfer of L. monocytogenes from the slicer to cold-smoked fish,

5. Impact of adding inhibitors (e.g., bacteriocins and bacteriocins-producing bacterial strains or sodium lactate) to smoked finfish to reduce or prevent L. monocytogenes growth,

6. Impact of frozen versus refrigerated storage conditions on levels of L. monocytogenes,

7. Impact of time and temperature on levels of L. monocytogenes for commercial and home storage conditions of finished product, and

8. Effect of training regarding sanitation and hygienic practices on reducing the levels of L. monocytogenes in smoked finfish.

For evaluating the Food Code provisions for preventive controls for L. monocytogenes in retail and foodservice establishments, the agency specifically requested the following data and information:

1. L. monocytogenes levels in products stored in retail and foodservice establishments,

2. Levels of environmental contamination and harborage of L. monocytogenes on food contact and nonfood contact surfaces in retail and foodservice establishments (e.g., equipment, workers, floor drains, etc.),

The purpose of the Food Safety and Food Security Task Force meetings is to foster communication and cooperation within the States among State and local food safety regulatory agencies. The meetings should: (1) Provide a forum for all the stakeholders of the food safety system—regulatory agencies, academia, industry, consumers, State legislators, and other interested parties; (2) assist in adopting or implementing the Food Code; and (3) promote the integration of an efficient statewide food safety system that maximizes the protection of the public health through early detection and containment of foodborne illness. Each Task Force shall develop its own guidelines for work, consensus decision-making, size and format, at its initial meeting. FDA DFSR will provide meeting guidelines and organization documents as requested.

FDA is issuing a revised RFA which will replace the announcements published June 25, 2004 (69 FR 35651) and February 4, 2005 (70 FR 6015). FDA, in collaboration with the CDC, is announcing the availability of conference grant funding for meetings of State Food Safety and Food Security Task Forces. The original announcement of availability of funding for State Food Safety Task Force Meetings, published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2000, is superseded by this announcement. This revised announcement provides new policies that apply to the State Food Safety and Food Security Task Force Meetings Conference Grant Program. The FDA views this program as an ongoing program announcement, contingent on the availability of funds.

FDA and CDC view State based Food Safety and Food Security Task Forces as important mechanisms for promoting food safety, food security program coordination, and information exchanges within each State. This grant announcement is intended to encourage the development of a Task Force within each State and to provide funding for Task Force meetings. Conference grant funding is available to States that have an existing Food Safety and Food Security Task Force, as well as to States that are in the process of developing such a Task Force. State Food Safety Task Force meetings should foster communication and cooperation among State and local public health and food safety agencies and other interested parties.

Meetings covered by this notice will be supported under sections 1701-1706 (42 USC 300u-300u-5) of the Public Health Service Act.

Conference grant funds will be awarded only for the direct costs incurred to secure meeting facility rental expenses, supplies, publication costs, and in-state travel expenses for meeting attendees. Each Task Force shall develop its own guidelines for work, consensus decisionmaking, size and format, at its initial meeting. Federal agency representatives may be invited to be nonmember liaisons or advisors at the meetings. Conference grant funds may not be used for Federal employees to travel to these meetings.

The FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) is the inspection component of the FDA and has 1,000 investigators and inspectors who cover the approximately 95,000 FDA regulated businesses in the United States and inspect more than 15,000 facilities a year. In addition to the standard inspection program, FDA's investigators and inspectors conduct special investigations, food inspection recall audits, and perform consumer complaint inspections and sample collections. In the past FDA has relied on the States in assisting with the above duties through formal contracts, partnership agreements and other informal arrangements. The inspection demands on both the Agency and the States are expected to increase. Accordingly, procedures need to be reviewed and innovative changes made that will increase effectiveness, efficiency, and conserve resources. Examples of support include providing effective and efficient compliance of regulated products and providing high quality, science based work that maximizes consumer protection.

CDC is a nonregulatory Federal public health agency that works closely with FDA food safety regulatory and other agencies to prevent foodborne disease. CDC leads Federal efforts to gather data on foodborne illnesses, investigates foodborne illnesses and outbreaks, and monitors the effectiveness of prevention and control efforts. CDC also plays an ongoing role in identifying prevention strategies and building State and local health department epidemiology, laboratory, and environmental health capacity to support foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak response. CDC data assists in documenting whether food safety interventions are leading to reductions in the incidence of foodborne illness.

Although the United States has one of the safest food supplies in the world, the public health burden of foodborne disease in the Nation is substantial. Foodborne disease causes an estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year, and an estimated $6.9 billion in economic costs. New challenges continue to arise, including the globalization of the food supply and the emergence of new pathogens in foods.

These facts reinforce the importance of this State Food Safety and Security Task Force program. The focus of these grant-sponsored meetings should be to discuss and resolve issues at the State and local levels relating to the following areas: (1) State/local Agency roles and responsibilities; (2) capacity and resource needs; (3) outbreak coordination and investigations; (4) information sharing and data collection; (5) uniform regulatory standards; (6) communications and education; (7) State/local laboratory operations and coordination; (8) adoption/implementation of the FDA Food Code; (9) uniform standards for foodborne illness and outbreak reporting investigation and response; and (10) State and local training needs for epidemiology, outbreak investigation, etc.

The purpose of the Food Safety and Food Security Task Force meetings is to foster communication and cooperation within the States among State and local food safety regulatory agencies. The meetings should: (1) Provide a forum for all the stakeholders of the food safety system—regulatory agencies, academia, industry, consumers, State legislators, and other interested parties; (2) assist in adopting or implementing the Food Code; and (3) promote the integration of an efficient statewide food safety system that maximizes the protection of the public health through early detection and containment of foodborne illness. Each Task Force shall develop its own guidelines for work, consensus decisionmaking, size and format, at its initial meeting.

FDA DFSR will provide meeting guidelines and organization documents as requested.

The FDA anticipates providing approximately $350,000 in direct costs only in support of this program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. It is anticipated that 50 awards will be made for up to $7,000 per award. Under this grant announcement, States may be awarded grants for up to 3 years for a maximum of $7,000 per year in direct costs only, contingent on the availability of funds. FDA will consider funding meetings for up to 3 years. Funding after the first year will be at an amount that will be negotiated at the time of the initial competitive segment. Thus, the budgets for all 3 years of requested support must be fully justified in the original application.

Continued funding of a noncompetitive segment is contingent upon satisfactory progress as determined annually by FDA procedures, the receipt of a noncompeting continuation application, and availability of Federal funds. The noncompeting continuation will consist of an SF424 Face Page, a financial status report, and conference proceedings for all conferences held the previous budget period. A decrease in the amount of the noncompetitive segment may occur if there is an unobligated balance from the prior year, in which case prior year funds can be used as an offset for the current year award.

Support for this program will be in the form of a grant.

It is anticipated that FDA will fund these grants at a level requested but not exceeding $7,000 total (direct costs only) for the first year. An additional 2 years of support up to approximately $7,000 (direct costs only) each year will be available, depending upon fiscal year appropriations, and successful performance.

Federal funds are currently available from FDA for this program. However, awards are subject to the condition that, in addition to FDA funds, augmenting funds are transferred to FDA from CDC to fully support this program. As the lead Federal agency, FDA intends to collect funds from CDC through an Interagency Agreement. An estimated amount of $100,000 is available in FY2004 through the Interagency Agreement for a total of $350,000. The number of grants funded will depend on the quality of the applications received, their relevance to the FDA mission, priorities, and the availability of funds.

These grants are available to State public health and food safety agencies. Only one grant will be awarded per State per year.

None.

Prior to submission of an application, the State shall designate one State public health or food safety agency to lead, coordinate, and host the Food Safety and Food Security Task Force and its meetings. The formation of Food Safety and Food Security Task Force meetings shall not interfere with existing Federal-State advisory mechanisms. Responsiveness is defined as submission of a complete application with original signatures on or before the required submission date as listed above. If applications are found to be non-responsive, they will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.

FDA is accepting new applications for this program electronically via Grants.gov. Applications are strongly encouraged to apply electronically by visiting the website http://www.grants.gov and following instructions under “APPLY.” The applicant must register in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database in order to be able to submit the application. Information about the CCR is available at http://www.grants.gov/CCRRegister. The applicant must register with the Credential Provider for Grants.gov. Information about this requirement is available at http://www.grants.gov/CredentialProvider.

Applications also are available from, and completed applications should be submitted to, Michelle Caraffa, Division of Contracts and Grants Management (HFA-500), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 2129, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7025, e-mail: mcaraffa@oc.fda.gov. Applications forms PHS 5161-1 are available via the internet at: http:www.psc.gov/forms (Revised 7/00). Applications hand carried or commercially delivered should be addressed to 5630 Fishers Lane (HFA-500), rm. 2129, Rockville, MD 20857. An application not received in time for orderly processing will be returned to the applicant without consideration.

