Title: State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program.

OMB Number: 0579-0047.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for, among other things, administering regulations intended to prevent the spread of brucellosis and other animal diseases within the United States.

Brucellosis is a contagious disease that primarily affects cattle, bison, and swine. It causes the loss of young through spontaneous abortion or birth of weak offspring, reduced milk production, and infertility. The continued presence of brucellosis in a herd seriously threatens the health of other animals. Brucellosis has caused devastating losses to farmers in the United States over the last century.

The State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program, which is a national program, is working toward eliminating this serious disease of livestock. The program is conducted under the various States' authorities supplemented by Federal authorities regulating interstate movement of affected animals. Effective screening programs and extensive epidemiological investigations are required to locate infection and to eradicate the disease.

Conducting effective brucellosis screening programs and epidemiological investigations requires the use of many information collection activities, such as applications for tags or tattoos, epidemiology report forms, monthly reports of brucellosis eradication and program surveillance activities, reports of brucellosis reactors slaughtered, and permits for interstate movement of animals.

The information obtained from these activities is used to find infected herds and ensure that brucellosis is not spread interstate from infected herds. These information collection activities are essential in determining the brucellosis status of an area and helping herd owners by allowing the timely detection and elimination of a serious disease.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.033519373 hours per response.

Respondents: Accredited veterinarians, State animal health authorities, livestock inspectors, herd owners, and owners/operators of livestock markets.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 7,382.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 71.455703.

Estimated annual number of responses: 527,486.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 17,681 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the average reporting burden per response.)

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.

Title: List Sampling Frame Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0140.

Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 2006.

Type of Request: Intent to revise and extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary objectives of the National Agricultural Statistics Service are to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop production, livestock production, economic statistics, and environmental statistics related to agriculture and also to conduct the Census of Agriculture. The List Sampling Frame Surveys are used to develop and maintain as complete a list as possible of farm operations. The goal is to produce for each State a relatively complete, current, and unduplicated list of names for statistical sampling for agricultural operation surveys and the Census of Agriculture. Information from these agricultural surveys is used by government agencies and educational institutions in planning, farm policy analysis, and program administration.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 13.7 minutes per respondent

Respondents: Farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 114,167 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

Comments: 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

Title: Floriculture Survey.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0093.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2005.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to revise and extend an information collection.

Abstract: The objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Floriculture Survey is conducted in 36 States and obtains basic agricultural statistics on production and value of floriculture and nursery products. The retail and wholesale quantity and value of sales are collected for fresh cut flowers, potted flowering plants, foliage plants, annual bedding/garden plants, herbaceous perennials, cut cultivated florist greens, propagative floriculture material, and unfinished plants. Additional detail on area in production, operation value of sales, and agricultural workers is included. These statistics are used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help administer programs and by growers and marketers in making production and marketing decisions.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 21 minutes per respondent.

Respondents: Farms and businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,600.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,760 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

Comments: 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

Federal Agency: Rural Housing Service.

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Community Development Initiative.

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.

Congress initially created the RCDI in fiscal year (FY) 2000 to develop the capacity and ability of nonprofit organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally recognized tribes to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas. Numerous changes have been made each year since.

Congress appropriated approximately $6 million in FY 2005 for the RCDI. Qualified private, nonprofit and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations proposing to carry out financial and technical assistance programs will be eligible to receive the funding. The intermediary will be required to provide matching funds in an amount at least equal to the RCDI grant. The respective minimum and maximum grant amount per intermediary is $50,000 and $500,000. The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to a private nonprofit, community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community or a federally recognized tribe.

Qualified private, nonprofit and public (including tribal) intermediary organizations. Definitions that describe eligible organizations and other key terms are listed below:

Agency —The Rural Housing Service (RHS) or its successor.

Beneficiary —Entities or individuals that receive benefits from assistance provided by the recipient.

Capacity —the ability of a recipient to finance and implement housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects.

