The Specialty Crop Committee is responsible for studying the scope and effectiveness of research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry. The term “specialty crop” means fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops (including floriculture). Findings contained in the Specialty Crop Committee's annual study along with recommendations that address items specified in the legislation will be submitted in a report to the Advisory Board. Those findings and recommendations approved by the Board will be considered by the Secretary in preparing annual budget recommendations for the Department of Agriculture.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason To Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced into the United States. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, and release into the environment of a regulated article.

On October 28, 2004, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS permit number 04-302-01r) from Ventria Bioscience, Sacramento, CA, for a permit for a confined field test of rice (Oryza sativa) plants genetically engineered to express a gene coding for the protein lactoferrin, rice line LF164-12. According to the permit application, the field test would be conducted in Scott County, MO. On February 23, 2005, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 8763, Docket No. 05-006-1), announcing the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed field test and soliciting public comments for 30 days. This 30-day comment period closed on March 25, 2005. During the 30-day comment period, APHIS received 309 comments. Comments were received from rice growers, rice marketing and processing groups, agricultural support businesses, consumer groups, university professionals, private individuals, industry trade organizations, large rice purchasers, growers of crops other than rice, and Federal, State and local government representatives.

On April 27, 2005, while APHIS was evaluating these comments, we received a request from Ventria Biosciences to plant rice line LF164-12 in a second site in Washington County, NC (APHIS permit number 05-117-01r). At this time, Ventria Biosciences has not withdrawn its application to conduct a field test in Scott County, MO. However, it is likely that conducting a field test for this growing season is not feasible due to climatic factors in this location. Because APHIS has not yet considered all of the comments associated with the earlier EA and the issues raised in North Carolina are similar to those in Missouri, APHIS has amended the EA to evaluate the issues in North Carolina as well as Missouri. These are covered in Appendices V and VI. In addition to evaluating site-specific issues presented by the North Carolina application, this revised EA also corrects errors in the original EA. These changes are described in the summary of the EA.

APHIS is seeking comments on the additional information provided in this revised EA. We are particularly interested in comments related to Appendices V and VI that address issues in North Carolina. APHIS will consider all comments received during the previous comment period (70 FR 8763, Docket No. 05-006-1) as well as any new comments received during this comment period (see DATES above). The expanded EA will be open for public comment for an additional 20 days.

The subject rice plants have been genetically engineered, using micro-projectile bombardment, to express human lactoferrin protein. Expression of the gene is controlled by the rice glutelin 1 promoter, the rice glutelin 1 signal peptide, and the nos (nopaline synthase) terminator sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The gene is expressed only in the endosperm. In addition, the plants contain the coding sequence for the gene hygromycin phosphotransferase (hpt), an enzyme which confers tolerance to the antibiotic hygromycin. This gene is a selectable marker that is only expressed during plant cell culture and is not expressed in any tissues of the mature plant. Expression of the gene is controlled by the rice glucanase 9 (Gns 9) promoter and the Rice Alpha Amylase 1A (RAmy1A) terminator. The genetically engineered rice plants are considered regulated articles under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they contain gene sequences from plant pathogens.

The purpose of the field planting is for pure seed production and for the extraction of lactoferrin for a variety of research and commercial products. The planting will be conducted using physical confinement measures. In addition, the experimental protocols and field plot design, as well as the procedures for termination of the field planting, are designed to ensure that none of the subject rice plants persist in the environment beyond the termination of the experiments.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk associated with the proposed confined field planting of the subject rice plants, an environment assessment (EA) has been prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Copies of the EA are available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason To Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced into the United States. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, and release into the environment of a regulated article.

On October 28, 2004, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS permit number 04-309-01r) from Ventria Bioscience, Sacramento, CA, for a permit for a confined field test of rice (Oryza sativa) plants genetically engineered to express a gene coding for the protein lysozyme, rice line LZ159-53. According to the permit application, the field test would be conducted in Scott County, MO. On February 23, 2005, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 8762-8763, Docket No. 05-007-1), announcing the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed field test and soliciting public comments for 30 days. This 30-day comment period closed on March 25, 2005. During the 30-day comment period, APHIS received 243 comments. Comments were received from rice growers, rice marketing and processing groups, agricultural support businesses, consumer groups, university professionals, private individuals, industry trade organizations, large rice purchasers, growers of crops other than rice, and Federal, State and local government representatives.

On April 27, 2005, while APHIS was evaluating these comments, we received a request from Ventria Biosciences to plant rice line LF164-12 in a second site in Washington County, NC (APHIS permit number 05-117-02r). At this time, Ventria Biosciences has not withdrawn its application to conduct a field test in Scott County, MO. However, it is likely that conducting a field test for this growing season is not feasible due to climatic factors in this location. Because APHIS has not yet considered all of the comments associated with the earlier EA and the issues raised in North Carolina are similar to those in Missouri, APHIS has amended the EA to evaluate the issues in North Carolina as well as Missouri. These are covered in Appendices V and VI. In addition to evaluating site-specific issues presented by the North Carolina application, this revised EA also corrects errors in the original EA. These changes are described in the summary of the EA.

APHIS is seeking comments on the additional information provided in this revised EA. We are particularly interested in comments related to Appendices V and VI that address issues in North Carolina. APHIS will consider all comments received during the previous comment period (70 FR 8762-8763, Docket No. 05-007-1) as well as any new comments received during this comment period (see DATES above). The expanded EA will be open for public comment for an additional 20 days.

The subject rice plants have been genetically engineered, using micro-projectile bombardment, to express human lysozyme protein. Expression of the gene is controlled by the rice glutelin 1 promoter, the rice glutelin 1 signal peptide, and the nos (nopaline synthase) terminator sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The gene is expressed only in the endosperm. In addition, the plants contain the coding sequence for the gene hygromycin phosphotransferase (hpt), an enzyme which confers tolerance to the antibiotic hygromycin. This gene is a selectable marker that is only expressed during plant cell culture and is not expressed in any tissues of the mature plant. Expression of the gene is controlled by the rice glucanase 9 (Gns 9) promoter and the Rice Alpha Amylase 1A (RAmy1A) terminator. The genetically engineered rice plants are considered regulated articles under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because they contain gene sequences from plant pathogens.

The purpose of the field planting is for pure seed production and for the extraction of lysozyme for a variety of research and commercial products. The planting will be conducted using physical confinement measures. In addition, the experimental protocols and field plot design, as well as the procedures for termination of the field planting, are designed to ensure that none of the subject rice plants persist in the environment beyond the termination of the experiments.

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk associated with the proposed confined field planting of the subject rice plants, an environment assessment (EA) has been prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Copies of the EA are available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The purpose of the Canadian River Tamarisk Control project is to:

1. Restore the hydrologic function of the Canadian River by eradicating tamarisk along the river corridor and tributaries using methods that have proven to be both safe and effective.

2. Re-establish native riparian species and the habitat it provides for wildlife.

3. Coordinate activities with adjacent landowners both above and below the Kiowa National Grassland boundary in an effort to control tamarisk within the entire Canadian River corridor.

The Cibola National Forest, Kiowa National Grassland, proposes to apply imazapyr using aerial and backpack spray application methods to 16 miles of the Canadian River and tributaries. Aerial application would be made using a helicopter with spray boom on an estimated 380 acres where the tamarisk is very dense or where the stands are inaccessible to vehicles. Backpack spray (hand treatment) would be used after tamarisk has been cut with either chainsaws or tractor, and the herbicide is applied to the cut stump, or the herbicide is applied over the top of stems as a foliar application (estimated 160 acres). Backpack spray treatments would occur on Forest Service administered lands near the Mills Canyon campground and in areas where there is a predominance of native riparian vegetation that are accessible by existing roads or trails. A nonionic surfactant and drift control agent (vegetable oil based) would be mixed with imazapyr in order to improve effectiveness. An estimated 1 pound of acid equivalent of active ingredient would be applied per acre. Treatments would be applied between late July and late September. Re-treatments would be applied on a limited basis as needed to control re-sprouting tamarisk for up to five years following initial treatment. Dead trees would remain in place for a minimum of two growing seasons after which hazardous trees would be removed within the campground or other accessible places as needed for public safety.

Rehabilitation efforts following treatment would include replanting with native riparian species (i.e., cottonwood, willow, or maple) and reseeding areas disturbed by equipment with native grasses in order to stabilize soil and provide ground cover, as needed.

Resource protection measures that would be implemented as part of this proposal include protection of known historical sites, campground closure during treatments, mechanical and/or hand treatments near the campground, clean picnic tables following treatments, no operations during bird nesting season (April thru mid July), and use of best management practices to protect soil and water resources.

At this time, the only alternative to the proposed action is the no action alternative, which would not propose any treatments within the Canadian River corridor to eradicate tamarisk. Additional alternatives may be included based on issues received during public scoping.

The responsible official is Nancy Rose, Forest Supervisor, Cibola National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2113 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113-1001.

The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action as described above, to vary the design of the proposed action to meet the purpose and need through some other combination of activities, or to take no action at this time.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) emphasizes an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying significant issues related to the proposed action. As part of the scoping process, the lead agency shall invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, and other interested persons (40 CFR 1501.7). In order to meet the intent of the CEQ regulations, the Cibola Forest will implement the following steps to ensure an early and open public involvement process:

1. Include the proposed action on the list of projects for annual tribal consultation. Address concerns identified during tribal consultation as part of the analysis.

2. Submit the proposed action to the public during scoping, and request comments or issues (points of dispute, debate, or disagreement) regarding the potential effects.

3. Include the proposal on the Cibola Schedule of Proposed Actions quarterly report.

4. Provide an opportunity for the public to comment during an open public meeting in the community of Roy, New Mexico, which is closest to the project area. Date and location is yet to be determined.

5. Use comments received to determine significant issues and additional alternatives to address within the analysis.

6. Consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Historical Preservation Office regarding potential affects to listed species and heritage sites.

7. Prepare and distribute a draft environmental impact statement for a 45-day public comment period.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments should focus on the nature of the action proposed and should be relevant to the decision under consideration. Comments received from the public will be evaluated for significant issues and used to assist in the development of additional alternatives.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. [Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)] Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. [City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)] Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters in the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The purpose of and need for the Logjam Timber Sale project is to provide timber harvest opportunities suitable for both large and small timber purchasers, mill operators, and the value-added wood product industries in Southeast Alaska in accordance with Forest Plan direction. The need for the project comes from a lack of timber volume under contract per requirements of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990. The Logjam Timber Sale project is proposed at this time to respond to these needs, and to move the project area toward the desired condition as described in the Forest Plan. The Forest Supervisor will decide whether or not to harvest timber from the Logjam Timber Sale project area, and if so, how this timber will be harvested. The decision will be based on the information that is disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The responsible official will consider comments, responses, the disclosure of environmental consequences, as well as applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and will state that rationale in the record of Decision.

The following Forest-wide goals and objectives as applied to the Logjam Project Area include:

(1) Improve timber growth and productivity on suitable timber lands made available for timber harvest, and manage these lands for long-term sustained yield of timber.