If not submitting electronically, the original and two copies of the completed grant application Form PHS-5161-1 (Revised 07/00) for State and local governments should be delivered to the Grants Management Office (address above).

As indicated in section IV.1, FDA is accepting new applications for this program electronically. Please go to Grants. Gov “apply” for the application package.

When using Form PHS 5161-1 (Rev 07/00), all instructions for the enclosed Standard Form 424 (SF424) should be followed using the nonconstruction application pages.

The face page of the application should indicate “Response to Food Safety Task Force Conference Grant Program.” The outside of the mailing package should also be labeled “Response to Food Safety Task Force Conference Grant Program.” Submit applications on Form 424 (SF424) and include the following: (1) A title which has the term “state food safety task force meetings,” “conference,” “council,” “workshop,” “alliance” or other similar description to assist in the identification of the request; (2) location of the conference; (3) expected number of registrants and type of audience expected with their credentials; (4) dates of conference(s); (5) conference format and projected agenda(s), including list of principal areas or topics to be addressed; (6) physical facilities required for the conduct of the meeting; (7) justification of the conference(s), including the problems it intends to clarify and any developments it may stimulate; (8) brief biographical sketches of individuals responsible for planning the conference(s) and details concerning adequate support staff; (9) information about all related conferences held on this subject during the last 3 years (if known); (10) details of proposed per diem/subsistence rates, transportation, printing, supplies and facility rental costs; and (11) the necessary checklist and assurances pages provided in each application package.

A properly formatted sample application for grants can be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/ora/fed_state/Innovative_Grants.html.

Data included in the application, if restricted with the legend specified below, may be entitled to confidential treatment as trade secret or confidential commercial information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and FDA's implementing regulations (21 CFR 20.61).

Information collection requirements requested on PHS Form 5161-1 were approved and issued under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102.

As of October 1, 2003, applicants are now required to have a DUNS number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a 9-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, call 1-866-705-5711. Identify yourself as a Federal grant applicant when you contact Dun and Bradstreet.

The first application receipt date for FY 2005 is March 15, 2005, and the final application date for FY 2005 is July 5, 2005 and March 15 for each subsequent year this program is in effect. No supplemental material or addenda will be accepted after the receipt date.

Applications will be accepted during working hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, on or before the established receipt date. Applications will be considered received on time if sent or mailed on or before the receipt date as evidenced by a legible U.S. Postal Service dated postmark or a legible date receipt from a commercial carrier, unless they arrive too late for orderly processing. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received on time will not be considered for review and will be returned to the applicant. Applicants should note that the U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide dated postmarks. Before relying on this method, applicants should check with their local post office.

Do not send applications to the Center for Scientific Research (CSR), NIH. Any application sent to NIH that is then forwarded to FDA and not received in time for orderly processing will be deemed unresponsive and returned to the applicant. The outside of the mailing package and item 2 of the application face page should be labeled “Response to Food Safety Task Force Conference Grant Program.” You must submit only one application, an original and two copies, per package.

Intergovernmental review applicants are limited to one State government agency per State. Applications submitted under this program are subject to the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 12372.

The regulations issued under E.O. 12372 also apply to this program and are implemented through the DHHS regulations at 45 CFR part 100. Executive Order 12372 sets up a system for State and local government review of applications for Federal financial assistance. Applicants (other than federally recognized Indian tribal governments) should contact the State's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert them to the prospective application(s) and to receive any necessary instructions on the State's review process. A current listing of SPOCs is included in the application kit. The SPOC should send any State review process recommendations to the FDA Grants Management Office address listed above. The due date for the State process recommendations is no later than 60 days after the deadline date for the receipt of applications. The FDA does not guarantee availability to accommodate or explain SPOC comments that are received after the 60-day cut-off. A current listing of SPOCs can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.

Conference grant funds will be awarded only for direct costs incurred to secure meeting facility rental expenses, supplies, publication costs, and in-State travel expenses for meeting attendees. Federal agency representatives may be invited to be non-member liaisons or advisors at the meetings. Conference Grant funds may not be used for Federal employees to travel to these meetings. Allowable costs consist of: (1) Salaries in proportion to the time or effort spent directly on the conference, (2) rental of necessary equipment, (3) travel and per diem, (4) supplies needed to conduct the meeting, (5) conference services, (6) publication costs; (7) registration fees; and (8) speaker's fees.

Nonallowable costs include, but are not limited to: (1) Purchase of equipment; (2) transportation costs exceeding coach class fares; (3) entertainment; (4) tips; (5) bar charges; (6) personal telephone calls; (7) laundry charges; (8) travel or expenses other than local mileage for local participants; (9) organization dues; (10) honoraria or other payments for the purpose of conferring distinction or communicating respect, esteem or admiration; (11) alterations or renovations; (12) indirect costs; and (13) travel or per diem costs for Federal employees.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact FDA to resolve any questions regarding criteria prior to the submission of their application. All questions of a technical or programmatic nature must be directed to the ORA program staff. All questions of an administrative or financial nature must be directed to the Grants Management Staff.

All applications submitted in response to this RFA will first be reviewed for responsiveness by grants management and program staff.

Responsive applications will be reviewed and evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an ad hoc panel of experts. Final funding decisions will be made by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs or his or her designee, in consultation with the CDC Director and his or her designee.

Applications will be given an overall score and judged based on all of the following criteria: (1) The content/subject matter and how current and appropriate it is for the missions of FDA; (2) the conference plan and how thorough, reasonable, and appropriate it is for the intended audience; (3) the experience, training, and competence of the principal investigator/director and availability of support staff; (4) the adequacy of the facilities; and, (5) the reasonableness of the proposed budget given the total conference plan, program, speakers, travel, and facilities.

FDA urges applicants to submit work plans that address specific objectives of “Healthy People 2010.” Applicants may obtain a hard copy of the Healthy People 2010 objectives, Volumes I and II, for $70 ($87.50 foreign) S/N 017-000-00550-9, by writing to the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone orders can be placed to 202-512-2250. The document is also available in CD-ROM format, S/N 017-001-00549-5 for $19 ($23 foreign) as well as on the Internet at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/. Internet viewers should proceed to “Publications.”

These grants will be subject to all policies and requirements that govern the Conference Grant Programs of the PHS, including the provisions of 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.

A final Progress Report of the meeting(s) or Conference Proceedings and a final Financial Status Report (FSR) (SF-269) are required within 90 days of the expiration date of the project period as noted on the Notice of Grant Award. An original and two copies of each report shall be submitted to FDA's Grants Management Office (address above). The report of the meeting should include: (a) the grant number; (b) the title, date and place of the meeting; (c) the name of the person shown on the application as the conference director, principal investigator, or program director; (d) the name of the organization that conducted the meeting; (e) a list of individuals, and their institutional affiliations, who participated as speakers or facilitators in the formally planned sessions of the meeting; and, (f) a summary of topics discussed, next steps and conclusions.

A Financial Status Report and a Progress Report are also required no later than 90 days after the close of the budget period. The Progress Report should contain a description of a specific plan for the next meeting, as well as all criteria listed in the previous paragraph.

Program monitoring of recipients will be conducted on an ongoing basis and written reports will be reviewed and evaluated at least semi-annually by the project officer. Project monitoring may also be in the form of telephone conversations between the project officer/grants management specialist and the principal investigator and/or a site visit with appropriate officials of the recipient organization. The results of these monitoring activities will be recorded in the official file and may be available to the recipient upon request.

Regarding the administrative and financial management aspects of this notice: Michelle N. Caraffa (see ADDRESSES). Regarding the programmatic aspects of this notice: Stephen Toigo (see ADDRESSES).

Unless disclosure is required by FOIA as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), as determined by the Freedom of Information officials of DHHS or by a court, data contained in the portions of an application which have been specifically identified by page number, paragraph, etc., by the applicant as containing restricted and/or proprietary information shall not be used or disclosed except for evaluation purposes.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires the Service to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. Our purpose in developing a CCP is to provide each refuge manager broad management direction over a 15-year period for achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the NWRS in ways that are consistent with the sound principles of fish, wildlife, plant and habitat management and conservation, Federal laws, and Service policies. A CCP also identifies wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, especially the “Big 6” of the Improvement Act: Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that we prepare an EA for this plan and gather public input during our planning.

On December 3, 1931, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission authorized the establishment of the first refuge in Region 5, the Blackwater Migratory Bird Refuge. We acquired its first parcel of land in 1933, and added tracts in 1942 and 1945. We acquired the Susquehanna NWR in 1940, and purchased Martin NWR in a two-step process in 1954 and 1955. In the 1990s, we added Barren Island, Watts Island and Bishops Head. The refuge complex now comprises the Blackwater, Eastern Neck NWRs, and the Chesapeake Island Unit, consisting of Martin and Susquehanna NWRs, and the Barren Island, Watts Island, Spring Island, and Bishops Head Divisions. This draft treats all of those units except the Eastern Neck NWR. We will draft a CCP for that refuge later.