Federally recognized tribes —Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on the Notice in the Federal Register published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 5, 2003, (68 FR 68180). Tribally Designated Housing Entities are eligible RCDI recipients.

Financial assistance —Funds used by the intermediary to support the recipient's program, including funds that pass through the intermediary to the recipient for eligible RCDI purposes.

Funds —The RCDI grant and matching money.

Intermediary —A qualified private, nonprofit, or public (including tribal) organization that provides financial and technical assistance to multiple recipients.

Low-income rural community —An authority, district, economic development authority, regional council, or unit of government representing an incorporated city, town, village, county, township, parish, or borough.

Recipient —The entity that receives the financial and technical assistance from the intermediary. The recipient must be a private nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a low-income rural community, or a federally recognized tribe.

Rural and rural area —Any area other than (i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and (ii) the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town.

Technical assistance —Skilled help in improving the recipient's abilities in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development. The Agency will determine whether a specific activity qualifies as technical assistance.

Matching funds —Cash or confirmed funding commitments. Matching funds must be at least equal to the grant amount. These funds can only be used for eligible RCDI activities. In-kind contributions cannot be used as matching funds. Grant funds and matching funds must be used in equal proportions. This does not mean funds have to be used equally by line item. The request for reimbursement and supporting documentation must show that RCDI fund usage does not exceed the cumulative amount of matching funds used. Grant funds will be disbursed pursuant to relevant provisions of 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019, as applicable.

Matching funds must be used to support the overall purpose of the RCDI program. RCDI funds will be disbursed on a reimbursable basis only. No advances will be made. Matching funds cannot be expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement. No reimbursement will be made for any funds expended prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement unless the grantee has requested and received written Agency approval of the costs prior to the actual expenditure. This exception is applicable for up to 90 days prior to grant closing and only applies to grantees that have received written approval but have not executed the RCDI Grant Agreement. The Agency cannot retroactively approve reimbursement for expenditures prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.

1. The recipient and beneficiary, but not the intermediary must be located in an eligible rural area. The location of the low-income rural community office that will be receiving the financial and technical assistance must be in a community with a median household income at or below 80 percent of the State or national median household income. The applicable Rural Development State Office can assist in determining the eligibility of an area. A listing of Rural Development State Offices is included in this Notice.

2. The recipients must be private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally recognized tribes based on the RCDI definitions of these groups.

3. Documentation must be submitted to verify recipient eligibility. Acceptable documentation varies depending on the type of recipient: Private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations must provide a letter confirming its tax-exempt status from the IRS, a certificate of incorporation and good standing from the Secretary of State, or other similar and valid documentation of nonprofit status; for low-income rural community recipients, the Agency requires: (a) Evidence the entity is a public body, and (b) census data verifying that the median household income of the community where the office receiving the financial and technical assistance is located is at, or below, 80 percent of the State or national median household income; for federally recognized tribes, the Agency needs the page listing their name from the current Federal Register list of tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding services (see the definition of federally recognized tribes for details on this list).

4. Individuals cannot be recipients.

5. The intermediary must provide matching funds at least equal to the amount of the grant.

6. The intermediary must provide a program of financial and technical assistance to the recipient.

7. The intermediary organization must have been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years and have at least 3 years prior experience working with private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or tribal organizations in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

8. Proposals must be structured to utilize the grant funds within 3 years from the date of the award.

9. Each intermediary, whether singularly or jointly, may only submit one application for RCDI funds under this NOFA unless the intermediary's participation is limited to providing all or part of the matching funds.

10. Recipients can participate in more than one RCDI application; however, after grant selections are made, the recipient can only participate in multiple RCDI grants if the type of financial and technical assistance they will receive is not duplicative.

11. The intermediary and the recipient cannot be the same entity. The recipient can be a related entity to the intermediary, if it meets the definition of a recipient.

12. A nonprofit recipient must provide evidence that it is a valid nonprofit when the intermediary applies for the RCDI grant. Organizations with pending requests for nonprofit designations are not eligible.