(2) Contribute to a timber supply from the Tongass that seeks to meet annual and Forest Plan planning cycle market demand.

(3) Provide opportunities for local employment in the wood products industry, which in turn contribute to the local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska.

The project area is located within Value Comparison Units (VCUs) 5770 and 5730s. All units are located within four of the six Land Use Designations (LUDs) that occur within the Project Area. The Logjam Timber Sale Project will respond to these goals and objectives, and help move the forest toward the Desired Future Condition of those LUDs as specified in the Forest Plan. It will do this by: (a) Managing suitable timber lands for the production of saw timber and other wood products on a sustained basis (Timber Production LUD, p. 3-144); (b) allowing for a variety of successional stages that provide for a range of wildlife habitat conditions, (Modified Landscape LUD, pp. 3-135 and 3-136); (c) the use of small openings or uneven-aged systems (Scenic Viewshed LUD, p. 3-127); and (d) providing for a variety of visual conditions (Recreational River LUD, p. 3-112). All four LUDs provide for timber harvest which contributes to Forest-wide sustained yield. The remaining two LUDs that do not contain proposed units are Scenic River and Old-Growth.

The need for the project comes from a lack of timber volume under contract per requirements of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990. Seeking to meet timber demand for the Tongass National Forest is required by Section 101 of TTRA which states that, “* * * to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets the market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.”

The determination of market demand and implementation of TTRA is measured periodically. Using the FY04 Timber Demand model, the estimate of volume to be offered to meet demand, by market scenarios, ranges from 153 million board feet (mmbf) in the Low, 177 mmbf Medium, and 254 mmbf High. The projected FY04 demand is based on the low market of 153 mmbf. With approximately 230 mmbf of NEPA-cleared timber currently under litigation it is expected that about 80 mmbf will actually be offered (Tongass Timber Demand Estimate for FY 2004; http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/forest_facts/faqs/demand).

There is a demand on Prince of Wales Island for small timber sales that offer lower investment opportunities suitable for the small business entities. The wood products harvested from such small sales contribute to a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities and value added wood products industries. Industry capacity on Prince of Wales for 2005 has been estimated at 120 MMBF (USFS spreadsheet “050128Timber_Demand_2005_Final.xls”). Currently, the remaining volume under contract to Prince of Wales businesses is 42 MMBF (Tongass NF pdf: “vol_under_contract_fy2004.pdf”). The project area is within reasonable proximity to local mills and communities on Prince of Wales Island.

The proposed action is to harvest approximately 50 million board feet (MMBF) of timber from 82 units on approximately 4,500 acres resulting in a variety of small and large timber sales, using a combination of two-aged, uneven-aged, and even-aged silvicultural prescriptions. These prescriptions will be written to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which will result in units with smaller openings and more partial cut harvesting overall that has historically occurred within the Project Area. The project would require up to 32 miles of new road construction (18 of these would be temporary road) and six miles of road reconstruction.

Public participation has been an integral component of the study process and will continue to be especially important at several points during the analysis. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Tribal governments, Federal, State, and local agencies, individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed activities.

In addition to this Notice of Intent, legal notices will be put in the Juneau Empire, the paper of record for this project. Publication is expected in the paper of record in early May. As a courtesy to island communities, legal notices will also be printed in the Island News and Ketchikan Daily News. Written scoping comments are being solicited through the scoping letters that were mailed to individuals and agencies on the Thorne Bay Ranger District public involvement list in May, 2005. The scoping process includes the following: (1) Identification of potential issues; (2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth; and (3) elimination of non-significant issues or those which have been covered by a previous environmental review. Based on the results of scoping and the resource capabilities within the project area, alternatives including a “no-action” alternative will be developed for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Subsistence hearings, as provided for in Title VIII, Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), will be conducted, if necessary, during the comment period fo the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may require the agency to withhold submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FIOA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstance, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request of confidentiality, and where the request is denied; the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within seven days.

To be most helpful and timely, scoping comments should be received within 30 days of the publication of this Notice of Intent. Public scoping meetings are planned for mid-May at four locations on Price of Wales Island where written comments can be given.

Based on preliminary analysis and internal scoping efforts, we have developed an initial list of issues to be analyzed in the EIS:

• Increased hunting and trapping pressure, as a result of additional open road densities, may have an adverse affect on the wolf population in the project area.

• Cumulative effects of the proposed harvest and road construction may increase sedimentation, which could alter stream channel morphology and degrade fish habitat in the project area.

• The proposed action may adversely affect deer winter range, which could affect subsistence and sport hunting of deer.

• The proposed action would benefit local communities by providing additional employment opportunities and income.

Permits required for implementation include the following:

Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest Supervisor, Federal Building, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901.

The Forest Supervisor will decide: (1) The estimated timber volume to make available from the project, as well as the location, design, and scheduling of timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, and silvicultural practices used; (2) access management measures (road, trail, and area restrictions and closures); (3) mitigation measures and monitoring requirements; (4) whether to make adjustments to the small old-growth reserve (OGR) in VCU 5700; and (5) whether there may be a significant restriction on subsistence uses.

Title: Guaranteed Loanmaking—Business and Industry Loans.

OMB Number: 0570-0017.

Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2005.

Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program was legislated in 1972 under Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended. The purpose of the program is to improve, develop, or finance businesses, industries, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans made by lending institutions, thereby providing lasting community benefits.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, local or tribal; lenders, accountants, attorneys.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,269.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses: 10,269.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 20,624 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0043.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of RBS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Overview

Federal Agency: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Cooperative Development Grant.

Announcement Type: Initial announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.771.

Dates: Application Deadline: 4 p.m. eastern time on July 1, 2005.

RCDGs are authorized by section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)). Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development by Centers. RCDG grants are used to facilitate the creation or retention of jobs in rural areas through the development of new rural cooperatives, value-added processing and other rural businesses. The program is administered through USDA Rural Development State Offices acting on behalf of RBS.

The definitions published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 4284.504 are incorporated by reference.

Type of Award: Grant.

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2005.

Approximate Total Funding: $5.952.0 million (up to $1.488 million reserved for small, minority producers).

Approximate Number of Awards: 20.

Approximate Average Award: $250,000.

Floor of Award Range: None.

Ceiling of Award Range: $300,000.

Anticipated Award Date: 15 September 2005.

Budget Period Length: 12 months.

Project Period Length: 12 months.

A. Eligible Applicants: Grants may be made to non-profit corporations and institutions of higher education. Grants may not be made to Public bodies.

B. Cost Sharing or Matching: Matching funds are required. Applicants must verify in their applications that matching funds are available for the time period of the grant. The matching fund requirement is 25 percent of total project costs (5 percent in the case of 1994 Institutions) comprised of private funds and in-kind contributions. Preference points will be awarded where applicants commit to providing greater than the minimum 25 percent matching contribution (5 percent in the case of 1994 Institutions). Unless provided by other authorizing legislation, other Federal grant funds cannot be used as matching funds. However, matching funds contributed by the applicant may include proceeds from a loan from another Federal source. Matching funds must be spent at a rate equal to or greater than the rate at which grant funds are expended. Matching funds must be provided by either the applicant or by a third party in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. Matching funds must be spent on eligible expenses and must be from eligible sources.

C. Other Eligibility Requirements:

• Grant Period Eligibility: Applications should have a timeframe of no more than 365 days with the time period beginning no later than January 1, 2006.

• Applications without sufficient information to determine eligibility will not be considered for funding.

• Applications that are non-responsive to the submission requirements detailed in Section IV of this notice will not be considered for funding.

• Applications that are missing any required elements (in whole or in part) will not be considered for funding.

Because the primary objective of the cooperative development center concept is to provide technical assistance services, including feasibility analysis, applications that do not propose the development or continuation of the cooperative development center concept will not be considered. Also, applications that focus on assistance to only one cooperative within the project area will not be considered. Nor will projects proposing to pay for operating costs of cooperatives be considered. To enhance the long-term viability of cooperative development centers, the strengthening of technical assistance capacity within new and existing centers is strongly encouraged.

A. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain the application package for this funding opportunity at the following Internet address: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm. If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms online, you may contact the Rural Development State Office in your State listed on the following Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/contacts.htm. Application forms can be mailed to you. To submit an application electronically, you may access http://www.grants.gov to obtain the correct forms.

B. Content and Form of Submission: You may submit your application in paper or in an electronic format. If you submit your application in paper form, you must submit a signed original and one copy of your complete application. The application must be in the following format:

• Font size: 12 point unreduced.

• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.

• Page margin size: 1 inch on the top, bottom, left, and right.

• Printed on only one side of each page.

• Held together only by rubber bands or metal or plastic clips; not bound in any other way.

Language: English, avoid jargon.

The submission must include all pages of the application. It is recommended that the application be in black and white, and not color. All paper applications will be scanned electronically for further review upon receipt by the Agency and the scanned images will all be in black and white. Those evaluating the application will only receive black and white images.

If you submit your application electronically, you must follow the instructions given at the Internet address: http://www.grants.gov. Applicants are advised to visit the site well in advance of the application deadline if they plan to apply electronically to ensure they have obtained the proper authentication and have sufficient computer resources to complete the application.

An application must contain all of the following elements. Any application that is missing any element or contains an incomplete element will not be considered for funding.

1. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” In order for this form to be considered complete, it must contain the legal name of the applicant, the applicant's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, the applicant's complete mailing address, the name and telephone number of a contact person, the employer identification number, the start and end dates of the project, the Federal funds requested, other funds that will be used as matching funds, an answer to the question, “Is applicant delinquent on any Federal debt?,” and the name and signature of an authorized representative.

You are required to have a DUNS number to apply for a grant from RBS. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access http://www.dnb.com/us/ or call 866-705-5711. For more information, see the RCDG Web site at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm or contact the State Office in your State from the list on the following Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/contacts.htm.

2. Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the applicant must fill out sections A, B, C, and D. The applicant must include both Federal and matching funds.

3. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the form must be signed by an authorized official.

4. Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants. RBS is required to give this survey to all non-profit applicants. Submitting this survey is voluntary.

5. Proposal. Each proposal must contain the following elements:

i. Title Page. The Title Page should include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information. The length should not exceed one page.

ii. Table of Contents. For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC) immediately following the Title Page. The TOC should include page numbers for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately following the TOC. In order for this element to be considered complete, the TOC should include page numbers for the Executive Summary, the Eligibility discussion, the Proposal Narrative and its 11 subcomponents, Conflict of Interest Disclosure, Certification of Judgment, Verification of Matching Funds, and Certification of Matching Funds.

iii. Executive Summary. Summarize the project in three (3) pages or less. Pages in excess of the three-page limit will not be considered. This summary must briefly describe the Center, including goals and tasks to be completed, the amount requested, how the work will be performed, and whether organizational staff, consultants, or contractors will be used. It should also include the title of the project, the names of the primary project contacts, and a list of the main goals. The project summary should immediately follow the TOC.

iv. Eligibility. Describe in detail how the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. This discussion is limited to two (2) pages. Pages in excess of the two-page limit will not be considered.

v. Proposal Narrative. The proposal narrative is limited to a total of 50 pages. Pages in excess of the 50-page limit will not be considered. The narrative portion of the proposal must include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Project Title. The title of the proposed project must be brief, not to exceed 75 characters, yet describe the essentials of the project. It should match the Project Title submitted on the SF-424. The Project Title does not need to appear on a separate page. It can be included on the Title Page and/or on the Information Sheet.

b. Information Sheet. A separate one-page information sheet which lists each of the 12 evaluation criteria (Section V.A.) followed by the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation contained in the application which supports that criteria.

c. Goals of the Project. This section must include the following:

1. A provision that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;

2. A provision that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;

3. A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services; and

4. Provisions stating that the Center, in carrying out the activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.

5. A provision stating that the proposed activities develop or continue the cooperative development center concept. The agency strongly encourages proposals to strengthen technical assistance capacity within new and existing centers.