During our public scoping process, the public identified four major concerns listed below, which we considered as we developed our alternatives and evaluated their environmental impacts.

• Potential effects of an expanding human population and changing demographics on Service trust resources from urbanization, vessel traffic and waterborne activities on the Blackwater and Nanticoke rivers, and changing public attitudes and demands;

• Potential effects of refuge expansion and land acquisition;

• Potential effects of habitat changes: The loss of wetlands or marshes; the loss of islands to erosion; the degradation of water quality; the loss and degradation of riparian buffer; and the fragmentation of forest through the lack of management for health and good species composition and;

• Potential effects on populations of flora and fauna by injurious, exotic, or invasive species; the lack of scientific data; and the lack of management for rare, threatened, or endangered species and waterfowl.

The most serious impacts on the refuge complex and the Chesapeake Bay surrounding it arise from the fragmentation of habitats by urbanization, timbering, and agriculture; the lack of forest management; the erosion of Bay islands; the loss and degradation of wetlands and emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation; the proliferation of injurious, invasive, or exotic species; the lack of scientific data on wildlife populations, habitats, and the effectiveness of management actions; and the inadequacy of the refuge complex land base for ensuring its long-term health and ecological integrity and the diversity of Federal trust species.

We believe that our preferred management Alternative B, Conservation Biology for Diversity of Trust Species, best fulfills our statutory mission, responsibilities, and refuge purposes, while considering economic, environmental, technical and other factors. It proposes to increase protection for more than 270 species of rare, threatened, or endangered species; to significantly contribute to delisting the Delmarva fox squirrel from endangered species status; to provide habitat necessary to sustain 10 percent of Maryland's wintering Atlantic population of Canada geese, lesser snow geese, and dabbling ducks; to restore 10,000 acres of emergent marsh to 1933 conditions; to provide high quality forest habitat for 22 species of globally significant forest interior dwelling species of migratory birds; to control or eradicate injurious, invasive, and exotic species; to increase waterfowl and songbird utilization and production; to enhance habitat and improve resident populations of waterfowl; to restore wetlands and hydrology; to expand opportunities for research; to provide additional, wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly the Big 6 mentioned above; to improve significant facilities and add staff; to protect additional, adjoining land by easement, agreement, or fee title acquisition; to restore Atlantic white cedar forest; and to improve public understanding of the dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the interactions among all its populations.

Alternative A, Species-specific Management (No Action Alternative), represents traditional, single-species management. It focuses on providing for the habitat needs of key wildlife trust species and groups of species. It proposes to provide habitat for wintering and nesting waterfowl, for nesting colonial waterbirds, for endangered species such as the Delmarva fox squirrel, and for species of special emphasis such as Canada geese and lesser snow geese, wintering dabbling ducks, nesting black ducks, wood ducks, tundra swans, ospreys, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and colonial bird species such as great blue herons, great egrets, least terns, and black skimmers. It proposes generally to follow the goals, objectives, and strategies of the Station Management Plan of 1991.

Alternative B, Conservation Biology for Trust Species Diversity (our Preferred Alternative), represents adaptive management based on the results of scientific survey and monitoring programs. It focuses on restoring, enhancing, and maintaining ecological processes and natural biological communities and biodiversity. It emphasizes managing the refuge complex for the benefit of all migratory bird species; maintaining and recovering endangered or threatened species; restoring submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands; reducing or eliminating invasive plant and animal species; and adding research and inventories, including butterflies, reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Our preferred alternative also proposes to expand the boundary of Blackwater NWR, primarily through partnerships and easements, in two areas: 15,300 acres surrounding the refuge; and 16,000 acres east of the refuge along the Nanticoke River. All of that acreage contains low-lying forest and marsh habitats.

Finally, our preferred alternative improves our ability to provide opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation, by proposing a new, accessible fishing pier and parking area at Key Wallace Bridge, new hiking and canoe trails, a canoe access ramp and wetland observation deck; and, by rebuilding the wildlife observation tower, remodeling and expanding the visitor center, updating the exhibits at the center, enhancing signage, providing new hunting opportunities (turkeys, resident Canada geese, and waterfowl), and providing many more outreach and environmental education programs.

Alternative C, Maximum Public Use with No Habitat Management, represents reduced management of wildlife and resources, but the maximum compatible recreational use of the refuge complex: All of the use proposed in alternative B; plus, expanding the hours of guided tours, offering more education programs, constructing more trails, piers, and kiosks, and opening more islands to bank fishing. However, its much-reduced scope of wildlife and resource management would address only those mandates by Federal law and executive directive, with no habitat restoration or manipulation, only intervention to avert catastrophic emergencies. It would not address the rise in sea level, impacts on water quality, or other known or suspected impacts. We would burn prescribed fires periodically, but only as a safety precaution to reduce fuel load. This alternative would not counteract natural forces or human activities that may impact the ecological communities, habitats, and species of the refuge complex.

Please send us your comments in the manner described above, or join us at our public meetings soon to be scheduled in Cambridge, Salisbury, and Crisfield, Maryland.

Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the Act. Safe Harbor Agreements encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species by assuring property owners they will not be subjected to increased property use restrictions if their efforts attract listed species to their property or increase the numbers or distribution of listed species already on their property. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in 50 CFR 17.22(c). The Applicant has developed the proposed Agreement for 296 acres of enrolled land for the conservation of the federally listed brown pelican, California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, tidewater goby, salt marsh bird's beak, Ventura marsh milk-vetch, and the western snowy plover (Covered Species) on property at Ormond Beach in Ventura County. The conservation measure in the Agreement calls for the preservation of 276 acres of coastal wetland. The preservation of these 276 acres will be accomplished through the sale of the property to a non-profit conservation organization with a deed restriction, in perpetuity, that requires the property be used for open space, habitat preservation, wetland restoration, and public access only. The MWD plans to retain 20 acres, of the 296 acres of enrolled lands, at the Ormond Beach project site for ongoing farming operations and potential development for commercial and industrial use.

Although none of the Covered Species, except for western snowy plover, currently occur on the 296 acres of enrolled lands, the preservation of the 276 acres, with the deed restriction, could benefit all of the Covered Species in the future. The Covered Species are threatened with loss and degradation of the coastal habitats with which they are strongly associated. All of the species are likely to benefit through the preservation of open space and suitable habitat into which dispersing individuals from expanding populations elsewhere can move, or, in the case of the covered plants, direct introduction from source populations.

The conservation measure set forth in the Agreement is expected to result in the following net conservation benefits to the Covered Species: (1) Insurance against the decline of the Covered Species in the general area as a result of habitat loss; (2) increased availability of suitable breeding and foraging habitat through preservation and eventual restoration of the property; (3) reduced fragmentation, and potential increased connectivity of populations in the general area; and, (4) likelihood of increased population sizes of the Covered Species in the general area.

Consistent with the Service's Safe Harbor policy and regulations, the Service proposes to issue a permit to MWD authorizing incidental take as a result of normal farming activities currently occurring on the 20 acre property. Normal farming activities include planting, harvesting, weed and insect control, pruning, mowing, discing, operation of vehicles and farm equipment, and similar activities.

This Agreement and permit will also authorize MWD incidental take of the Covered Species above MWD's baseline responsibilities on the 296 acres of enrolled lands, at the end of the term of the 75-year Agreement, if so desired by MWD.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that approval of the Agreement qualifies as a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by the Department of Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1) based on the following criteria: (1) Implementation of the Agreement would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the Agreement would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the Agreement, considered together with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. This is more fully explained in our Environmental Action Statement.

Based upon this preliminary determination, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA documentation. The Service will consider public comments in making its final determination on whether to prepare such documentation.

Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, the Environmental Action Statement, or copies of the full text of the Agreement, including a map of the proposed permit area, references, and legal descriptions of the proposed permit area, should contact the office and personnel listed in the ADDRESSES section above. Documents also will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (ADDRESSES section above).

The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CRF 1506.6). All comments received on the permit application and Agreement, including names and addresses, will become part of the Administration record and may be released to the public. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses are available for public inspection in their entirety.

We will evaluate the permit application, the Agreement, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act and NEPA regulations. If the requirements are met, the Service will sign the proposed Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to MWD for the take of the seven covered species incidental to otherwise lawful activities of the project. The Service will not make a final decision until the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period.

The twelve-member Central California Resource Advisory Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of public land issues associated with public land management in Central California. At this meeting, agenda topics include a discussion of possible Wild and Scenic River status for the South Fork of the American River. The RAC will also hear status reports from the Bakersfield, Bishop, Folsom, and Hollister Field Office Managers.

The meeting is open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council, and time will be allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and the time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact the BLM as indicated above.

This solicitation consists of eight parts:

• Part I provides background information.

• Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.

• Part III describes eligible applicants and other grant specifications.

• Part IV provides information on the application and submission process.