13. If the recipient is a low-income rural community, identify the unit of government to which the financial and technical assistance will be provided, e.g. , town council or village board. The financial and technical assistance must be provided to the organized unit of government representing that community, not the community at large.

14. Nonprofit recipients located in a rural area that is also a census designated place (CDP) are eligible recipients.

15. The indirect cost rate for the intermediary will be in accordance with applicable OMB Circulars A-87, A-122, and A-133.

Fund uses must be consistent with the RCDI purpose (see “Background” section of this Notice). A nonexclusive list of eligible grant uses includes the following:

1. Provide financial and technical assistance to develop recipients' capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development, i.e. , the intermediary hires a staff person to provide technical assistance to the recipient or the recipient hires a staff person, under the supervision of the intermediary, to carry out the financial and technical assistance provided by the intermediary.

2. Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct community development programs, e.g. , homeownership education or training for business entrepreneurs.

3. Develop the capacity of recipients to conduct development initiatives, e.g. , programs that support micro-enterprise and sustainable development.

4. Develop the capacity of recipients to increase their leveraging ability and access to alternative funding sources by providing training and staffing.

5. Develop the capacity of recipients to provide the financial and technical assistance component for essential community facilities projects.

6. Assist recipients in completing pre-development requirements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects by providing resources for professional services, e.g. , architectural, engineering, or legal.

7. Improve recipient's organizational capacity by providing training and resource material on developing strategic plans, board operations, management, financial systems, and information technology.

8. Purchase computers, software, and printers at the recipient level when directly related to the financial or technical assistance program being undertaken by the intermediary.

9. Provide funds to recipients for training-related travel costs and training expenses related to RCDI.

1. Funding a revolving loan fund (RLF).

2. Construction (in any form).

3. Intermediary preparation of strategic plans for recipients.

4. Funding illegal activities.

5. Grants to individuals.

6. Funding a grant where there may be a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, involving any action by the Agency.

7. Paying obligations incurred before the beginning date or after the ending date of the grant agreement.

8. Purchasing real estate.

9. Improvement or renovation of the grantee's office space or for the repair or maintenance of privately owned vehicles.

10. Any other purpose prohibited in 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019, as applicable.

11. Using funds for recipient's general operating costs.

12. Using grant or matching funds for Individual Development Accounts.

The purpose of this initiative is to develop or increase the recipient's capacity through a program of financial and technical assistance to perform in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development. Strengthening the recipient's capacity in these areas will benefit the communities they serve. The RCDI structure requires the intermediary (grantee) to provide a program of financial and technical assistance to recipients. The recipients will, in turn, provide programs to their communities (beneficiaries). The following are examples of eligible and ineligible purposes under the RCDI program. (These examples are illustrative and are not meant to limit the activities proposed in the application. Activities that meet the objective of the RCDI program will be considered eligible.)

1. The intermediary must work directly with the recipient, not the beneficiaries. As an example: the intermediary provides training to the recipient on how to conduct homeownership education classes. The recipient then provides ongoing homeownership education to the residents of the community—the ultimate beneficiaries. This “train the trainer” concept fully meets the intent of this initiative. The intermediary is providing financial and technical assistance that will build the recipient's capacity by enabling them to conduct homeownership education classes for the public. This is an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary directly provided homeownership education classes to individuals in the recipient's service area, this would not be an eligible purpose because the recipient would be bypassed.

2. If the intermediary is working with a low-income community as the recipient, the intermediary must provide the financial and technical assistance to the entity that represents the low-income community and is identified in the application. Examples of entities representing a low-income community are a village board or a town council. If the intermediary provides technical assistance to the board of directors of the low-income community on how to establish a cooperative, this would be an eligible purpose. However, if the intermediary works directly with individuals from the community to establish the cooperative, this is not an eligible purpose. The recipient's capacity is built by learning skills that will enable them to support sustainable economic development in their communities on an ongoing basis.