6. A provision stating that proposed activities focus assistance to more than one cooperative within the project area.

d. Work Plan. Applicants must discuss the specific tasks to be completed using grant and matching funds. The work plan should show how customers will be identified, key personnel to be involved, and the evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Projects proposing to pay for the operating costs of cooperatives will not be considered. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.

e. Performance Evaluation Criteria. The applicant must suggest criteria by which the project should be evaluated in the event that a grant is awarded. These suggested criteria are not binding on USDA. Please note that these criteria are different from the Proposal Evaluation Criteria (see Section V.A.) and are a separate requirement. Failure to submit at least one performance criterion by the application deadline will result in the application being determined to be incomplete and the proposal will not be considered for funding.

f. Undertakings. The applicant must expressly undertake to do the following:

1. Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sectors;

2. Make arrangements for the activities by the nonprofit institution, including institutions of higher education, operating the Center to be monitored and evaluated; and

3. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee in accordance with 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F.

g. Delivery of Cooperative Development Assistance. The applicant must describe its previous accomplishments and outcomes in cooperative development activities and/or its potential for effective delivery of cooperative development services to rural areas. Applicants who have received funding under the RCDG program in Fiscal Years 2003 or 2004 must provide a summation of progress and results for all projects funded fully or partially by the RCDG program in those years. This summary should include the status of cooperative businesses organized and all eligible grant activities. The applicant also should describe the type(s) of assistance to be provided, the expected impacts of that assistance, the sustainability of cooperative organizations receiving the assistance, and the transferability of its Cooperative development strategy and focus to other areas of the U.S.

h. Qualifications of Personnel. Applicants must describe the qualifications of personnel expected to perform key center tasks, and whether these personnel are to be full/part-time Center employees or contract personnel. Those personnel having a track record of positive solutions for complex cooperative development or marketing problems, or those with a record of conducting feasibility studies that later proved to be accurate, business planning, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to the Center's success should be highlighted.

i. Support and Commitments. Applicants must describe the level of support and commitment in the community for the proposed Center and the services it would provide. This support can be from industry groups, commodity groups, and potential customers of the Center. Plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area, or with State and local government institutions should be included. Letters supporting cooperation and coordination from potential local customers should be provided. Letters from industry groups, commodity groups, local and State government, and similar organizations should be referenced, but not included in the application package. When referencing these support letters, provide the name of the organization, date of the letter, the nature of the support (cash, technical assistance, moral), and the name and title of the person signing the letter.

j. Future Support. Applicants should describe their vision for Center operations in future years, including issues such as sources and uses of alternative funding; reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and the use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. To the extent possible, applicants should document future funding sources that will help achieve long-term sustainability of the Center.

k. Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Each of the evaluation criteria referenced in Section V.A. must be specifically and individually addressed in narrative form. If the information and documentation for these criteria are incorporated in the written narrative, the application may reference that information and documentation by Section number and page. The applicant does not have to repeat information and documentation in Section V.A. if it is presented elsewhere. However, the applicant must correctly reference this information and documentation. Reviewers will not be required to search for information and documentation that is incorrectly referenced.

6. Conflict of Interest Disclosure. If the applicant plans to conduct business with any family members, company owners, or other identities of interest using grant or matching funds, the nature of the business to be conducted and the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the identity of interest must be disclosed. Examples include in-kind matching funds donated by the applicant's immediate family and contracting with someone who has a financial interest in the venture for services paid by grant or matching funds.

7. Certification of Judgment Owed to the United States. Applicants must certify that the United States has not obtained a judgment against them. No grant funds shall be used to pay a judgment owed to the United States. Applicants should include a statement for this section that reads as follows: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained a judgment against it.”

8. Verification of Matching Funds. All proposed matching funds must be specifically documented in the application. Matching funds may be cash or in-kind contributions. If matching funds are to be provided by the applicant in cash, there must be a statement that cash will be available, the amount of the cash, and the source of the cash. If the matching funds are to be provided by a third party in cash, the application must include a signed letter from that third party verifying how much cash will be donated and when it will be donated. Verification for funds donated outside the proposed time period of the grant will not be accepted. If the matching funds are to be provided by a third party in-kind donation, the application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying the goods or services to be donated, when the goods and services will be donated, and the value of the goods or services in accordance with 7 CFR section 3019.23(c). Verification for in-kind contributions donated outside the proposed time period of the grant will not be accepted. Verification for in-kind contributions that are over-valued will not be accepted.

If matching funds are in cash, they must be spent on goods and services that are eligible expenditures for this grant program. If matching funds are in-kind contributions, the donated goods or services must be considered eligible expenditures for this grant program as well as be used for eligible purposes. The matching funds must be spent or donated during the grant period and the funds must be expended at a rate equal to or greater than the rate grant funds are expended. Some examples of unacceptable matching funds are donations of fixed equipment and buildings, and the preparation of your RCDG application package.

If acceptable verification for all proposed matching funds is missing from the application, the application will be determined to be incomplete and will not be considered for funding.

9. Certification of Matching Funds. Applicants must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that matching funds will be spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of grant funds advanced, not less than the required amount of matching funds will have been expended prior to submitting the request for reimbursement. Please note that this certification is a separate requirement from the Verification of Matching Funds requirement. Applicants should include a statement for this section that reads as follows: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that matching funds will be spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of grant funds advanced, not less than 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of matching funds will have been expended prior to submitting the request for reimbursement.” A separate signature is not required.

C. Submission Dates and Times:

Application Deadline Date: 4 p.m. eastern time on July 1, 2005.

Explanation of Deadlines: Paper applications must be received at USDA-RBS-CS, Attn: RCDG Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 3250, Room 4016—South, Washington, DC 20250 by 4 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date. If you send your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the application by the closing date and time. If your application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be considered for funding. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements. You will also be notified by mail or by e-mail if your application is received on time.

Electronic Submission: Submit electronic grant applications to the following Internet address: http://www.grants.gov.

D. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does apply to this program.

E. Funding Restrictions: Funding restrictions apply to both grant funds and matching funds. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 75 percent (95 percent where the grantee is a 1994 Institution) of the total project costs. Unless provided by other authorizing legislation, other Federal grant funds cannot be used as matching funds. However, matching funds contributed by the applicant may include proceeds from Federal loan.

In general, grant and matching funds can be used to assist farmers and ranchers in organizing new or improving existing agriculture cooperatives, including those involved in value-added activities. Grant and matching funds can also be used to help rural residents form other cooperatively operated businesses such as housing cooperatives, including the conversion of properties administered under the section 515 program administered by the Rural Housing Service to housing cooperatives. Finally, grant and matching funds can be used to help rural residents form shared-services businesses to support their individually owned rural businesses.

1. Grant funds and matching funds may be used for, but are not limited to, providing the following to individuals, cooperatives, small businesses and other similar entities in rural areas served by the Center:

i. Applied research, feasibility, environmental and other studies that may be useful for the purpose of cooperative development.

ii. Collection, interpretation and dissemination of principles, facts, technical knowledge, or other information for the purpose of cooperative development.

iii. Providing training and instruction for the purpose of cooperative development.

iv. Providing loans and grants for the purpose of cooperative development in accordance with this notice and applicable regulations.

v. Providing technical assistance, research services and advisory services for the purpose of cooperative development.

2. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to do any of the following activities:

i. Duplicate current services or replace or substitute support previously provided. If the current service is inadequate, however, grant funds may be used to expand the level of effort or services beyond that which is currently being provided;

ii. Pay costs of preparing the application package for funding under this program;

iii. Pay costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;

iv. Fund political activities;

v. Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise that does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;

vi. Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

vii. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;

viii. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including laboratory equipment or processing machinery;

ix. Pay for the repair of privately owned vehicles;

x. Pay for operating costs of cooperatives;

xi. Fund research and development; or

xii. Fund any activities prohibited by 7 CFR part 3015 or 3019.

F. Other Submission Requirements: Applications must be received at USDA-RBS-CS, Attn: RCDG Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 3250, Room 4016—South, Washington, DC 20250 by 4 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date. Each application submission must contain all required documents in one envelope, if by mail or commercial delivery service, or submitted through http://www.grants.gov, if electronic.

A. Proposal Evaluation Criteria: All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Failure to address any one of the following criteria will render the application incomplete, and the application will not be considered for funding.

For information and documentation that appear in other sections of this funding announcement that already address the following criteria, the applicant may reference that information and documentation by Section number and page number. The applicant does not have to repeat information and documentation in this section if it is presented elsewhere. However, the applicant must correctly reference this information and documentation. Reviewers will not be required to search for information and documentation that is incorrectly referenced.

1. Administrative capabilities. (1-10 points) The application will be evaluated to determine whether the subject Center has a track record of administering a nationally coordinated, regional or State-wide operated project. Centers that have capable financial systems and audit controls, personnel and program administration performance measures and clear rules of governance will receive more points than those not evidencing this capacity.

2. Technical assistance and other services. (1-6 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated expertise in providing technical assistance in rural areas. This includes conducting feasibility studies, developing marketing plans, developing business plans, conducting applied research related to cooperative development, and performing those other activities necessary for a group of individuals to form a cooperative.

3. Economic development. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated ability to assist in the retention of businesses, facilitate the establishment of cooperatives and new cooperative approaches and generate employment opportunities that will improve the economic conditions of rural areas.

4. Linkages. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated ability to create horizontal linkages among businesses within and among various sectors in rural areas of the United States and vertical linkages to domestic and international markets. These linkages must be among cooperatives and businesses, not development organizations.

5. Commitment. (1-10 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to underserved and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States.

6. Matching Funds. (1-5 points) All applicants must demonstrate matching funds equal to at least 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) of total project costs. Applications exceeding these minimum commitment levels will receive more points. If the applicant provides eligible matching funds of 25 percent, 1 point will be awarded; 26 to 35 percent, 2 points will be awarded; 36 to 45 percent, 3 points; 46 to 55 percent, 4 points; or 56 or greater percent, 5 points will be awarded. If the applicant is a 1994 Institution and provides eligible matching funds of 5 percent, 1 point will be awarded; 6 to 9 percent, 2 points will be awarded; 10 to 14 percent, 3 points; 15 to 19 percent, 4 points; or 20 or greater percent, 5 points will be awarded.