• Part V describes the criteria against which applications will be reviewed and explains the proposal review process.

• Part VI provides award administration information.

• Part VII contains DOL agency contact information.

• Part VIII lists additional resources of interest to applicants.

The Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTGs) are designed to support workforce training for high-growth industries through the national system of community and technical colleges. The primary purpose of these grants is to build the capacity of community colleges to train workers to develop the skills required to succeed in (i) local industries and occupations that are expected to experience high growth and (ii) industries where demand for qualified workers is outstripping the supply. Part 1 of this section provides an overview of ETA's demand-driven workforce investment strategies. Part 2 provides background information on the principles underlying the CBJTGs. Part 3 describes critical elements of the grants themselves.

Each year, the federal government invests over $15 billion in a state and local network of resources, known as the workforce investment system, to assist businesses in recruiting, training, and retaining a skilled workforce. While these investments have in the past supported a set of standard menu-driven services for employers and workers, the realities of today's rapidly changing global economy make it imperative that the workforce investment system support customized activities that are driven by local employer demand. This demand-driven approach to workforce development is necessary to prepare workers to take advantage of new and increasing job opportunities in high-growth/high-demand and economically vital industries and sectors of the American economy.

In a demand-driven workforce investment system, state and local Workforce Investment Boards invest strategically in workforce development activities that are relevant to the requirements of local industry and have a long-term impact on the ability of the community to meet local workforce demands. To do so, they bring to the table critical collaborative partners in the development of America's workforce: employers and education and training providers.

Within the context of these strategic partnerships, communities use a solutions-based approach to workforce development planning, in which the partnering entities work through the cycle of: (1) Collecting and analyzing information about local workforce needs and critical capacity constraints; (2) incorporating a business or demand-driven perspective into issue identification and solutions development; (3) ensuring that the right strategic partners are at the table; (4) working collaboratively to explore, frame, and implement solutions; and (5) assessing how the products and outcomes of the project can be effectively deployed and replicated. The goal of this process is to ensure that the proposed project will ultimately succeed in resolving the industry-identified workforce challenge.

The solutions-based approach engages each collaborative partner in its area of strength. Industry representatives and employers define workforce challenges facing the industry and identify the competencies and skills required for the industry's workforce. The workforce investment system provides access to human capital (youth, unemployed, underemployed, incumbent workers, and dislocated workers), assists with training programs, and places trained workers in jobs. Community colleges and other training providers assist in developing competency models and training curricula and train new and incumbent workers. The K-12 public education system ensures that investments at the community college are part of a continuum of education and training leading to successful skill development.

ETA first modeled the power of these strategic partnerships through the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative (High Growth Initiative). The High Growth Initiative is a strategic effort to prepare workers for new and increasing job opportunities in high-growth/high-demand and economically vital industries and sectors of the American economy. Through the initiative, ETA identifies high-growth/high-demand industries, evaluates their skills needs, and funds local and national partnership-based demonstration projects that provide workforce solutions to ensure that individuals can gain the skills to get good jobs in these rapidly expanding or transforming industries. The products, models and effective approaches that result from the High Growth Initiative will be broadly disseminated to employers, education and training providers, and the workforce investment system to build their capacity to respond to employer demands.

The Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTGs) continue the work of the High Growth Initiative by incorporating its focus on high-growth, high-demand industries and its emphasis on the role of strategic partnerships in workforce development. The CBJTGs build on the work of the High Growth Initiative by highlighting the critical role community colleges play as partners in the demand-driven workforce investment system, and by supporting community efforts to link training initiatives to the skill demands of local employers. As a result, CBJTG activities will lead to an increased number of high-growth firms being supported by the local workforce and education systems, and more individuals being trained and employed in high-growth sectors.

Community colleges represent a critical 21st century training resource for workers needing to attain, retool, refine, and broaden their skills to meet industry demand. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, eighty percent of the fastest growing jobs in the United States require some level of post-secondary education. The accessibility and affordability of community college training, combined with the adaptability of community college curricula to changing skill needs, make community colleges a vital training resource for many U.S. workers. Furthermore, community colleges are closely connected to local labor markets, making them well-positioned to prepare workers for good jobs with good wages in the local economy.

However, community college leaders and industry executives report that many community colleges are unable to meet local demand for training because of critical capacity constraints. These capacity constraints occur when community colleges lack sufficient resources to support training facilities and equipment, curriculum development, faculty appointments, clinical experiences, and/or other elements that are necessary to provide either the volume or quality of training that industry requires. Despite rising application rates, the reality of current state and local budgets often prevents colleges from funding the programs, faculty, and student services they need to be responsive to local workforce demands.

The CBJTGs will address this critical capacity issue. Funds will be awarded to community colleges to engage in a combination of capacity building and training activities targeted at high-growth or high-demand industries in the local economy.

It is ETA's expectation that CBJTGs will contain at least six critical elements. These elements consist of: (A) Focus on skill and competency needs of local high-growth/high-demand industries; (B) strategic partnerships; (C) industry-driven capacity building and training efforts; (D) leveraged resources; (E) replication; and (F) clear and specific outcomes. These characteristics are reflected in the evaluation criteria in Part V and are described in further detail below. For examples of projects that integrate these elements, please see Appendix A.

A. Focus on skill and competency needs of local high-growth/high-demand industries. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220) (WIA) emphasizes a workforce system driven by the needs of local employers. In order for America to remain competitive in the global economy, it is essential that ETA target its investments to support employers in high-growth/high-demand industries. Community colleges play a vital role in this effort by providing training to address the workforce needs of these industries. A high-growth/high-demand industry meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) Is projected to add substantial numbers of new jobs to the economy; (2) has a significant impact on the economy overall; (3) impacts the growth of other industries; (4) is being transformed by technology and innovation requiring new skill sets for workers; or (5) is a new and emerging business that is projected to grow.

B. Strategic Partnerships. ETA believes that strategic partnerships between community colleges, the workforce investment system, business and industry, and the continuum of education, including the K-12 system, need to be in place in order to implement effective demand-driven training and capacity building strategies. These strategic partnerships may have a local, regional, or statewide focus, and may include a consortium of partners or cross-industry representatives. Specific requirements for strategic partnerships are outlined in Section III (3). These strategic partnerships should focus broadly on the workforce challenges of one or more high-growth, high-demand industries and work collaboratively to identify and implement solutions to those challenges. These solutions should include, among others, strategies to increase the capacity of local community colleges to educate and train more workers with industry-defined skills and competencies. Therefore, the investment in community college capacity building would be one of many strategies and solutions that evolve from the partnership. While ETA welcomes applications from newly formed strategic partnerships, applicants are advised that grant funds may not be used for partnership development.

Within the context of the broader strategic partnership and as it relates to this grant, each collaborative partner should have clearly defined roles. Each partner should verify their role through a letter of commitment attached to the proposal. The exact nature of these roles may vary depending on the issue areas being addressed and the scope and nature of the activities undertaken. However, ETA expects that each collaborative partner will, at minimum, contribute in the following ways. Employers should be actively engaged and participate fully in every aspect of grant activities including: defining the program strategy and goals; identifying needed skills and competencies; designing training approaches and curricula; implementing the program; contributing financial support; and, where appropriate, hiring qualified training graduates. The K-12 education system is an important foundational partner to ensure the project's activities are tied to the broader continuum of education in the community. The workforce investment system, which may include state and local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce Agencies, and One-Stop Career Centers and their cooperating partners, as such terms are defined under WIA, may play a number of roles, including: identifying and assessing candidates for training; working collaboratively to leverage WIA investments; referring qualified candidates to the community college for enrollment; providing wrap-around support services, where appropriate; and referring qualified training graduates to employers with existing job openings.

In order to maximize the success of the project and to keep pace with the rapid changes in the economy and the nature of the skills and competencies necessary for work in these industries, these strategic partnerships need to be substantial and sustained. ETA encourages partners to plan for sustainability of the partnership to enable ongoing assessment of industry workforce needs and collaborative development of solutions on an ongoing basis.

C. Industry-driven capacity building and training efforts. All CBJTGs must develop and implement a combination of capacity building and training activities that target skills and competencies demanded by local high-growth/high-demand industries. Applicants are not limited in the strategies and approaches they may employ to implement their capacity building and training strategies, provided the activities meet the following requirements:

(1) Training. Training activities must: (a) Occur within the context of a continuum of education and training that supports long-term career growth, such as an articulated career ladder/lattice and (b) result in college credit or other credentials that are industry-recognized and indicate a level of mastery and competence in a given field or function. The credential awarded to participants upon completion should be based on the type of training provided through the grant and the requirements of the targeted occupation, and should be selected based on consultations with industry partners. For example:

a. Customized and short-term training should result in a performance-based certification or certificate. This certification may be developed jointly by employers and the community college, based on defined knowledge and skill requirements for specific high-demand occupations/functions. Performance-based certifications may also be based on industry-recognized curriculum and standards.

b. Training in information technology, allied health professions, and other fields with established professional standards and examinations should result in certification.

c. In states where licensure is required for the specific occupation targeted by the training, the credentialing requirement should be set accordingly.

d. In some instances, training provided under CBJTGs may lead to a degree. In these instances, the credential required will be credit for each course leading to an Associate's or Applied Associate's degree.