3. The intermediary may provide technical assistance to the recipient on how to create and operate a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). The intermediary may not monitor or operate the RLF. RCDI funds, including matching funds, cannot be used to fund RLFs.

Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RCDI Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/rcdi/index.htm. Applicants may also request application packages from: William Kenney, Rural Housing Service, Room 0183, Stop 0787, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0787, telephone (202) 720-1506, e-mail: william.kenney@wdc.usda.gov.

A complete application for RCDI funds must include the following:

1. A summary page, double-spaced between items, listing the following:

a. Applicant's name;

b. Applicant's address;

c. Applicant's telephone number;

d. Name of applicant's contact person and telephone number;

e. Applicant's fax number;

f. County where applicant is located;

g. Congressional district number where applicant is located;

h. Amount of grant request;

i. Applicant's Tax Identification Number;

j. Date Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number (Applicant Only);

k. Number of recipients; and

l. Source and amount of matching funds.

2. A detailed Table of Contents containing page numbers for each component of the application.

3. A project overview, no longer than five pages, including the following items, which will also be addressed separately and in detail under “Building Capacity” of the “Evaluation Criteria.”

a. The type of financial and technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and how it will be implemented.

b. How the capacity and ability of the recipients will be improved.

c. The overall goals to be accomplished.

d. The benchmarks to be used to measure the success of the program.

4. Organizational documents, such as a certificate of incorporation and good standing from the Secretary of State where the applicant is incorporated and other similar and valid documentation of non-profit status, from the intermediary that confirms it has been legally organized for a minimum of 3 years as the applicant entity.

5. Verification of matching funds, i.e. , a copy of a bank statement if matching funds are in cash or a copy of the confirmed funding commitment from the funding source. The applicant will be contacted by the Agency prior to grant award to verify that the matching funds continue to be available. The applicant will have 10 working days from the date of contact to submit verification of matching funds. If the applicant is unable to provide the verification within that timeframe, the application will be considered ineligible.

6. Applicant should verify that they have a DUNS number. Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711.

7. The following information for each recipient:

a. Recipient's entity name;

b. Complete address (mailing and physical location, if different);

c. County where located;

d. Number of Congressional district where recipient is located;

e. Contact person's name and telephone number; and

f. Documentation on the population composition of the service area of the recipient.

8. Submit evidence that each recipient entity is eligible:

a. Nonprofits—provide a valid letter from the IRS, confirming certificate from the Secretary of State, or other valid documentation of nonprofit status of each recipient.

b. Low-income rural community—provide evidence the entity is a public body, and a copy of the 2000 census data to verify the population, and evidence that the median household income is at, or below, 80 percent of either the State or national median household income. We will only accept data from http://www.census.gov . The specific instructions to retrieve data from this site are detailed under the “Evaluation Criteria” for “Population” and “Income.”

c. Federally recognized tribes—provide the page listing their name from the current Federal Register list of tribal entities published on December 5, 2003, (68 FR 68180).

9. Each of the “Evaluation Criteria” must be addressed specifically and individually by category. Present these criteria in narrative form. Documentation must be limited to three pages per criterion with the exception of attachments for “Population” and “Income.”

10. A timeline identifying specific activities and proposed dates for completion.

11. A detailed project budget that includes the RCDI grant amount and matching funds for the duration of the grant. This should be a line-item budget, by category. Categories such as salaries, administrative, other, and indirect costs that pertain to the proposed project must be clearly defined. Supporting documentation listing the components of these categories must be included.

12. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” (Do not complete Form SF-424A, “Budget Information.” A separate line-item budget should be presented as described in No. 10 of this section.) The budget should be dated: year 1, year 2, year 3.

13. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.”

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

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

16. Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.”

17. Certification of Non-Lobbying Activities.

18. Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

19. Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement,” for the applicant and each recipient.

20. Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees.