7. Delivery. (1-12 points) The Agency will evaluate whether the Center has a track record in providing technical assistance in rural areas and accomplishing effective outcomes in cooperative development. The Center's potential for delivering effective cooperative development assistance, the expected effects of that assistance, the sustainability of cooperative organizations receiving the assistance, and the transferability of the Center's cooperative development strategy and focus to other States will also be assessed.

8. Work Plan/Budget. (1-10 points) The work plan will be reviewed for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. Clear, logical, realistic and efficient plans will result in a higher score. Budgets will be reviewed for completeness and the quality of non-Federal funding commitments.

9. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks. (1-5 points) The application will be evaluated to determine if the personnel expected to perform key center tasks have a track record of positive solutions for complex cooperative development or marketing problems, or a successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to Cooperative development center success.

10. Local support. (1-5 points) Applications will be reviewed for previous and expected local support for the Center, plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area, and coordination with State and local institutions. Support documentation should include recognition of rural values that balance employment opportunities with environmental stewardship and other positive rural amenities. Other than support from potential customers, support letters and documentation should be referenced and not submitted. Centers that demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of the Center's intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations will receive more points than those not evidencing such support and formal intent.

11. Future support. (1-2 points) Applications that demonstrate their vision for funding center operations for future years, including diversification of funding sources and building in-house technical assistance capacity, will receive more points for this criterion.

12. Non-Agricultural Rural Cooperative Development. (0 or 5 points) Applicants that propose to use more than 50 percent of grant and matching funds to work with rural residents and businesses who are not engaged in production agriculture to develop cooperative businesses will receive 5 points. All other applicants will receive zero points. The types of cooperative development that meet this criterion include, but are not limited to, broadband cooperatives, housing cooperatives, healthcare cooperatives, shared-services cooperatives, daycare cooperatives, and any other type of cooperative that is not producing or marketing agricultural products.

B. Review and Selection Process: The Agency will conduct an initial screening of all proposals to determine whether the applicant is eligible, complete, and sufficiently responsive to the requirements set forth in this funding announcement so as to allow for an informed review. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be evaluated further. Reviewers appointed by the Agency will evaluate applications.

C. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:

Award Date: The announcement of award selections is expected to occur on or about September 15, 2005.

A. Award Notices: Successful applicants will receive a notification of tentative selection for funding from Rural Development. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification by mail.

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: 7 CFR parts 3015, 3019, and 4284. To view these regulations, please see the following Internet address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html.

Grantees selected for awards under this program will be required to enter into a Grant Agreement and will be subject to the written conditions of the award. In addition, the following forms must be executed:

• Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

• Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”

• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”

• Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”

• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

• RD Instruction 1940-Q, Exhibit A-1, “Certification for Contracts, Grants and Loans.”

Additional information on these requirements can be found on the RBS Web site at the following Internet address: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm.

Reporting Requirements: You must provide Rural Development with an original hard copy of the following reports. RBS is currently developing an online reporting system. Once the system is developed, you may be required to submit some or all of your reports online instead of in hard copy. The hard copies of your reports should be submitted to the Rural Development State Office of the state in which the Center is located. Failure to submit satisfactory reports on time may result in suspension or termination of your grant.

1. A “Financial Status Report” listing expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories, on a semi-annual basis. Reporting periods end each March 31 and September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends.

2. Semi-annual performance reports that compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal. Identify all tasks completed to date and provide documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the work plan is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special conditions on the use of award funds should be discussed. Reports are due as provided in paragraph 1. of this section. The supporting documentation for completed tasks includes, but is not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business plans, publication quality success stories, applied research reports, copies of surveys conducted, articles of incorporation and bylaws and an accounting of how outreach, training, and other funds were expended.

3. Final project performance reports, including supporting documentation, are due within 90 days of the completion of the project.

For general questions about this announcement and for program technical assistance, please contact the State Office for the State in which the Applicant is based. A list is available at the following Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/contacts.htm. If you are unable to contact your State Office, please contact a nearby State Office or you may contact the RBS National Office at USDA-RBS-CS, Attn: RCDG Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 3250, Rm. 4016—South, Washington, DC 20250-3250, telephone: (202) 720-7558, e-mail: cpgrants@usda.gov.

On March 18, 2005, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR 13165) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following material pertains to the products identified in this Federal Register Notice.

New Army Combat Uniform (ACU) Coats & Trousers—Transition Quantities Qualified Nonprofit Agencies under the Committee's program are currently authorized to produce 300,000 Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) trousers and 100,000 BDU coats. During the Army's transition from BDU to the ACU, at the request of the Defense Supply Center—Philadelphia (DSCP), it is proposed that qualified nonprofit agencies produce an additional 200,000 BDU trousers, 900,000 ACU coats, 900,000 ACU trousers, and 50,000 BDU coats annually, for a period of three years. Once the transition period is complete, the additional quantities will be deleted from the Procurement List and the qualified nonprofit agencies will reduce their production, back to 300,000 ACU trousers and 100,000 ACU coats.

The following material pertains to all of the items being added to the Procurement List.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”) is given certain responsibilities concerning the provision of adjustment assistance for trade-injured firms. The Secretary has delegated this statutory authority and the corresponding responsibilities to the Economic Development Administration. EDA administers the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to assist trade-injured U.S. manufacturing and producing firms to develop and implement strategies for competing in the global marketplace. The information is used to determine whether a firm is eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance.

Paper format of Form ED-840P.

OMB Control Number: 0610-0091.

Agency Form Number: ED-840P, Petition by a Firm for Certification of Eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time Per Response: 8 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,600.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Public: $96,000.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection and they also will become a matter of public record.

Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.

The following sunset reviews are scheduled for initiation in June 2005 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-year Sunset Reviews.

On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register (54 FR 20900) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, and on spherical plain bearings and parts thereof from France. On June 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these orders (68 FR 39055). The list of companies for which we have initiated administrative reviews are as follows:

* SKF France S.A. or Sarma (SKF France) - ball bearings and spherical plain bearings

* SNR Roulements or SNR Europe (SNR) - ball bearings only

* Weber Kugellager International - ball bearings only

* Gebrüder Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG, Wurzberg, Germany (GRW)

* INA-Schaeffler KG; INA Vermogensverwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH; INA Holding Schaeffler KG; FAG Kugelfischer Georg-Schaefer AG; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG; FAG Komponenten AG; FAG Aircraft/ Super Precision Bearings GmbH; FAG Industrial Bearings AG; FAG Sales Europe GmbH; FAG International Sales and Service GmbH (collectively FAG/INA)

* Paul Mueller Industrie GmbH & Co. KG {also listed as GMN (Georg Mueller Nuremberg)}; Paul Mueller GmbH & Co. KG Unternehmensbeteiligungen (collectively Paul Mueller)

* SKF GmbH (SKF Germany)

* Weber Kugellager International

* FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG (collectively FAG Italy)

* SKF Industrie S.p.A.; SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy)

* Weber Kugellager International

* Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi)

* Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)

* NSK Ltd. (NSK)

* NTN Corporation (NTN)

* Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi)

* Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd. (SMT)

* Nippon Pillow Block Company, Ltd. (NPB)

* Osaka Pump Co., Ltd. (Osaka Pump)

* Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo)

* Takeshita Seiko Co., Ltd. (Takeshita)

* NMB Singapore Ltd.; Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd.; NMB Technologies Corporation (collectively NMB/Pelmec)

* The Barden Corporation (UK) Limited; FAG (U.K.) Limited (collectively Barden/FAG)

On October 19, 2004, the Department initiated a changed circumstances review of Fengkun Foundry's claim that it is the successor-of-interest to Fengkun Metallurgical. See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, 69 FR 61468 (October 19, 2004) (“Initiation Notice”). Since the publication of the Initiation Notice, the following events have occurred.

On November 3, 2004, the petitioner submitted comments on Fengkun Foundry's response to the Department's separate rates questionnaire. On December 22, 2004, the petitioner submitted a request that the Department verify Fengkun Foundry in the context of the changed circumstances review. 1

On January 6, 2005, the Department issued a Supplemental Questionnaire to Fengkun Foundry. On January 31, 2005, Fengkun Foundry submitted its response to the Department's Supplemental Questionnaire. On February 15, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments on Fengkun Foundry's response to the Department's Supplemental Questionnaire. On March 16, 2005, the Department issued Fengkun Foundry a second Supplemental Questionnaire. On March 30, 2005, Fengkun Foundry submitted its response to the Department's second Supplemental Questionnaire.

The products covered by the order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans, recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.”

Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those rotors which have undergone some drilling and on which the surface is not entirely smooth. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning.

These brake rotors are for motor vehicles and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this review are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron which contain a steel plate but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of the review are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).

Brake rotors are classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

In its January 31, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response, Fengkun Metallurgical provided documentation to support further its claim that effective November 28, 2003, it received approval from the Shanxi Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau (“SICAB”) to change its name to “Shanxi Fengkun Foundry ltd., Co.” The company stated that the idea to change the name came as a result of decisions made by Fengkun Metallurgical's original owners to reflect a change in the company's emphasis from metallurgical operations to foundry operations. Specifically, this documentation consisted of: (1) board meeting minutes detailing the company's reasoning for the name change; (2) the application to SICAB requesting approval for the name change; (3) a notice from SICAB granting Fengkun Metallurgical's proposed name change to Fengkun Foundry; and (4) Fengkun Foundry's business license issued by SICAB (see Exhibits 1 and 2 of the supplemental questionnaire response). Both the notice from SICAB granting the name change and Fengkun Foundry's business license indicate that Fengkun Metallurgical no longer exists as a legal entity in the PRC.

In its responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, Fengkun Metallurgical also provided information in support of its statements that all personnel, operations, and facilities remain essentially unchanged as a result of changing the name of the company to Fengkun Foundry.

In contrast, the petitioner contended in its February 15, 2005, submission that Fengkun Foundry has not sufficiently demonstrated that it is the successor-in-interest of Fengkun Metallurgical because Fengkun Metallurgical, unlike Fengkun Foundry, is both an exporter and producer of the subject merchandise.

In making such 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., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (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., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994); Canadian Brass, and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 50880 (September 23, 1998). 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.

We preliminarily determine that Fengkun Foundry is not the successor-in-interest to Fengkun Metallurgical for the reasons mentioned below.

Data placed on the record of this review indicates that Fengkun Foundry has the same management, production facilities, and supplier relationships as Fengkun Metallurgical. Fengkun Foundry's managers are the same individuals, the company occupies the same facilities, and its vendor listing is unchanged. However, Fengkun Foundry does not have the same customer base as Fengkun Metallurgical as a result of neither having made any sales since its name change nor obtaining the ability to export its product under its new name.

Specifically, Fengkun Metallurgical has indicated that it has made no domestic or export sales since changing its name to Fengkun Foundry (see page one of the March 30, 2005, second supplemental questionnaire response). Although Fengkun Metallurgical also stated that it exported one shipment of subject merchandise to the U.S. market since its name change became effective on November 28, 2003, the date of that sales invoice preceded the effective date of its name change, and Fengkun Metallurgical's name was on the invoice (see Exhibit 1 of the March 30, 2005, second supplemental questionnaire response).