(2) Capacity Building. Community colleges are encouraged to broadly assess their capacity to meet the training needs of the targeted high-growth/high-demand industry or industries. Proposed capacity building strategies are expected to address significant barriers which impede the ability of the community college to meet local industry demand for workforce training. These strategies should not simply address isolated deficits, but rather provide a comprehensive solution to identified capacity challenges as they relate to the industry or industries of focus. Examples of capacity building activities include, but are not limited to:

a. The development or adaptation of competency models and curricula to support training;

b. The development of innovative curricula, teaching methods and instructional design to maximize the impact of the initiative in meeting the skills needs of employers;

c. Innovative strategies to ensure availability of qualified and certified instructors;

d. Procurement of equipment and simulation equipment necessary to train to industry-demanded skills; or

e. Support for clinical experiences required for certification or licensure.

Capacity building activities must meet two criteria: (1) The proposed capacity building efforts must be directly linked to the specific training supported under the grant; and (2) grantees must use their grant funds in a manner consistent with the regulations and policies governing use of funds under 171(d) of WIA, which broadly allows the funds to be utilized to test an array of approaches to the provision of training services and support the development and replication of effective training strategies.

D. Leveraged Resources. Projects funded through CBJTGs should leverage resources from key entities in the strategic partnership. Leveraging resources in the context of strategic partnerships accomplishes three goals: (1) It allows for the strategic pursuit of resources; (2) it increases stakeholder investment in the project at all levels including design and implementation phases; and (3) it broadens the impact of the project itself. Applicants are encouraged to leverage significant resources from key partners and other organizations to maximize the impact of the project on the community.

ETA strongly encourages CBJTG applicants and their strategic partners to be entrepreneurial as they seek out, utilize, and sustain these resources, whether they are in-kind or cash contributions, when creating capacity building and training strategies. Businesses, faith-based and community organizations, and foundations often invest resources to support workforce development. Faith-based and community organizations may provide resources such as support services, mentoring, tutoring, and volunteers, all of which are important resources for grantees to leverage in assisting the populations targeted by these funds. In addition, other government programs, including the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and other ETA programs, such as registered apprenticeship and Job Corps, may have resources available that can be integrated into the proposed project.

ETA also encourages applicants to integrate WIA funding at the state and local level into their proposed project. Integrating WIA funds ensures that the full spectrum of assets available from the workforce system is leveraged to support the capacity building and training activities. The wide variety of WIA programs and activities provide both breadth and depth to the proposed solution offered to both business and individuals. The use of WIA funds also serves to embed the solutions-based approach into the local or regional workforce investment system, which strengthens the system's ability to become more demand-driven.

E. Replication. CBJTGs are intended to drive the community college system and the workforce investment system to be more responsive to the workforce demands of industry by making the products, models, and effective approaches that result from CBJTG investments available to both systems. To that end, grantees will develop the foundations and outcomes of CBJTG projects, including the learning and achievement resulting from the projects, into solutions-based models that can be shared with, and implemented by, other community colleges, the workforce system, and industry leaders.

F. Outcomes. The CBJTGs will be fundamentally results-oriented. Therefore, clear and specific outcomes that are appropriate to the nature of the proposed activities and the size of the project are vital components of CBJTG projects. Because CBJTGs invest in customized strategies to address local workforce and skills shortages, ETA recognizes that specific outcomes will vary from project to project based on the specific activities proposed. Training outcomes should include those tracked by the Common Measures, the OMB-approved uniform evaluation metrics for job training and employment programs. A detailed description of ETA's policy on the Common Measures can be found in the Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 28-04 (http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL28-04.pdf). A basic list of Common Measures is provided as attachment B to the TEGL (http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL28-04_AttachB.pdf). Capacity building outcomes should include products, models, and activities that increase the capacity of the community college to provide training as well as the impact each outcome has on the number of individuals the community college can train and/or the quality of that training. Outcomes and impacts of the proposed project should satisfactorily address the industry-identified workforce need and the community college capacity constraint identified by the partnership.

ETA intends to fund approximately seventy-five (75) projects through grants ranging from $500,000 to $2 million through this competition; however, this does not preclude ETA from funding grants at either a lower or higher amount, or funding a smaller or larger number of projects, based on the type and the number of quality submissions. Applicants are encouraged to submit budgets for quality projects at whatever funding level is appropriate to the project. Nevertheless, applicants should recognize that the funds available through this SGA are intended to complement additional leveraged resources rather than be the sole source of funds for the proposal. A second competition planned for Fall/Winter 2005 will request applications for the funding of additional projects.

ETA intends that the initial period of grant performance will fall within a range of 24 to 36 months from the date of execution of the grant documents. However, ETA will determine an appropriate period of performance on a per-award basis that will allow for the completion of capacity building and training efforts, and allow time for post-training participant tracking in the workplace.

In order to be eligible for consideration under this solicitation, the applicant must be a publicly funded institution of higher education that grants associate degrees. Therefore, applicants must demonstrate that they comply with the definition of a community college in 20 U.S.C. 2371:

Applicants that fail to meet this eligibility requirement will be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process. Please note: (1) The applicant and fiscal agent for this grant initiative must be the same entity; and (2) in accordance with Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65) (2 U.S.C. 1611), non-profit entities incorporated under Internal Revenue Service Code section 501(c)(4) that engage in lobbying activities are not eligible to receive Federal funds and grants.

Cost sharing, matching, or cost participation is not required for eligibility; however, applicants are encouraged to leverage the resources of the partnership whenever possible.

(1) Demonstrated Partnerships. To be considered for funding under this SGA, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be implemented by a strategic partnership that includes at least one entity from each of the following categories: (1) The publicly-funded Workforce Investment System, which may include state and local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce Agencies, and One Stop Career Centers and their partners; (2) the community college system; (3) employers and industry-related organizations such as associations and unions; and (4) the continuum of education, including the K-12 public education system. The strategic partnership may be a legally organized partnership or joint venture, or a more informal collaboration. As discussed above in Section III(1), the applicant itself, for the purpose of being bound in the grant application and any resulting award, must be a publicly funded community college.

(2) Required Capacity Building and Training Activities. To be considered for funding under this SGA, proposed grant activities must include a combination of capacity building and training activities that target skills and competencies demanded by local high-growth/high-demand industries. Training activities must result in college credit or other credentials that are industry-recognized and indicate a level of mastery and competence in a given field or function. Proposed capacity building activities must address barriers that impede the ability of the community college to meet local industry demand for workforce training and must be directly linked to the specific training supported under the grant. Applicants may propose a cross-cutting capacity building and training strategy that will support training in more than one high growth/high demand industry if the applicant can demonstrate that skill needs in the identified industries are shared.

(3) Participants Eligible to Receive Training. Generally, the scope of potential trainees is very broad. WIA Sec. 171(d) authorizes demonstration programs to serve dislocated workers, incumbent workers, and new entrants to the workforce. This authorization supports a broad range of training for a variety of populations, including: Incumbent workers who need new skills for jobs in demand up the career ladder or because the skill needs for their current job have changed; untapped labor pools such as immigrant workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, older workers, youth, etc; or entry level workers who need basic skills and/or specific occupational skill training. The identification of targeted and qualified trainees should be part of the larger project planning process undertaken by the required partnership and should relate to the workforce issue that is being addressed by the training.

(4) Training Providers. The community college applicant must offer appropriate credentials for all proposed training. Generally, it is assumed that the applicant will also be the training provider. However, ETA encourages applicants to be creative in integrating partner resources into the training plan. For example: A business partner may provide a qualified instructor to the community college; the community college may provide on-site training for workers to take advantage of business-loaned equipment; the training may be provided jointly; or some of the training may utilize distance learning alternatives.

(5) Veterans Priority. In circumstances where a grant recipient must choose between two equally qualified candidates for training, one of whom is a veteran, the Jobs for Veterans Act (Pub. L. 107-288) requires that grant recipients give the veteran priority of service by admitting him or her. The Jobs for Veterans Act provides priority of service to veterans and spouses of certain veterans for the receipt of employment, training, and placement services in any job training program directly funded, in whole or in part, by the Department of Labor. Please note that, to obtain priority of service, a veteran must meet the program's eligibility requirements. ETA Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 5-03 (September 16, 2003) provides general guidance on the scope of the Job for Veterans Act and its effect on current employment and training programs. TEGL No. 5-03, along with additional guidance, is available at the “Jobs for Veterans Priority of Service” Web site (http://www.doleta.gov/programs/vets).

This SGA contains all of the information and forms needed to apply for grant funding.