The required forms and certifications can be downloaded from the RCDI Web site at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/rcdi/index.htm.

The original application package must be submitted to: William Kenney, Rural Housing Service, STOP 0787, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0787, and must be submitted to the Rural Development State Office where the applicant is located. A listing of Rural Development State Offices is included in this Notice. Applications sent electronically or by facsimile will not be accepted.

The deadline for receipt of an application is 4 p.m. eastern time November 3, 2005. The application deadline date and hour are firm and apply to submission of the original application to the National Office in Washington, DC. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. A listing of Rural Development State Offices, their addresses, telephone numbers, and person to contact is provided elsewhere in this Notice.

Meeting expenses. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345, “Expenses of Meetings,” appropriations may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. RCDI grant funds cannot be used for these meeting-related expenses. Matching funds may be used to pay for these expenses. RCDI funds may be used to pay for a speaker as part of a program, equipment to facilitate the program, and the actual room that will house the meeting. RCDI funds can be used for travel, transportation, or subsistence expenses for training and technical assistance purposes. Any meeting or training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Travel and per diem expenses will be similar to those paid to Agency employees. Rates are based upon location. Rate information can be accessed on the Internet at http://policyworks.gov/perdiem. Grantees and recipients will be restricted to traveling coach class on common carrier airlines. Grantees and recipients may exceed the Government rate for lodging by a maximum of 20 percent. Meals and incidental expenses will be reimbursed at the same rate used by Agency employees. Mileage and gas reimbursement will be the same rate used by Agency employees. The current mileage and gas reimbursement rate is 37.5 cents per mile.

Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria and weights:

The applicant must demonstrate how they will improve the recipients' capacity, through a program of financial and technical assistance, as it relates to the RCDI purposes. Capacity-building technical assistance should provide new functions to the recipients or expand existing functions that will enable the recipients to undertake projects in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will benefit the community. The program of financial and technical assistance provided, its delivery, and the measurability of the program's effectiveness will determine the merit of the application. All applications will be competitively ranked with the applications providing the most improvement in capacity development and measurable activities being ranked the highest. Capacity-building technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: Training to conduct community development programs, e.g. , homeownership education, or the establishment of minority business entrepreneurs, cooperatives, or micro-enterprises; organizational development, e.g. , assistance to develop or improve board operations, management, and financial systems; instruction on how to develop and implement a strategic plan; instruction on how to access alternative funding sources to increase leveraging opportunities; staffing, e.g. , hiring a person at intermediary or recipient level to provide technical or financial assistance to recipients; and purchasing technology equipment at the recipient level, e.g. , computers, printers, and software.

The narrative response must:

a. Describe the nature of financial and technical assistance to be provided to the recipients and the activities that will be conducted to deliver the financial and technical assistance;

b. Explain how financial and technical assistance will develop or increase the recipient's capacity. Indicate whether a new function is being developed or if existing functions are being expanded or performed more effectively;

c. Identify which RCDI purpose areas will be addressed with this assistance: housing, community facilities, or community and economic development; and

d. Describe how the results of the financial and technical assistance will be measured. What benchmarks will be used to measure effectiveness?

e. The maximum 60 points for this criteria will be broken down as follows:

(1) Type of financial and technical assistance and implementation activities. 35 points

(2) An explanation of how financial and technical assistance will develop capacity. 10 points

(3) Identification of the RCDI purpose. 5 points

(4) Measurement of outcomes. 10 points

The applicant must demonstrate that it has conducted programs of financial and technical assistance and achieved measurable results in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas. Provide the name, contact information, and amount of the financial and technical assistance the applicant organization has provided to the following for the last 5 years:

a. Nonprofit organizations in rural areas.

b. Low-income communities in rural areas, (also include the type of entity, e.g. , city government, town council, or village board).

c. Federally recognized tribes or any other culturally diverse organizations.