In addition, Fengkun Foundry has also stated that it does not have a Certificate of Approval for Enterprises with Foreign Trade Rights (see page 3 of the January 31, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response). Thus, according to PRC law, Fengkun Foundry cannot export to the United States. Therefore, whereas Fengkun Metallurgical was both an exporter and producer of the subject merchandise, evidence on the record demonstrates that Fengkun Foundry is only a producer of the subject merchandise. Given that only an exporter may receive a separate rate, we consider this kind of fundamental change to be dispositive in this case.

As discussed above, we determine that the resulting operation of Fengkun Foundry is not materially the same as that of Fengkun Metallurgical in accordance with the Department's practice (see also Certain Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 63 FR 6153, 6154 (February 6, 1998). Furthermore, as Fengkun Foundry has not sufficiently demonstrated that it is the successor-of-interest of Fengkun Metallurgical, we have not applied the Department's separate rates criteria for purposes of determining whether Fengkun Foundry is eligible for a separate rate in this review.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we preliminarily determine that Fengkun Foundry should not receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to brake rotors as the former entity Fengkun Metallurgical because Fengkun Foundry, unlike Fengkun Metallurgical, has not demonstrated that it has the right to export the subject merchandise. Nevertheless, should Fengkun Foundry obtain a valid Certificate of Approval for Enterprises with Foreign Trade Rights (“Certificate of Approval”) and otherwise demonstrate that it is both an exporter and producer of the subject merchandise, we may revisit the issue and review the totality of information to determine if Fengkun Foundry should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to brake rotors as the former Fengkun Metallurgical. 2 The deadline for Fengkun Foundry to submit a Certificate of Approval is May 27, 2005. If Fengkun Foundry submits this document by this deadline, interested parties may comment on the submission by June 3, 2005, and rebuttal comments may be submitted by June 8, 2005. No new information will be accepted in either comments or rebuttal comments.

If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of shipments of subject merchandise made by Fengkun Foundry at the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 43.32 percent). In addition, because Fengkun Metallurgical has placed information on this record which indicates that it no longer exists as a legal entity in the PRC, we will also instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of shipments of subject merchandise made by Fengkun Metallurgical at the PRC-wide rate. The shipments of subject merchandise to be suspended are those which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this changed circumstances review.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than June 3, 2005. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than June 10, 2005. 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. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Persons interested in attending the hearing, if one is requested, should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing.

The Department will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments, not later than July 11, 2005 (i.e., 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated).

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.

On November 29, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania. See Amended Determination and Order. Since publication, there have been two review periods of this order. Sidex was a participant in both reviews. In a letter dated March 24, 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). We did not receive any other comments.

For purposes of the order, the products covered include hot-rolled carbon steel flat products. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 70644 (December 7, 2004).

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) 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 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 regulation, 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 management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base. See Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). While no single or even several of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, generally the Department will 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 24, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted information demonstrating that it is the successor to Sidex. With respect to the name change itself, 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 issued by the Ministry of Justice 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 Initiation of Changed-Circumstances Review, dated March 24, 2005, at Exhibit 1.

According to information provided in Mittal Steel's March 24, 2005, request for a changed-circumstances review, we observed that Mittal Steel's management, production facilities, suppliers, and customer base were consistent with the management, production facilities, suppliers, and customer base of Sidex.

With respect to management prior to and following the name change, the record includes a “Good Standing Certificate” issued by the Trade Registry Office of the Galati Tribunal for Mittal Steel. This document lists the members of the board of directors and their respective tenure. Id. at Exhibit 5. Based on this information, we conclude that the name change did not affect board membership nor the identity of the board members.

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. It also included a print-out from the Mittal Steel website (dated February 23, 2005) indicating that the production facilities have not changed location nor has the equipment used for the production of merchandise changed 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 and that the affiliated suppliers in its corporate group are the same affiliated suppliers which Sidex used previously. Similarly, the record shows that the relationships with unaffiliated suppliers have not been altered as a consequence of the name change. In support of this position, Mittal Steel 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. Id. at Exhibit 9.

Regarding its customer base, Mittal Steel stated that the distribution channels for export and domestic sales, established by Sidex prior to the name change, remain the same after the name change. For example, Mittal Steel stated that the name change had no influence on its relationship with Ispat North America, an affiliated reseller of subject merchandise in the U.S. market. As further evidence that Mittal Steel's customer base remained the same after the name change, Mittal Steel attached a copy of a signed 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. Id. at Exhibit 10.

Therefore, the information provided in Mittal Steel's March 24, 2005, request for a changed-circumstances review demonstrates that no major changes have occurred with respect to Mittal Steel's management, production facilities, suppliers or customer base.

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. 2

Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 changed-circumstances review 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 19 CFR 351.216(e), 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 of publication of these preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).

The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows the entry into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State.

The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation meet several conditions related to compliance with the IDCP. Every five years, the government of the harvesting nation must request an affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis NMFS will review the affirmative finding and determine whether El Salvador continues to meet the requirements. A nation may opt to provide information regarding compliance with the IDCP directly to NMFS on an annual basis or authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS in years when NMFS will conduct an annual review of the affirmative finding.

An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations which diminish the effectiveness of the IDCP.

As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Republic of El Salvador and obtained from the IATTC and the Department of State and determined that El Salvador has met the MMPA's requirements to receive and affirmative finding.

After consultation with the Department of State, NMFS renewed the Republic of El Salvador's affirmative finding allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP, by El Salvadorian-flag purse seine vessels or vessels under El Salvadorian jurisdiction. The affirmative finding will remain in effect until March 31, 2006.

The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows the entry into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State.

The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation meet several conditions related to compliance with the IDCP. Every 5 years, the government of the harvesting nation must request an affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis NMFS will review the affirmative finding and determine whether Ecuador continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information regarding compliance with the IDCP directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS in years when NMFS will review and consider whether to issue an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.

An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the IDCP.

As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Republic of Ecuador or obtained from the IATTC and the Department of State and determined that Ecuador has met the MMPA's requirements to receive an affirmative finding.

After consultation with the Department of State, NMFS renewed the Republic of Ecuador's affirmative finding allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by Ecuadorian-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under Ecuadorian jurisdiction. The affirmative finding will remain valid for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2010, subject to annual reviews by NMFS.

On March 3, 2005, the Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled Commerce/NOAA System-16, Crab Economic Data Report for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) off the Coast of Alaska (70 FR 10360, March 3, 2005). No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective May 13, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, the Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled Commerce/NOAA System-17, Permits and Registrations for Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Coast of Alaska (70 FR 10362, March 3, 2005). No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective May 13, 2005.

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.

The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development efforts in electronics and photonics with a focus on benefits to national defense. These reviews may form the basis for research and development programs initiated by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to be conducted by industry, universities or in government laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on RF technology, microelectronics, electro-optics, and electronic materials.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

The entire sessions on June 21, 2005 and June 22, 2005 will be open to the public in accordance with Section 552b(b) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof and Title 5, U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection 10(d). Open sessions of the meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any interested person may attend, appear before or file statements with the Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

The Town of Bloomsburg, PA is located in Columbia County within the Middle Susquehanna River sub-basin. The Susquehanna River forms the Town's southern boundary, and Fishing Creek forms the northern and western boundary.

The primary water resources problem along the Susquehanna River at Bloomsburg is recurrent flooding. Recurrent flooding that occurs in the Bloomsburg study area is a result of the morphology of the Susquehanna River and the regional topography. When the Susquehanna River and a local tributary, Fishing Creek, simultaneously rise above flood stage, overbank flooding can cover up to 33 percent of the landmass within the Town of Bloomsburg's boundaries.

Flood damages are attributable to overbank flooding from the Susquehanna River and to flooding along Fishing Creek. Past flood events have resulted in extensive damages to structures and their contents and have threatened public safety. The Bloomsburg study area includes approximately 525 residential structures and 75 businesses.

The recommended flood damage reduction plan is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan with a Tropical Storm Agnes (440-year) level of protection from Susquehanna river flooding, and 100-year level of protection from Fishing Creek flooding. The recommended plan consists of 16,555 linear feet of levee/floodwall systems with fourteen drainage structures, and nine closure structures, six of which incorporate limited road raisings. The alignment of the line of protection was refined based on physical, environmental, and economic criteria.

The project consists of a system of earthen levees, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) floodwalls, concrete floodwalls, railroad and road closure structures and roadway relocations to provide ramps over the line of protection. Earthen levees are proposed for the majority of the line of protection, though MSE walls will be required along portions of Fishing Creek in both Bloomsburg and Fernville and a concrete floodwall (H-Pile wall) will be required along portions of Fishing Creek in Bloomsburg. Limited riprap will be used to protect the steep banks of Fishing Creek from bank crest to below the stream invert along the lower project reaches along Fishing Creek.

Permanent environmental impacts would include restricted views by the levee/floodwall system of Fishing Creek from Bloomsburg and Fernville, excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 4,500 cubic yards of hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste materials, conversion of approximately 11.5 acres of farmland designated as Prime Farmland or additional Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, long-term loss of nearly 3,000 linear feet of riparian habitat along Fishing Creek, the loss of less than one acre of wetlands, and taking of residential homes and business structures within the levee/floodwall footprint.

A public hearing on the Draft SEIS will be held at the Bloomsburg Fire Department Banquet Hall (see DATES and ADDRESSES). A map showing the location of the Bloomsburg Fire Department can be found at http://wphc.us/Default.aspx?alias=wphc.us/bfd. The meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to present oral and/or written comments. For submission of electronic comments, your comment must be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. Include your name and address in your message. All persons and organization that have an interest in the flood damage reduction measures as they affect Columbia County and the environment are urged to attend the meeting and provide comments.

USACE has distributed copies of the Draft report and EIS to appropriate members of Congress, State and local government officials, Federal agencies, and other interested parties. Copies are available for public review at the following locations:

(1) Bloomsburg Public Library, 225 Market Street, Bloomsburg, PA 17815.

(2) Columbia County Historical Library, 225 Market Street, Bloomsburg, PA 17815.

(3) Columbia County Traveling Library, 15 Perry Avenue, Bloomsburg, PA 17815.

You may view the Draft report and EIS in addition to related information on our web page at http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/publications/non-reg_pub.htm.

After the public comment period ends on June 27, 2005, USACE will consider all comments received. The integrated report and EIS will be revised as appropriate and a Final Integrated Report and EIS will be issued.

The Draft Integrated Report and EIS has been prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and (3) USACE regulations implementing NEPA (ER-200-2-2).