The proposal must consist of two (2) separate and distinct parts, Parts I and II. Applications that fail to adhere to the instructions in this section will be considered non-responsive and may not be given further consideration.

Part I of the proposal is the Cost Proposal and must include the following three items.

• The Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (Appendix B) (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/sf424.pdf). The SF 424 must clearly identify the applicant and be signed by an individual with authority to enter into a grant agreement. Upon confirmation of an award, the individual signing the SF 424 on behalf of the applicant shall be considered the representative of the applicant.

• All applicants for federal grant and funding opportunities are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number. See Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Notice of Final Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003). Applicants must supply their DUNS number in item #5 of the new SF 424 issued by OMB (Rev. 9-2003). The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number that uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access this Web site: http://www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1-866-705-5711.

• SF 424A, the Budget Information Form (Appendix C) (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/sf424a.pdf). In preparing the Budget Information Form, the applicant must provide a concise narrative explanation to support the request. The budget narrative should break down the budget and leveraged resources by deliverable, should discuss cost per-participant, and should discuss precisely how the administrative costs support the project goals.

Please note that applicants that fail to provide a SF 424, SF 424A and/or a budget narrative will be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process. Applicants are also encouraged, but not required, to submit OMB Survey N. 1890-0014: Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, which can be found in Attachment D.

Part II of the application is the Technical Proposal, which demonstrates the applicant's capabilities to plan and implement the CBJTG in accordance with the provisions of this solicitation. The Technical Proposal is limited to twenty (20) double-spaced, single-sided, 8.5 inch x 11 inch pages with 12 point text font and one-inch margins. In addition, in attachments which may not exceed ten (10) pages, the applicant may provide resumes, a list of staff positions to be funded by the grant, statistical information and other related material. The required letters of commitment from partners must be submitted as additional attachments, which will not count against the allowable 10-page limit on attachments. The applicant must reference any partners in the text of the Technical Proposal. No cost data or reference to prices should be included in the Technical Proposal. The following information is required:

• A two-page abstract summarizing the proposed project and applicant profile information including: Applicant name, project title, industry focus, partnership members, proposed training and capacity building activities, funding level requested, and the amount of leveraged resources;

• A table of contents listing the application sections;

• A time line outlining project activities and an anticipated schedule for deliverables; and

• A project description as described in the Evaluation Criteria section at Part V(1) of this solicitation.

Please note that the abstract, table of contents, and time line are not included in the twenty page limit. Applications that do not provide Part II of the application will be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process.

Applications may be submitted electronically on Grants.gov or in hard-copy via mail or hand delivery. These processes are described in further detail in section IV(3). Applicants submitting proposals in hard-copy must submit an original signed application (including the SF 424) and one (1) “copy-ready” version free of bindings, staples or protruding tabs to ease in the reproduction of the proposal by DOL. Applicants submitting proposals in hard-copy are also requested, though not required, to provide an electronic copy of the proposal on CD-ROM.

The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is July 6, 2005. Applications must be received at the address below no later than 5 p.m. (Eastern Time). Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (fax) will not be accepted. Applications that do not meet the conditions set forth in this notice will not be honored. No exceptions to the mailing and delivery requirements set forth in this notice will be granted.

ETA will host CHJTG Virtual Prospective Applicant Conferences for this grant competition. The dates and access information for these prospective applicant conferences will be posted on ETA's Web site at http://www.doleta.gov/business/Community-BasedJobTrainingGrants.cfm.

Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Eric Luetkenhaus, Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA-PY-04-10, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4438, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail decontamination procedures. Hand delivered proposals will be received at the above address. All overnight mail will be considered to be hand-delivered and must be received at the designated place by the specified closing date.

Applicants may apply online through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov). It is strongly recommended that applicants using Grants.gov immediately initiate and complete the “Get Started” registration steps at http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted. These steps may take multiple days to complete, and this time should be factored into plans for electronic application submission in order to avoid facing unexpected delays that could result in the rejection of an application. If submitting electronically through grants.gov, it would be appreciated if the application submitted is saved as .doc, .pdf or .txt files

Late Applications: Any application received after the exact date and time specified for receipt at the office designated in this notice will not be considered, unless it is received before awards are made and it (a) was sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before the date specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application required to be received by the 20th of the month must be post marked by the 15th of that month) or (b) was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail or Grants.gov to the addressee not later than 5 p.m. at the place of mailing or electronic submission one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications. It is highly recommended that online submissions be completed one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications to ensure that the applicant still has the option to submit by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail in the event of any electronic submission problems. “Post marked” means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, applicants should request the postal clerk to place a legible hand cancellation “bull's eye” postmark on both the receipt and the package. Failure to adhere to the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of nonresponsiveness.

This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order (EO) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles, e.g., Educational Institution—OMB Circular A-21. Disallowed costs are those charges to a grant that the grantor agency or its representative determines not to be allowed in accordance with the applicable Federal Cost Principles or other conditions contained in the grant. Applicants will not be entitled to reimbursement of pre-award costs.

Limitations on Cost Per-Participant. Because the costs of training may vary considerably depending on the skills and competencies required in different occupations in different industries, flexibility will be provided on cost per-participant. However, applications for funding will be reviewed to determine if the cost of the training is appropriate and will produce the outcomes identified. Applicants should demonstrate that the proposed cost per-participant is aligned with existing price structures for similar training in the local area, if available, or with the community college's existing price structures for the type of program offered.

Administrative Costs. An entity that receives a CBJTG to carry out a project or program may not use more than 5 percent of the total amount of the grant to pay administrative costs associated with the program or project. The Grant Officer reserves the right to negotiate administrative cost levels prior to award. Administrative costs are defined at 20 CFR 667.220. Although there will be administrative costs associated with the management of the partnership as it relates to specific grant activity, the primary use of funding should be to support the capacity building and training activities.

ETA Intellectual Property Rights. Applicants should note that grantees must agree to provide DOL/ETA a paid-up, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use for federal purposes all products developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under an award, including, but not limited to, curricula, training models, technical assistance products, and any related materials, and to authorize them to do so. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute such products worldwide by any means, electronically or otherwise.

Legal Rules Pertaining to Inherently Religious Activities by Organizations that Receive Federal Financial Assistance. The government is prohibited from providing direct support to religious activity 1 . See 29 CFR part 2, subpart D. Funds from these grants may not be used to directly support religious instruction, worship, prayer, proselytizing or other inherently religious practices. Neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion must be employed in the selection of grant and sub-grant recipients. In addition, under the WIA and DOL regulations implementing the Workforce Investment Act, a recipient may not use direct Federal assistance to train a participant in religious activities or employ participants to construct, operate, or maintain any part of a facility that is used or to be used for religious instruction or worship. See 29 CFR 37.6(f). Under WIA, “no individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with, any such program or activity because of race, color, religion, sex (except as otherwise permitted under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief”.

Applications may be withdrawn by written notice or telegram (including mailgram) received at any time before an award is made. Applications may be withdrawn in person by the applicant or by an authorized representative thereof, if the representative's identity is made known and the representative signs a receipt for the proposal.

This section identifies and describes the criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals for a Community-Based Job Training Grant. These criteria and point values are:

Scoring on this criterion will be based on the extent to which the applicant demonstrates a clear and specific need for Federal investment in the proposed activities. Applicants must demonstrate this need by: (a) Identifying the industry or industries of focus; (b) establishing that the identified industry satisfies ETA's criteria for a high-growth/high-demand industry in the local economy as described in Part I(1) of this solicitation; (c) providing evidence of industry demand for training in the local economy; and (d) describing in detail the capacity challenges the community college faces that limit its ability to provide sufficient quantity or quality of training to meet the identified industry's demand. In addition, applicants should provide evidence that the capacity challenge to be addressed by the grant was identified in the context of the strategic partnership. Applicants may draw from a variety of resources for supporting data, including: traditional labor market information, such as projections; industry data, such as from trade associations or direct information from the local industry; and information on the local economy and other transactional data, such as job vacancies, that are available locally.

Additional important factors for evaluation include:

• The extent to which the targeted industry is high-growth or high-demand in the context of the local economy;

• Identification of local workforce or skills shortages within the targeted industry;

• Demonstrated existence of the identified capacity constraint at the community college at which the grant activity will take place;

• Identification of the sources of the data used in the analysis; and

• If appropriate, the nature of larger strategic economic development or workforce investment projects with which the proposed project is aligned.

The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be implemented by a strategic partnership that includes at least one entity from each of four categories: (1) The workforce investment system, which may include state and local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce Agencies, and One Stop Career Centers and their partners, as such terms are defined under WIA; (2) community colleges; (3) employers and industry-related organizations such as associations and unions; and (4) the continuum of education, including the K-12 public education system. The applicant must identify the partners, explain the meaningful role each partner will play in the project, and document the resources leveraged from each partner. Collaborating partners must verify their role through a letter of commitment attached to the proposal. Applicants should also identify resources leveraged from other organizations, including other workforce investment system partners.