Population is based on the average population from the 2000 census data for the communities in which the recipients are located. Community is defined for scoring purposes as a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, or census-designated place where the recipient's office is physically located. The applicant must submit a copy of the census data from the following website to verify the population figures used for each recipient. The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov ; click on “American FactFinder” from the left menu; click on “Fact Sheet” from the left menu; at the right, fill in one or more fields and click “Go”; print the Fact Sheet for submission for each recipient location. The average population of the recipient locations will be used and will be scored as follows:

The average of the median household income for the communities where the recipients are physically located will determine the points awarded. Applicants may compare the average recipient median household income to the State median household income or the national median household income, whichever yields the most points. The national median household income to be used is $41,994. The applicant must submit a copy of the income data from the following Web site to verify the income for each recipient. The data being used is from the 2000 census. The data can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.census.gov ; click on “American FactFinder” from the left menu; click on “Fact Sheet” from the left menu; at the right, fill in one or more fields and click ‘Go’; Income data for the recipient location can be highlighted on the Fact Sheet submitted for population. Points will be awarded as follows:

Average Recipient Median Income Is: Scoring Less than 60 percent of the State or national median household income—30 points.

Between 60 and 70 percent of the State or national median household income—20 points.

Greater than 70 percent of the State or national median household income—10 points.

The applicant must demonstrate that it has developed an innovative approach that can be used by other organizations as a model. To be considered innovative, the approach must propose an easily replicated new or useful service or method of providing services to recipients that builds their capacity to improve their communities in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development. Points will be awarded to applications that have the highest score on the following factors:

a. Ease of replication by private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally recognized tribes;

b. Uniqueness of proposal;

c. Financial return to rural communities; and

d. Need by private nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, low-income rural community, or federally recognized tribe.

Up to 20 applicants with innovative approaches may receive points in this category. The application ranking and scoring are:

If there is a tied score, it will be resolved by using the format listed under “Rating and Ranking” under “Application Selection Process” elsewhere in this Notice.

The applicant can receive up to 50 points for soundness of approach. The overall proposal will be considered under this criterion. Applicants must list the page numbers in the application that address these factors.

a. The ability to provide the proposed financial and technical assistance based on prior accomplishments has been demonstrated.

b. The proposed financial and technical assistance program is clearly stated and the applicant has defined how this proposal will be implemented. The plan for implementation is viable.

c. Cost effectiveness will be evaluated based on the budget in the application. The proposed grant amount and matching funds should be utilized to maximize capacity building at the recipient level.

d. The proposal fits the objectives for which applications were invited.

The applicant must provide a map that specifically describes the areas covered by the recipients. After applications have been evaluated and awarded points under the first 6 criteria, the Agency may award 20 points per application to promote a broad geographic distribution of RCDI funds.

The applicant must state the primary purpose of the application, i.e. , housing, community facilities, or community and economic development.

After applications have been evaluated and awarded points under the first 6 criteria, the Agency may award 20 points per application to promote diversity of RCDI purposes.

After applications have been evaluated and awarded points under the first 6 criteria, the Agency may award 20 points per application to promote an even distribution of grant awards between the range of $50,000 to $500,000.

Rating and ranking . Applications will be rated and ranked on a national basis by a review panel based on the “Evaluation Criteria and Weights” contained in this Notice. If there is a tied score after the applications have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by reviewing the scores for “Building Capacity” and the applicant with the highest score in that category will receive a higher ranking. If the scores for “Building Capacity” are the same, the scores will be compared for the next criterion, in sequential order, until one highest score can be determined.

Initial screening. The Agency will screen each application to determine eligibility during the period immediately following the application deadline. Listed below are many of the reasons for rejection from the previous funding rounds to help the applicant prepare a better application. The following reasons for rejection are not all inclusive; however, they represent the majority of the applications previously rejected.

1. Recipients were not located in eligible rural areas based on the definition in this Notice.

2. Applicants failed to provide evidence of recipient's status, i.e. , documentation supporting nonprofit evidence of organization.