Proposed Agenda: On Tuesday morning, June 7, the Board will meet in Executive Session. On Tuesday afternoon, June 7, there will be presentations entitled “Tsunami Warning Center Operations,” “Pacific Risk Management Ohana,” “Alaska Modeling and Data Issues,” “Alaska Ocean Observing System,” and “Island Ocean Observing System.” On Wednesday morning, June 8, there will be presentations entitled “Honolulu District Coastal Research and Development Needs,” “Climate Change Impacts on Alaska Coastline,” “Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments,” and “Subsistence and Cultural Issues.” The afternoon session on June 8 will include presentations entitled “Denali Commission,” “North Slope Science Initiative,” and “Report of Newtok,” plus a panel discussion pertaining to Shishmaref, Alaska. On Thursday morning, June 9, there will be presentations entitled “Port of Anchorage Physical Modeling,” “Alaska District Dredging Program,” and “Alaska Subsistence Harbors.” The members of the Board will again meet in Executive Session on Thursday afternoon, June 9, followed by a tour of the Port of Anchorage.

These meetings are open to the public; participation by the public is scheduled for 11:15 a.m. on June 9.

The entire meeting is open to the public, but since seating capacity of the meeting room is limited, advance notice of intent to attend, although not required, is requested in order to assure adequate arrangements. Oral participation by public attendees is encouraged during the time scheduled on the agenda; written statements may be submitted prior to the meeting or up to 30 days after the meeting.

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: The School Dropout Prevention Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 25.

Burden Hours: 2,000.

Abstract: The School Dropout Prevention Program provides competitive grants to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to implement a collaborative, statewide dropout prevention initiative targeted at those schools that exceed the state annual dropout rate. SEAs must partner with at least one other agency responsible for administering programs related to youth and collaborate on development and implementation of a program.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

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 2756. 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, D.C. 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 Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@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.

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

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

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria at 550 12th Street, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room 11081, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

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

With the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), our nation made a commitment to closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers and to changing the culture of America's schools so that all students receive the support and high-quality instruction they need to meet higher expectations. A critical part of this challenge, at the high school level, is reducing the number of young people who disengage and drop out of school. As several recent national studies have found, a staggering number of youth fail to graduate on time.

The complexity of the dropout problem requires the attention of multiple agencies because numerous factors contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Therefore, successful dropout prevention and reentry activities should involve many agencies and community organizations and institutions in strong collaborative activities. By combining their expertise and resources, these entities can achieve much more than they could individually. Through these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we propose to limit eligibility for SDP funding to State educational agencies (SEAs) and, under Priority #1, to require an SEA to partner with at least one other agency in its efforts to reduce the dropout rate in high schools (grades 9-12) where the annual dropout rate exceeds the State average.

Another vital element for successful dropout prevention and reentry programs is the early identification of at-risk students and the implementation of a customized set of services and interventions that address the needs of those students. We propose Priority #2 to require applicants to work with local educational agencies (LEAs) to use the State's eighth grade assessment to identify those students who could benefit from intensive early assistance. We believe that by incorporating these strategies into the SDP program, the Department would make grants to SEAs for activities that have the highest probability of reducing dropout rates.

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

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive preference priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)) or (2) selecting an application that meets the competitive preference priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Under this priority, an applicant must include in its application evidence that other public or private entities will be involved in, or provide financial support for, the implementation of the activities described in the application. Applicants may involve such State agencies as those responsible for administering postsecondary education, Title I of the Workforce Investment Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, foster care, juvenile justice, and others. Applicants also may collaborate with business and industry, civic organizations, foundations, and community- and faith-based organizations, among other private-sector entities. Acceptable evidence of collaboration is a memorandum of understanding or other document signed by the principal officer of each participating agency that identifies (1) how the agency will be involved in the implementation of the project or (2) the financial resources (cash or in-kind) that it will contribute to support the project, or both.

Rationale: The development and implementation of an effective, sustainable, and coordinated statewide school dropout prevention and reentry program requires significant participation by other public or private entities. Students drop out for a myriad of reasons, some of which are beyond the control of schools. The resources and expertise of health, juvenile justice, social services, workforce development, and other agencies can make a powerful contribution to improving student retention in and completion of high school. Business and industry, community- and faith-based organizations, and other private entities also can play valuable roles in a comprehensive dropout prevention and reentry strategy.

Under this priority, an applicant must propose to work with LEAs to assist schools in using eighth grade assessment and other data to develop and implement (in consultation with parents, teachers, and counselors) individual performance plans for students entering the ninth grade who are at risk of failing to meet challenging State academic standards and of dropping out of high school. The plans would identify specific interventions to improve the academic achievement of these students and other supports and services they need in order to succeed in high school.

Rationale: Though junior high schools and middle schools have extensive information about the academic achievement and special needs of their students, this information often does not follow students immediately as they enter ninth grade. Too frequently, the special needs of at-risk students entering the ninth grade go unrecognized by school administrators and teachers until well into the academic year. Academic assessment and other relevant data about each entering ninth grade student should be immediately and readily accessible to high school administrators, teachers, and counselors at the start of the school year so that they can identify at-risk students and devise a customized set of services and interventions to help them succeed.

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirements for the SDP program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

The Secretary proposes that to be eligible for funding under this program, an applicant must be an SEA.

Rationale: Federal resources under this program can be used most effectively to improve high school completion rates by using those resources to support the implementation of comprehensive, statewide strategies by SEAs. Under this approach, high schools within a State that have dropout rates above the State average would receive technical assistance and support from an SEA that receives funding through the SDP program. Awarding grants to a small number of LEAs would have a far more limited impact.

We propose to require that each applicant include in its application a plan to support an independent, third-party evaluation of its SDP project and that the applicant reserve not less than 10 percent of its grant award for this evaluation. We propose that, at a minimum, the evaluation must—

(a) Be both formative and summative in nature;

(b) Include performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators for the SDP program described elsewhere in this notice;

(c) Measure the effectiveness of the project, including a comparison between the intended and observed results and, if appropriate, a demonstration of a clear link between the observed results and the specific treatment given to project participants;

(d) Measure the extent to which the SEA implements an effective, sustainable, and coordinated school dropout prevention and reentry program; and

(e) Measure the extent to which the project implements research-based strategies and practices.

In addition, we propose to require that applicants submit their proposed project evaluation designs to the Department for review and approval prior to the end of the second month of the project period.

We also propose that each evaluation include (i) an annual report for each of the first two years of the project period, and (ii) a final report that would be completed at the end of the third year of implementation and that would include information on implementation during the third year as well as information on the implementation of the project across the entire project period. We would require each grantee to submit each of these annual reports to the Department along with its required annual performance report.

Rationale: The implementation of an effective, sustainable, and coordinated statewide school dropout prevention and reentry program is difficult and complex work that requires coordinating a variety of activities with multiple entities. An evaluation that provides regular feedback on the progress of implementation and the project's outcomes can help the SEA identify successes and areas in which improvement is needed.

Under the GPRA, the Department is currently using the following two performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the SDP program: (1) the dropout rate in schools receiving program funds, and (2) the percentage of students reentering schools who complete their secondary education. Applicants for a grant under this program are advised to consider these two performance measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation of their proposed project. To assist the Department in assessing progress under the first measure, we propose that an applicant use its State event dropout rate as the GPRA indicator and submit, as part of its application to the Department, a projected State event dropout rate for each year of the project. If funded, applicants would then be asked to collect and report data for these indicators in their performance and final reports for each year of the project. We will notify grantees if they will be required to provide any additional information related to the two measures.

We propose to require applicants to identify in their applications at least two specific performance indicators and annual performance objectives for the schools that receive services and technical assistance through projects funded under this program in addition to the two GPRA indicators. Applicants may identify and report on additional student indicators, such as graduation rates; year-to-year retention; rates of average daily attendance; the percentage of secondary school students who score at the proficient or advanced levels on the reading/English language arts and mathematics assessments used by the State to measure adequate yearly progress under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); student achievement and gains in English proficiency; and the incidence of school violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions.

We propose to require applicants to identify annual performance objectives for the two GPRA indicators and the two additional indicators identified in the application. The Department intends to negotiate these performance levels with potential grantees.

We are proposing that applicants identify all outcomes in their evaluation plan that are relevant to the scope of the project and will assist in continuous improvement of the services offered.

In addition to the definitions in the authorizing statute and 34 CFR 77.1, we propose that the following definitions also apply to this program. We may apply these definitions in any year in which we conduct a SDP competition.

High school dropout means an individual who

(a) Was enrolled in a district in grades 9-12 at some time during the preceding school year;

(b) Was not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year;

(c) Has not graduated or completed a program of studies by the maximum age established by a State;

(d) Has not transferred to another public school district or to a nonpublic school or to a State-approved educational program; and

(e) Has not left school because of death, illness, or a school-approved absence.

State event dropout rate means the dropout rate calculated by dividing the number of high school dropouts (as defined elsewhere in this notice) in the State by the total number of students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 in public schools in the State during the current school year. This calculation is based upon the annual school event dropout rate calculation of the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data.

School event dropout rate means the dropout rate calculated by dividing the number of high school dropouts (as defined elsewhere in this notice) in a school by the total number of students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 in that school during the current school year.

In addition to the selection criteria to be selected by the Department from among the criteria in 34 CFR part 210, we propose to use the following selection criteria to evaluate applications for new grants under this program. We may apply these criteria in any year in which we conduct a SDP competition.

Quality of project design. In determining the quality of the project design, we will consider the extent to which—

(a) The applicant demonstrates its readiness to implement a comprehensive and coordinated statewide dropout and reentry program;

(b) The activities described in the application are evidence-based and likely to be successful in improving the graduation rate within the State, particularly among youth who are at the greatest risk of dropping out;

(c) Other public and private agencies will support and participate in the implementation of the proposed project; and

(d) The technical assistance activities that will be undertaken by the applicant are likely to be successful in helping local educational agencies use eighth grade assessment and other data to develop individual performance plans for entering ninth graders who are at risk of failing to meet challenging State academic standards and of dropping out of high school.

Adequacy of resources. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, we consider the following factors:

(a) The extent of the cash or in-kind support the SEA will provide.

(b) The extent of the cash or in-kind support other public and private agencies will contribute to the implementation of the proposed project.

Quality of the management plan. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, we consider the following:

(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including the extent to which the plan clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of each agency and its key personnel and establishes detailed timelines and milestones for accomplishing each of the project tasks.

Quality of the project evaluation. In determining the quality of the evaluation, we consider the following factors:

(a) Whether the independent third-party evaluator identified in the application has the necessary background and expertise to carry out the evaluation.

(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will yield accurate and reliable data for each of the required performance indicators.

(c) The extent to which the evaluation will produce reports or other documents at appropriate intervals to enable the agencies, organizations, or institutions participating in the project to use the data for planning and decision-making for continuous program improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1999, several industry groups filed suit against EPA (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers v. EPA, DC Cir., No. 99-1420) as a result of EPA revisions of a test used to measure mercury concentrations at low levels, and in October, 2000, EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement that required EPA to assess and revise procedures to determine detection and quantitation limits under EPA's CWA programs by November 1, 2004.

On March 12, 2003, EPA published two notices in the Federal Register. One announced the availability of a Technical Support Document that described EPA's reassessment of detection and quantitation concepts and procedures (68 FR 11791), and the second proposed revisions to the MDL and ML definitions and procedures (68 FR 11770).