ETA encourages, and will be looking for, applications that go beyond the minimum level of partnership and demonstrate broader, substantive and sustainable partnerships. If appropriate, applicants should also demonstrate the existence of a sustainability plan for the strategic partnership beyond the funding period.

Scoring on this criterion will be based on: (1) Evidence that the partnership contains each of the required entities; (2) the degree to which each partner plays a committed role, either financial or non-financial, in the proposed project; and (3) the robustness of the applicant's plan for sustaining the partnership beyond the funding period. Applications that do not have each of the four required entities represented in the partnership cannot receive full points in this section. The following elements will also be considered:

• The overall completeness of the strategic partnership, including its ability to manage all aspects and stages of the project and to coordinate individual activities with the partnership as a whole;

• The scope of each partner's contribution, their knowledge and experience concerning the proposed grant activities, and their ability to impact the success of the project;

• Evidence, including letters of support, that key partners have expressed a clear commitment to the project and understand their areas of responsibility;

• Evidence of a plan for interaction between partners at each stage of the project, from planning to execution; and

• Evidence that the partnership has the capacity to achieve the outcomes of the proposed project.

The applicant must describe its proposed capacity building and training strategies in full. The description should demonstrate: (1) That the proposed project will address identified industry workforce or skills shortages and identified capacity constraints at the community college level; (2) that the proposed project clearly integrates industry-driven capacity building and training activities; (3) that proposed capacity building solutions are broad based and include an appropriate range of activities; (4) that proposed training activities occur within the context of a continuum of education and training that supports long-term career growth, such as an articulated career ladder/lattice; (5) that proposed training activities lead to appropriate credentialing; and (6) that the applicant has a clear understanding of the tasks required to successfully meet the objectives of the grant.

Scoring on this criterion will be based on evidence that the applicant has developed effective, innovative training and capacity building strategies and a plan of implementation that will satisfy the six conditions described above. Additional factors that will be considered include:

• The existence of a work plan that is responsive to the applicant's statement of need and includes specific goals, objectives, activities, implementation strategies, and a timeline;

• The demonstrated link between the proposed project and the identified industry workforce or skills shortages and identified capacity constraints at the community college level.

• The extent to which the work plan provides an understanding of the entire project's intended implementation;

• The feasibility and sensibility of the timeframes for the accomplishment of tasks;

• The extent to which the budget is justified with respect to the adequacy and reasonableness of resources requested;

• The extent to which budget line items are consistent with and tied to the work plan objectives;

• Evidence that the proposed cost per-participant is aligned with existing price structures for similar training; and

• Evidence of a robust outreach strategy that includes the dissemination of information regarding the project to others who would benefit most, and if appropriate, recruitment of eligible participants.

Applicants must describe fully the predicted outcomes and products resulting from the project. Applicants should particularly highlight the benefits and impact of the outcomes and products on the larger capacity constraint described in the statement of need. Scoring on this criterion will be based on two broad elements:

1. The expected project outcomes are clearly identified, measurable, realistic, and consistent with the objectives of the project. Key elements for training and capacity building aspects of the proposal are below.

a. Training: Applicants must track training outcome measures, including all appropriate adult or youth Common Measures, such as employment placement numbers and/or earnings gains and retention. Other outcome measures that should be tracked include the number of individuals awarded credentials or degrees, and outcome measures specific to the proposed training project. Applications must also identify the credential that participants will earn as a result of the proposed training, and the employer-, industry-, vendor-, or state-defined standards associated with the credential. If the credential targeted by the training project is a certificate or performance-based certification, applicants should either (a) demonstrate employer engagement in the curriculum development process, or (b) indicate that the certification will translate into concrete job advancement opportunities with an employer.

b. Capacity Building: Applicants must clearly describe all products, models, curricula, etc. that will be developed or acquired with federal funds through the grant and indicate the number of participants or entities who will benefit from the proposed activities. Applicants must describe the data measures that will be used to measure how the proposed capacity building activities impact the ability of the community college to train workers for skills in demand by the targeted industry. Applicants should indicate the long-term impact of the proposed project on the ability of the community college to meet local workforce demands.

2. The proposed outcomes will translate into the successful alleviation of the community college's identified capacity challenges.

Additional factors that will be considered in the scoring of this criterion include:

• The ability of the applicant to achieve the stated outcomes within the time frame of the grant; and

• The appropriateness of the outcomes with respect to the requested level of funding.

To satisfy this criterion, applicants must describe their proposed project management structure including, where appropriate, the identification of a proposed project manager, and discuss the proposed staffing pattern and the qualifications and experience of key staff members. Applicants should also give evidence of the use of data systems to track outcomes in a timely and accurate manner. The applicant should include a description of organizational capacity and the organization's track record in projects similar to that described in the proposal and/or related activities of the primary partners.

Scoring under this criterion will be based on the extent to which applicants provide evidence of the following:

• The time commitment of the proposed staff is sufficient to ensure proper direction, management, and timely completion of the project;

• The roles and contribution of staff, consultants, and collaborative organizations are clearly defined and linked to specific objectives and tasks;

• The background, experience, and other qualifications of the staff are sufficient to carry out their designated roles; and

• The applicant organization has significant capacity to accomplish the goals and outcomes of the project, including the ability to collect and manage data in a way that allows consistent, accurate, and expedient reporting.

Applications for the Community-Based Job Training Grants will be accepted after the publication of this announcement until the closing date. A technical review panel will make a careful evaluation of applications against the criteria set forth in Section V(A) of this document. These criteria are based on the policy goals, priorities, and emphases set forth in this SGA. Up to 100 points may be awarded to an application, based on the required information described in Section V(1). The ranked scores will serve as the primary basis for selection of applications for funding, in conjunction with other factors such as urban, rural, and geographic balance; the availability of funds; and which proposals are most advantageous to the Government. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant Officer, who may consider any information that comes to his attention. DOL may elect to award the grant(s) with or without discussions with the applicants. Should a grant be awarded without discussions, the award will be based on the applicant's signature on the SF 424, which constitutes a binding offer.

All award notifications will be posted on the ETA Homepage (http://www.doleta.gov). Non-selected applicants will be notified by mail.

All grantees will be subject to all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and the applicable OMB Circulars. The grant(s) awarded under this SGA will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable:

1. Workforce Investment Boards—20 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 667.220. (Administrative Costs).

2. Non-Profit Organizations—OMB Circulars A-122 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements).

3. Educational Institutions—OMB Circulars A-21 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements).

4. State and Local Governments—OMB Circulars A-87 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 97 (Administrative Requirements).

5. Profit Making Commercial Firms—Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)—48 CFR Part 31 (Cost Principles), and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements).

6. All entities must comply with 29 CFR Parts 93 and 98, and, where applicable, 29 CFR Parts 96 and 99.

7. The following administrative standards and provisions may also be applicable:

a. 29 CFR part 2, subpart D—Equal Treatment in Department of Labor Programs for Religious Organizations, Protection of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries;

b. 29 CFR part 30—Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training;

c. 29 CFR part 31—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

d. 29 CFR part 32—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance;

e. 29 CFR part 33—Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department of Labor;

f. 29 CFR part 35—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Department of Labor;

g. 29 CFR part 36—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance;

h. 29 CFR part 37—Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).

8. In accordance with Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65) (2 U.S.C. 1611) non-profit entities incorporated under Internal Revenue Service Code section 501(c) (4) that engage in lobbying activities are not eligible to receive Federal funds and grants.

Evaluation. DOL may require that the program or project participate in an evaluation of overall performance of CBJTGs. To measure the impact of the CBJTGs, ETA may arrange for or conduct an independent evaluation of the outcomes and benefits of the projects. Grantees must agree to make records on participants, employers and funding available, and to provide access to program operating personnel and participants, as specified by the evaluator(s) under the direction of ETA, including after the expiration date of the grant.

The grantee is required to provide the reports and documents listed below:

Quarterly Financial Reports. A Quarterly Financial Status Report (SF 269) is required until such time as all funds have been expended or the grant period has expired. Quarterly reports are due 30 days after the end of each calendar year quarter. Grantees must use ETA's On-Line Electronic Reporting System.