3. Application did not follow the RCDI structure with an intermediary and recipients.

4. Recipients were not identified in the application.

5. Intermediary did not provide evidence it had been incorporated for at least 3 years as the applicant entity.

6. Applicants failed to address the “Evaluation Criteria.”

7. The purpose of the proposal did not qualify as an eligible RCDI purpose.

8. Inappropriate use of funds ( e.g. , construction or renovations)

9. Providing financial and technical assistance directly to individuals.

Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of the Agency shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose applications are judged meritorious under the procedures set forth in this Notice.

Applicant will be notified of selection by letter. In addition, applicant will be requested to verify that components of the application have not changed. The award is not approved until all information has been verified, and the awarding official of the Agency has signed Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

Grantees will be required to do the following:

1. Execute a Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Agreement, which is published at the end of this NOFA.

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

3. Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements.

4. Provide financial status and project performance reports on a quarterly basis starting with the first full quarter after the grant award.

5. Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.

6. Ensure that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing RCDI grant funds and matching funds. Receipts for expenditures will be included in this documentation.

7. Provide annual audits or management reports on Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income, and Equity,” and Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” depending on the amount of Federal funds expended and the outstanding balance.

8. Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” Vol. 62, No. 210, October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application, but should be available upon request by the Agency.

9. Provide a final project performance report.

10. Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees on a format provided by the Agency.

11. The intermediary and recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Executive Order 12250.

12. The grantee must comply with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable OMB Circulars and Code of Federal Regulations:

a. OMB Circular No. A-87 (Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with State and Local Governments);

b. OMB Circular No. A-122 (Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations);

c. OMB Circular No. A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations);

d. 7 CFR part 3015 (Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations);

e. 7 CFR part 3016 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments); and

f. 7 CFR part 3017 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement))

g. 7 CFR part 3019 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations).

h. 7 CFR part 3052 (Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-Profit Organizations)

Reporting requirements can be found in the Grant Agreement included in this Notice.

William Kenney, Rural Housing Service, Room 0183, Stop 0787, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0787, telephone (202) 720-1506, e-mail: william.kenney@wdc.usda.gov.

In the event the applicant is awarded a grant that is less than the amount requested, the applicant will be required to modify its application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the grant agreement. The Agency reserves the right to reduce or withdraw the award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the awardee within 15 working days from the date the request for modification is made. Any modifications must be within the scope of the original application.

A. Provide a program of financial and technical assistance in accordance with the proposal outlined in the application, (see Attachment A), the terms of which are incorporated with this Agreement and must be adhered to. Any changes to the approved program of financial technical assistance must be approved in writing by the Grantor;

B. Use Grant Funds only for the purposes and activities specified in the application package approved by the Agency including the approved budget. Any uses not provided for in the approved budget must be approved in writing by the Agency in advance;

C. Charge expenses for travel and per diem that will not exceed the rates paid Agency employees for similar expenses. Grantees and recipients will be restricted to traveling coach class on common carrier airlines. Lodging rates may exceed the Government rate by a maximum of 20 percent. Meals and incidental expenses will be reimbursed at the same rate used by Agency employees, which is based upon location. Mileage and gas will be reimbursed at the existing Government rate. Rates can be accessed on the Internet at http://policyworks.gov/perdiem;

D. Charge meeting expenses in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Grant funds may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. Matching funds may be used to pay these expenses. Any meeting or training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345.

E. Request quarterly reimbursement for grant activities during the previous quarter. Reimbursement will be made on a pro rata basis with matching funds. Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be used to request reimbursement. A project performance report, in narrative form, and a financial report, reflecting the activities conducted, must accompany the request for reimbursement. Matching fund usage must be included in all reports.