Many of the 126 comments EPA received in response to the Federal Register notices were critical of the assessment and proposed revisions. Rather than proceeding with the revisions, EPA decided to contract with a neutral third party to conduct a situation assessment to explore the feasibility and design of a stakeholder process. This decision was announced in a Federal Register notice dated September 15, 2004.

In October and November 2004, Triangle Associates, Inc. of Seattle, a neutral third party contractor, conducted the situation assessment through phone interviews with 37 representatives of Federal and State agencies, industry, environmental groups, municipal wastewater treatment plants, environmental laboratories, and organizations that establish testing methods and standards.

On November 8, 2004, EPA published a notice of document availability giving EPA's revised assessment of detection and quantitation concepts and procedures (69 FR 64704), and published a notice withdrawing the March 12, 2003, proposal (69 FR 64708). The withdrawal stated that a vast majority of commenters did not favor the proposed revisions, and that EPA planned to work with stakeholders to evaluate one or more of the approaches submitted in comments on the proposal.

As a result of the situation assessment, EPA agreed to establish a Federal Advisory Committee to obtain input from the stakeholder groups regarding detection and quantitation procedures and their use in the analytical methods in Clean Water Act programs. On December 29, 2004 (69 FR 77972), EPA published a notice announcing a public meeting on the Situation Assessment and to request nominations to the Federal Advisory Committee.

Participants: The Committee will be composed of approximately 20 members. As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the FACDQ will be, balanced in terms of points of view represented and the scope of the activities of the Committee. A full-time EPA employee will act as the Designated Federal Official who will be responsible for providing the necessary staffing, operations, and support for the Committee. The committee members will be comprised of qualified senior-level professionals from diverse sectors throughout the United States from among, but not limited to, State government; environmental professionals; regulated industry; environmental laboratories; Publicly Owned Treatment Works; and the environmental community. Establishing a balanced membership with a diversity of policy experience, knowledge, and judgment, will be an important consideration in the selection of members. EPA also plans to use technical experts who will be available to provide technical assistance to the Committee. Such experts will not be members of the Committee and will not participate in the Committee's deliberations.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2005-[insert e-docket no.]. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 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 EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2005-0030. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0030 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail. Send your comments to: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0030 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from April 14, 2005 to April 27, 2005, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Flood Insurance.

OMB Number: 3064-0120.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Any depository institution that makes one or more loans to be secured by a building located on property in a special flood hazard area.

Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 5,272.

Estimated Number of Transactions: 180,000.

Estimated Reporting Hours: .05 hours × 180,000 = 9,000.

Estimated Recordkeeping Hours: 5,272 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Hours: 5,272 + 9,000 = 14,272 hours

General Description of Collection: Each supervised lending institution is currently required to provide a notice of special flood hazards to each borrower with a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in an area identified by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration as being subject to special flood hazards. The Riegle Community Development Act requires that each institution must also provide a copy of the notice to the servicer of the loan (if different from the originating lender).

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collections of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Under 33 CFR 154.1045(i) and 33 CFR 155.1050(j), the owners or operators of vessels and facilities that operate in areas with year-round pre-approval for the use of dispersants may request a credit for up to 25 percent of the on-water recovery capability necessary to meet the requirements of 33 CFR parts 154 and 155. The dispersant pre-approval requirements, which are located in Regional and Area Contingency Plans, detail the specific criteria that must be met for dispersant use to occur in a given area. The criteria are determined by the Area Committee with the assistance of the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State. The Coast Guard Office of Response maintains the following Web site to aid in planning efforts concerning adequacy of dispersant capabilities: http://www.uscg.mil/vrp/maps/dispmap.shtml.

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Maine is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of April 1, 2005:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 28, 2005, the President declared an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New Hampshire to have been affected adversely by this declared emergency:

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

This notice is published to comply with the requirements of 25 CFR Part 151.12(b) that notice is given to the public of the Secretary's decision to acquire land in trust at least 30 days prior to signatory acceptance of the land into trust. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period in 25 CFR 151.12(b) is to afford interested parties the opportunity to seek judicial review of the final administrative decisions to take land in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians before transfer of title to the property occurs. On April 18, 2005, the Associate Deputy Secretary decided to accept approximately 147 acres of land into trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-E-Wish Band (Gun Lake Tribe) of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 24 U.S.C. 465. We have determined that the Gun Lake Tribe's request would meet the requirements of IGRA exception 25 U.S.C. 2791(b)(1)(B)(ii), from the general prohibition on gaming on after acquired lands contained in 25 U.S.C. 2719(a). The land is located in Wayland Township, Allegan County, Michigan and will be used for the purpose of construction and operation of a gaming facility.

There are two parcels of land equaling 147.48 acres for the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi Indians and they are described as follows:

Parcel 2 is located in the Township of Wayland, County of Allegan, in the State of Michigan and is described as follows:

Commonly Known As: 1123 129th Avenue, Bradley, Michigan.

The Act of August 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 940) authorized the establishment of the Virgin Islands National Park. Sections 7(c)(i) and 7(c)(ii) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended by the Act of June 10, 1977 (Pub. L. 95-42, 91 Stat. 210), and the Act of March 10, 1980 (Pub. L. 103-333, 110 Stat. 4194) further authorized the Secretary of Interior to make minor revisions in the boundaries whenever the Secretary determines that it is necessary for the preservation, protection, interpretation or management of an area.

The map is on file and available for inspection in the Land Resources Program Center, Southeast Regional Office, 100 Alabama Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and in the Offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20013-7127.

The National Park Service has prepared this draft environmental impact statement with three cooperating agencies: the State of Utah, Garfield County, Utah, and the Federal Highway Administration. The proposed action is the product of the environmental compliance process that was needed to fulfill the May 30, 2001, settlement agreement that established a mutually agreeable procedure among the National Park Service, the State of Utah, and Garfield County, Utah to address road modifications that Garfield County would like to make to the Burr Trail.

This draft environmental impact statement evaluates four alternatives. Three of these involve road modifications that stabilize parts of the road surface using gravel base material (some with geotextile fabric), install or improve drainage facilities at creek crossings, modify the road at mile point 0.65 to accommodate two-way traffic, and install slope protection along portions of the northern bank of Sandy Creek. The fourth alternative, the No Action Alternative, describes continuation of current conditions. This was the baseline condition against which the other alternatives were compared. Environmental consequences of the actions were evaluated to determine their potential effects to air quality; geologic features and landforms; biological soil crusts and soils; vegetation; wildlife; surface water, hydrology, and floodplains; natural soundscapes; ethnographic and ethnographic landscape resources; public health and safety; visitor use and experience; socioeconomics; park operations; Garfield County road maintenance operations; and sustainability and long-term management.

Comments: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to Superintendent, Capitol Reef National Park, HC 70, Box 15, Torrey, Utah 84775. You may also comment via the Internet to care_planning@nps.gov. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: Burr Trail DEIS” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact Sharon Gurr, Capitol Reef National Park, HC 70, Box 15, Torrey, Utah 84775; (435) 425-3791 extension 101. Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to Office of the Superintendent, Capitol Reef National Park, Park Headquarters, Jct. Hwy 24 & Scenic Drive, Torrey, Utah 84775. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Issues currently being considered for the SRS/EIS include a determination of Virginia Key Beach Park's national significance and an assessment of the site's suitability and feasibility as a potential addition to the National Park System. The Draft EIS will identify cultural and natural resources of Virginia Key Beach Park and evaluate a range of potential management options that might adequately protect these resources.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The NPS will honor such requests to the extent allowed by applicable law. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The responsible official for this EIS is Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

SRC meeting locations and dates may need to be changed based on weather or local circumstances. Notice of each meeting will be published in local newspapers and announced on local radio stations prior to the meeting dates. The agendas for each meeting include the following:

1. Call to order (SRC Chair).

2. SRC Roll Call and Confirmation of Quorum.

3. SRC Chair and Superintendent's Welcome and Introductions.

4. Review and Approve Agenda.

5. Review and adopt minutes from last meeting.

6. Review Commission Purpose, SRC Membership.

7. Commission Member Reports.

8. Superintendent and NPS Staff Reports.

9. Federal Subsistence Board Update: Wildlife and Fisheries Proposals and Actions.

10. New Business.

11. Agency and Public Comments.

12. SRC Work Session. Prepare correspondence and hunting program recommendations.

13. Set time and place of next SRC meeting.

14. Adjournment.

The selected interest in Federal land is within the boundaries of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The land has been surveyed for cultural resources and endangered and threatened species. These reports are available upon request.

The National Park Service will modify the restrictions that were placed on property described as Tract 420-41, as contained in the Quitclaim Deed from the United States of America to Raymond W. Behrens, recorded in Book 344, Page 499. This property is now owned by David A. Andrukonis, et ux. The modified restrictions to be granted to David A. Andrukonis, et ux., will be described as Tract 420-61. In exchange for the modified restrictions, David A. Andrukonis, et ux., will convey to the United States of America the deeded access road and any other rights they may have in Tract 420-25. The release of these rights by David A. Andrukonis, et ux., will be described as Tract 420-60.

Conveyance of the interest in land by the United States of America will be done by a Quitclaim Deed and will include easements terms outlining the modification of the terms.

In exchange for the interest described in previous paragraph, the United States of America will acquire the deeded access and any other rights in Tract 420-60. The Appalachian Trail footpath is located on this property. Acquisition of access and other rights owned by David A. Andrukonis, et ux., will provide additional protection for the footpath by protecting the resources.

This interest in land will be administered by the National Park Service as a part of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail upon completion of the exchange. This exchange of interests will provide permanent protection for the Appalachian Trail.

The interest to be acquired by the United States of America is described as follows: Tract 420-60, consisting of access and any other rights David A. Andrukonis, et ux., had in and over Tract 420-25.

Conveyance of the access and any other rights to the United States will be done by a General Warranty Deed.

The value of the interests to be exchanged was determined by a current fair market value appraisal. The parties have agreed to an equal value exchange.

Interested parties may submit written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES paragraph. Adverse comments will be evaluated and this action may be modified or vacated accordingly. In the absence of any action to modify or vacate, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of Interior.

Background.—On April 8, 2005, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (70 FR 20173, April 18, 2005). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 7, 2005, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 27, 2005, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before September 16, 2005. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 21, 2005, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is September 16, 2005. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 6, 2005; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before October 6, 2005. On October 28, 2005, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before November 1, 2005, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002).1

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10,1990).1

A. If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply to any purchase or sale of a security between BNP Paribas, a bank established under the laws of France and any French Affiliate or branch of BNP Paribas which is a bank regulated by the Commission Bancaire (CB) or a broker-dealer holding a securities dealers license issued by the Comité des Etablissements de Crédit et des Enterprises d'Investissement (CECEI) or registered with the Autorite des Marchés Financiers (AMF) (each, a BNP Entity), and employee benefit plans (the Plans) with respect to which the BNP Entity is a party in interest, including options written by a Plan or the BNP Entity, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II, are satisfied:

(1) The BNP Entity customarily purchases and sells securities for its own account in the ordinary course of its business as a bank or broker-dealer, as the case may be;

(2) The terms of any transaction are at least as favorable to the Plan as those which the Plan could obtain in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated party; and

(3) Neither the BNP Entity nor any of its affiliates has discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of the Plan assets involved in the transaction, or renders investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those assets, and the BNP Entity is a party in interest or disqualified person with respect to the Plan assets involved in the transaction solely by reason of section 3(14)(B) of the Act or section 4975(e)(2)(B) of the Code, or by reason of a relationship to a person described in such sections. For purposes of this paragraph, the BNP Entity shall not be deemed to be a fiduciary with respect to Plan assets solely by reason of providing securities custodial services for a Plan.