Quarterly Progress Reports. The grantee must submit a quarterly progress report to the designated Federal Project Officer within 30 days after the end of each calendar year quarter. Two copies are to be submitted providing a detailed account of activities undertaken during that quarter. DOL may require additional data elements to be collected and reported on either a regular basis or special request basis. Grantees must agree to meet DOL reporting requirements. The quarterly progress report should be in narrative form and should include:

1. General grant information, including: a general overview of project progress, new developments and resolution of previous issues and challenges; a discussion of planned grant activities and any other grant-related events; an explanation of any issues/challenges encountered and the proposed strategies to overcome them; a description of major accomplishments, innovations, or promising approaches and processes; product deliverables and outcomes resulting from the project; and a status update on leveraged resources;

2. Information on all training, employer, and grant deliverable outcomes as well as the anticipated impact of these outcomes on the community college, industry partners, and the broader community;

3. Summary of the status of grant deliverables and dissemination activities;

4. Highlights of promising approaches and success stories; and

5. Description of technical assistance needs.

Final Report. A draft final report must be submitted no later than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the grant. This report must summarize project activities, employment outcomes, and related results of the training project, and should thoroughly document capacity building and training approaches. After responding to DOL questions and comments on the draft report, three copies of the final report must be submitted no later than the grant expiration date. Grantees must agree to use a designated format specified by DOL for preparing the final report.

Any questions regarding this SGA should be faxed to Kevin Brumback, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, FAX number (202) 693-2705. (This is not a toll-free number). You must specifically address your FAX to the attention of Kevin Brumback and should include SGA/DFA-PY-04-10, a contact name, fax and phone number.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

• Overview of the Goddard Space Flight Center

• Goddard Office of the Chief Financial Officer Summary

• Financial Management Material Weakness

• Corrective Action Tracking System

U.S. Citizens desiring to attend the NASA Financial Audit Committee meeting at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) must provide their full name, citizenship, company affiliation (if applicable), place of birth, and date of birth and Foreign nationals who desire to attend the meeting must provide their passport or naturalization papers to the GSFC Security Office no less than 3 working days prior to the meeting. If the above information is not received by the noted date, attendees should expect a delay in entering the Goddard Space Flight Center. All visitors to this meeting should go to the GSFC Security Office, accessible from Greenbelt Road, where they will be cleared, given an identification badge, and transported to the meeting location, if seating is available. Please provide the requested information, by the appropriate date, via FAX to (301) 286-1715, to the attention of Kathy Palmer, noting at the top: “PUBLIC ADMISSION TO THE FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING @ GSFC.” Faxes not addressed as required will not be processed. For security questions, please contact Kathy Palmer at (301) 286-0569.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

Schedules Pending:

1. Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (N1-537-03-8, 18 items, 17 temporary items). Aeronautical charting and flight information files. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using word processing and electronic mail. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of air targeting materials maintained by the office assigned functional program responsibility. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

2. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, (N1-441-05-2, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Postsecondary closed school files. Included are such records as closed school notices, communications with internal program offices and external agencies, general and congressional correspondence, information about school operations and practices, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

3. Department of Justice, Criminal Division (N1-60-05-3, 5 items, 2 temporary items). Inputs and outputs of the Division's automated case tracking system, which contains information on the status of cases, defendants, charges, sentences, and appeals. Proposed for permanent retention are master files, including a public-use version, and the system documentation.

4. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (N1-59-04-2, 45 items, 39 temporary items). Diazo microfilm of passport applications and vital records files and optical disk and microfilm versions of Panama Canal Zone birth and death certificates. This schedule also modifies descriptions and retention periods for numerous passport-related records that were previously approved for disposal, such as passport authorization records, fee-related records, general passport correspondence, and the master lookout, name check, and issuance systems. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of passport subject files and vital records files, including original Panama Canal Zone birth and death certificates.

5. Department of State, Agency-wide (N1-59-05-9, 12 items, 12 temporary items). Routine, fragmentary, and duplicative files identified during review of office files with terminal dates from 1962 through 1982. Records come from the Bureau of African Affairs, the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, the Bureau of European Affairs, the Inspector General for Foreign Assistance, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Office of the Legal Adviser, the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, and the Law of the Sea Negotiation Staff.

6. Department of State, Office of the Chief Special Agent (N1-59-05-10, 4 items, 1 temporary item). Records relating to arrivals into and departures from the United States that were accumulated by a long-defunct agency office. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of records relating to passport and visa matters and miscellaneous files.

7. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (N1-59-05-11, 6 items, 5 temporary items). Records of the Passport Services Special Issuance Agency, including control logs, copies of applications, and a tracking system used for selected duplicate passport information. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of policy/subject files.

8. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (N1-557-05-13, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Records associated with the Office of Communications' Safety Violations and Consumer Complaint Hotline Database, which is used to track complaints received by the agency. Included are master data files, paper and electronic input records, system documentation, and outputs. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

9. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service (N1-425-05-2, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Subject files, training materials, and access documentation relating to computer security. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

10. Department of the Treasury, Agency-wide (N1-56-05-4, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Forms used to certify that departing employees have not improperly removed documents when they separate from the agency.

11. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (N1-58-05-1, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Forms submitted by state housing agencies, taxpayers, and low-income housing providers pertaining to the low-income housing credit program.

12. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (N1-15-05-1, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation associated with an electronic system that contains information relating to individuals with spinal cord injuries and disorders, such as name, social security number, date of birth, and nature of injury/disorder. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

13. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N2-220-05-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records accumulated by the White House Conference on Families, 1976-80, consisting of voting records for three conferences held during this period. These electronic records were previously accessioned into the National Archives but lack technical documentation and cannot be interpreted.

14. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N1-64-05-7, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to accessioning files of Special Prosecutors and Independent Counsels, including correspondence, memorandums, notes, delivery/receipt forms, copies of finding aids and dockets, and general subject files. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

15. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services—Washington, DC (N1-64-05-8, 4 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that pertain to administering the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of these files. Included are such records as forms and other records documenting the transfer of records to NARA, finding aids, subject files, and briefing papers.

NARA proposes the disposition of 9,193 backup tapes created during the Clinton Administration by White House Communications Agency (WHCA) staff because NARA has determined that they lack continuing administrative, historical, informational or evidentiary value. The tapes contain duplicate versions of classified electronic records for a small number of staff members in the Clinton Administration National Security Council, consisting primarily of electronic calendar data. NARA will continue to retain on other electronic media a full set of copies of the Presidential records on the backup tapes proposed for disposal.

During the Clinton Administration, a very small number of NSC staff (and their secretaries) continued to use older software known as PROFS, primarily to maintain electronic calendars and call logs, including for the scheduling of daily activities and appointments. PROFS (Professional/Office Vision software) was an IBM proprietary office management tool available to NSC staff and supported by WHCA. NSC staff maintaining PROFS calendars and call logs included the Assistants to the President for National Security, their Deputies, members of the NSC Office of the Executive Secretary, and certain additional NSC staff. All NSC staff separately used the NSC Classified E-mail System known as “A-1” or “All-in-One,” later migrated to Microsoft Mail and Microsoft Schedule, as their primary e-mail system. NARA has copies of all NSC Classified E-mail and Calendars maintained on this latter NSC e-mail system in a separate series of Clinton Presidential records that are being retained permanently.

Throughout the eight years of the Clinton Administration, WHCA prepared periodic backup tapes of the PROFS system. The periodic backups captured data from the entire system, i.e., each new backup copied new data plus cumulative data already captured on prior backups (including data in closed accounts representing former staff in previous Administrations). The backups also contain nonrecord software and systems information captured by NSC and WHCA's disaster recovery operation at the time of tape creation.

For backup tapes created during the time period between January 20, 1993 and March 28, 1994, all PROFS notes, documents, calendars and call log information on the tapes were made subject to a tape restoration project (TRP) conducted in response to stipulations and orders entered in the case of Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Civ. No. 89-0142 (D.D.C.), and NARA will continue to retain these records. (The PROFS notes and documents function was only in use through June 30, 1993, and all such e-mails have been restored.) Similarly, all legacy data (notes, documents, calendars, and call logs) from previous Administrations also were restored pursuant to the Armstrong TRP. Both the restored Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush PROFS records and the separately preserved Reagan and Bush era backup tapes are maintained by NARA as separate collections and are not the subject of this proposed disposal.

In addition, NARA will permanently retain multiple preservation copies of the January 19, 2001, backup tape created by WHCA containing cumulative data from the entire eight year span of the Clinton Administration on this system. NARA also is retaining a comprehensive “snapshot” in electronic form of all calendar data and call logs contained on the January 19, 2001, backup tape of the records of five high-level NSC officials (Anthony Lake, Samuel Berger, Nancy Soderberg, Donald Kerrick, and James Steinberg) during the entirety of their service in the Clinton Administration.

Although the materials are currently classified and are otherwise subject to access restrictions imposed by the Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)), NARA will be able to respond to future access requests for the electronic calendars, call logs, and e-mail of high-level NSC officials, both as restored in response to litigation and as contained on the snapshot being retained from the last day of the Clinton Administration. Because NARA already retains all of the records of archival value, these 9,193 backup tapes do not warrant permanent retention and are disposable.

This notice does not constitute a final agency action as described in 44 U.S.C. 2203(f)(3) and no Presidential records will be disposed of following this notice. NARA will publish a second notice in the Federal Register only after it has considered any comments received during this 45-day comment period. The second, 60-day notice will constitute a final agency action in the event NARA proceeds with disposal.