B. If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply to any extension of credit to a Plan by a BNP Entity to permit the settlement of securities transactions, regardless of whether they are effected on an agency or a principal basis, or in connection with the writing of options contracts, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II, are satisfied:

(1) The BNP Entity is not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan assets involved in the transaction, unless no interest or other consideration is received by the BNP Entity or any of its affiliates in connection with such extension of credit; and

(2) Any extension of credit would be lawful under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the 1934 Act), and any rules or regulations thereunder, if the 1934 Act, rules or regulations were applicable and is lawful under applicable foreign law.

C. If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply to the lending of securities that are assets of a Plan to a BNP Entity, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II are satisfied:

(1) Neither the BNP Entity nor any of its affiliates has discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of Plan assets involved in the transaction, or renders investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those assets;

(2) The Plan receives from the BNP Entity, either by physical delivery or by book entry in a securities depository located in the U.S., by the close of business on the day on which the securities lent are delivered to the BNP Entity, collateral consisting of U.S. currency, securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities, or irrevocable U.S. bank letters of credit issued by persons other than the BNP Entity (or any of its affiliates), or any combination thereof having, as of the close of business on the preceding business day, a market value (or, in the case of letters of credit, a stated amount) equal to not less than 100 percent of the then market value of the securities lent. All collateral shall be held in U.S. dollars, or dollar denominated securities or bank letters of credit and shall be held in physical or book entry form in the United States.

(3) The loan is made pursuant to a written loan agreement (the Loan Agreement), which may be in the form of a master agreement covering a series of securities lending transactions, and which contains terms at least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;

(4) In return for lending securities, the Plan either (a) receives a reasonable fee which is related to the value of the borrowed securities and the duration of the loan, or (b) has the opportunity to derive compensation through the investment of cash collateral. In the latter case, the Plan may pay a loan rebate or similar fee to the BNP Entity, if such fee is not greater than the Plan would pay an unrelated party in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;

(5) The Plan receives at least the equivalent of all distributions made to holders of the borrowed securities during the term of the loan, including, but not limited to, cash dividends, interest payments, shares of stock as a result of stock splits and rights to purchase additional securities that the Plan would have received (net of tax withholdings) had it remained the record owner of such securities. Where dividends and other distributions on foreign securities payable to a lending Plan are subject to foreign tax withholdings, the BNP Entity will put the Plan back in at least as good a position as it would have been in had it not lent the securities;

(6) If the market value of the collateral as of the close of trading on a business day falls below 100% of the market value of the borrowed securities as of the close of trading on that day, the BNP Entity delivers additional collateral, by the close of business on the following business day, to bring the level of the collateral back to at least 100% of the market value of all the borrowed securities as of such preceding day. Notwithstanding the foregoing, part of the collateral may be returned to the BNP Entity if the market value of the collateral exceeds 100% of the market value of the borrowed securities, as long as the market value of the remaining collateral equals at least 100% of the market value of the borrowed securities;

(7) Prior to entering into a Loan Agreement, the BNP Entity furnishes to the independent Plan fiduciary, who is making decisions on behalf of the Plan with respect to the lending of securities: (a) The most recent available audited and unaudited statements of its financial condition, (b) the most recent available unaudited statement of its financial condition (if more recent than the audited statement), and (c) a representation by the BNP Entity that, as of each time it borrows securities, there has been no material adverse change in its financial condition since the date of the most recently furnished financial statement that has not been disclosed to the Plan fiduciary. Such representation may be made by the BNP Entity's agreeing that each loan of securities shall constitute a representation that there has been no such material adverse change;

(8) The Loan Agreement and/or any securities loan outstanding may be terminated by the Plan at any time, whereupon the BNP Entity delivers certificates for securities identical to the borrowed securities (or the equivalent thereof in the event of reorganization, recapitalization or merger of the issuer of the borrowed securities) to the Plan within (a) the customary delivery period for such securities, (b) five business days, or (c) the time negotiated for such delivery by the Plan and the BNP Entity, whichever is lesser, or, alternatively, such period as permitted by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTCE) 81-6 (46 FR 7527, January 23, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 18754, May 19, 1987), as it may be amended or superseded; 2

(9) In the event that the loan is terminated and the BNP Entity fails to return the borrowed securities or the equivalent thereof within the time described in paragraph (8) above, then the Plan may purchase securities identical to the borrowed securities (or their equivalent as described above) and may apply the collateral to the payment of the purchase price, any other obligations of the BNP Entity under the Loan Agreement, and any expenses associated with the sale and/or purchase. The BNP Entity is obligated to pay to the Plan the amount of any remaining obligations and expenses not covered by the collateral (the value of which shall be determined as of the date the borrowed securities should have been returned to the Plan), plus interest at a reasonable rate, as determined in accordance with an independent market source. If replacement securities are not available, the BNP Entity will pay the Plan an amount equal to (a) the value of the securities as of the date such securities should have been returned to the Plan, plus (b) all the accrued financial benefits derived from the beneficial ownership of such borrowed securities as of such date, plus (c) interest at a reasonable rate determined in accordance with an independent market source from such date to the date of payment. The amounts paid shall be reduced by the amount or value of the collateral determined as of the date the borrowed securities should have been returned to the Plan. The BNP entity is obligated to pay, under the terms of the Loan Agreement, and does pay, to the Plan, the amount of any remaining obligations and expenses not covered by the collateral, plus interest at a reasonable rate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the BNP Entity may, in the event it fails to return borrowed securities as described above, replace non-cash collateral with an amount of cash not less than the then current market value of the collateral, provided that such replacement is approved by the independent Plan fiduciary; and

(10) The independent Plan fiduciary maintains the situs of the Loan Agreement in accordance with the indicia of ownership requirements under section 404(b) of the Act and the regulations promulgated under 29 CFR 2550.404(b)-1. However, the BNP Entity shall not be subject to the civil penalty, which may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act, or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, if the independent Plan fiduciary fails to comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 2550.404(b)-1.

If the BNP Entity fails to comply with any condition of this exemption in the course of engaging in a securities lending transaction, the Plan fiduciary which caused the Plan to engage in such transaction shall not be deemed to have caused the Plan to engage in a transaction prohibited by section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act solely by reason of the failure on the part of the BNP Entity to comply with the conditions of the exemption.

A. The BNP Entity is a registered broker-dealer or bank subject to regulation by a governmental agency, as described in Section III.B, and is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations thereof in connection with any transactions covered by this exemption.

B. The BNP Entity, in connection with any transactions covered by this exemption, is in compliance with all requirements of Rule 15a-6 of the 1934 Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) interpretations thereof, providing foreign affiliates a limited exemption from U.S. broker-dealers registration requirements (17 CFR 240.15a-6).

C. Prior to the transaction, the BNP Entity enters into a written agreement with the Plan in which the BNP Entity consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States for any civil action or proceeding brought in respect of the subject transactions.

D. Each BNP Entity located in the United States is fully responsible for any judgment rendered by a United States court against BNP Paribas, and the U.S. assets of BNP Paribas, including those of any BNP Entities located in the U.S., are subject to the enforcement of any such judgment.

E. The BNP Entity maintains, or causes to be maintained, within the United States for a period of six years from the date of the covered transactions, such records as are necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph F. of this Section II to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that:

(1) If the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph F. to determine whether the conditions of the exemption have been met are lost or destroyed prior to the end of such year period, due to circumstances beyond the control of the BNP Entity, then no prohibited transaction will be considered to have occurred solely on the basis of the unavailability of those records; and

(2) No party in interest, other than the BNP Entity and its affiliates, shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code if the records are not maintained or are not available for examination as required by paragraph F. of this Section II.

F. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section 504 of the Act, the BNP Entity makes the records referred to above in paragraph E. of this Section II, unconditionally available for examination during normal business hours at their customary location to the following persons or an authorized representative thereof:

(1) The Department, the Internal Revenue Service or the SEC;

(2) Any fiduciary of a participating Plan;

(3) Any contributing employer to a Plan;

(4) Any employee organization any of whose members are covered by a Plan; and

(5) Any participant or beneficiary of a Plan.

However, none of the persons described above in paragraphs (2)-(5) of this paragraph F. shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of the BNP Entity, or any commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential.

G. Prior to any Plan's approval of any transaction with a BNP Entity, the Plan is provided with copies of the proposed and final exemption with respect to the exemptive relief granted herein.

For purposes of this proposed exemption,

A. The term “affiliate” of another person shall include:

(1) Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such other person;

(2) Any officer, director, or partner, employee or relative (as defined in section 3(15) of the Act) of such other person; and

(3) Any corporation, partnership or other entity of which such other person is an officer, director or partner. (For purposes of this definition, the term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.)

B. The term “BNP Entity” shall mean BNP Paribas or any branch or affiliate thereof that is a broker-dealer or bank subject to regulation by the (1) CB or (2) AMF.

C. The term “security” shall include equities, fixed income securities, options on equity and on fixed income securities, government obligations, and any other instrument that constitutes a security under U.S. securities laws. The term “security” does not include swap agreements or other notional principal contracts.

1. BNP Paribas, which maintains its principal offices in Paris, France, is a publicly-held French bank that operates primarily in France. BNP Paribas has additional activities in major banking and securities markets worldwide. Through its branch offices and affiliates, BNP Paribas provides a full line of depository, lending and investment services to a broad base of clients and is engaged in a wide range of banking, financial and related activities. As of December 31, 2004, BNP Paribas had consolidated assets of Euro 905.9 billion ($1.231 trillion) and stockholders equity of Euro 30.2 billion ($41.02 billion). As of close of business on March 29, 2005, BNP Paribas had a market capitalization of over Euro 49 billion (over $63 billion). The banking activities of BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates are regulated by CB. The securities activities of BNP Paribas are regulated by the AMF.

As of December 31, 2004, BNP Paribas reported that its presence in the United States (excluding Banc West Corporation and its subsidiaries) was valued in excess of $185 billion. Because it is a single legal entity acting through various branches and other subsidiaries in various locations, including the United States, BNP Paribas states that each U.S.-based BNP Entity would be fully responsible for any judgment rendered by a U.S. court against BNP Paribas, and the U.S. assets of BNP Paribas, including those of any BNP Entities, located in the U.S., would likely be subject to the enforcement of any such judgment.3