F. Provide periodic reports as required by the Grantor. A financial status report and a project performance report will be required on a quarterly basis (due 30 working days after each calendar quarter). The financial status report must show how grant funds and matching funds have been used to date. A final report may serve as the last quarterly report. Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met and projected goals by time periods are being accomplished. The project performance reports shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Describe the activities that the funds reflected in the financial status report were used for;

2. A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives for that period;

3. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;

4. Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will affect attainment of overall program objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accomplished by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation;

5. Objectives and timetables established for the next reporting period;

6. If available, a summary of the race, sex, and national origin of the recipients and a summary from the recipients of the race, sex, and national origin of the beneficiaries; and

7. The final report will also address the following:

(a) What have been the most challenging or unexpected aspects of this program?

(b) What advice would you give to other organizations planning a similar program? Please include strengths and limitations of the program. If you had the opportunity, what would you have done differently?

(c) Are there any post-grant plans for this project? If yes, how will they be financed?

(d) If an innovative approach was used successfully, the grantee must describe their program in detail for replication by other organizations and communities.

G. Consider potential recipients without discrimination as to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability;

H. Ensure that any services or training offered by the recipient, as a result of the financial and technical assistance received, must be made available to all persons in the recipient's service area without discrimination as to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability at reasonable rates, including assessments, taxes, or fees. Programs and activities must be delivered from accessible locations. The recipient must ensure that, where there are non-English speaking populations, materials are provided in the language that is spoken;

I. Ensure recipients are required to place nondiscrimination statements in advertisements, notices, pamphlets and brochures making the public aware of their services. The Grantee and recipient are required to provide widespread outreach and public notification in promoting any type of training or services that are available through grant funds;

J. The Grantee must collect and maintain data on recipients by race, sex, and national origin. The grantee must ensure that their recipients also collect and maintain data on beneficiaries by race, sex, and national origin as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and must be provided to the Agency for compliance review purposes;

K. Upon any default under its representations or agreements contained in this instrument, Grantee, at the option and demand of Grantor, will immediately repay to Grantor any legally permitted damages together with any legally permitted interest from the date of the default. At Grantor's election, any default by the Grantee will constitute termination of the grant thereby causing cancellation of Federal assistance under the grant. The provisions of this Agreement may be enforced by Grantor, without regard to prior waivers of this Agreement, by proceedings in law or equity, in either Federal or State courts as may be deemed necessary by Grantor to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and the laws and regulations under which this grant is made;

L. Provide Financial Management Systems that will include:

1. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each grant. Financial reporting will be on an accrual basis;

2. Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for grant-supported activities. Those records shall contain information pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income related to Grant Funds and matching funds;

3. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. Grantees shall adequately safeguard all such assets and shall ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes;

4. Accounting records supported by source documentation; and

5. Grantee tracking of fund usage and records that show matching funds and grant funds are used in equal proportions. The grantee will provide verifiable documentation regarding matching fund usage, i.e. , bank statements or copies of funding obligations from the matching source.

M. Retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant for a period of at least three years after grant closing except that the records shall be retained beyond the three-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photocopies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Grantor and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee's which are pertinent to the specific grant program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts;

N. Provide an A-133 audit report if $500,000 or more of Federal funds are expended in a 1-year period. If Federal funds expended during a 1-year period are less than $500,000 and there is an outstanding loan balance of less than $500,000, a management report may be submitted on Forms RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and 442-3, “Balance Sheet”;

O. Not encumber, transfer, or dispose of the equipment or any part thereof, acquired wholly or in part with Grantor funds without the written consent of the Grantor; and

P. Not duplicate other program activities for which monies have been received, are committed, or are applied to from other sources (public or private).

A. It will make available to Grantee for the purpose of this Agreement funds in an amount not to exceed the Grant Funds. The funds will be disbursed to Grantee on a pro rata basis with the Grantee's matching funds; and

B. At its sole discretion and at any time may give any consent, deferment, subordination, release, satisfaction, or termination of any or all of Grantee's grant obligations, with or without valuable consideration, upon such terms and conditions as Grantor may determine to be:

1. Advisable to further the purpose of the grant or to protect Grantor's financial interest therein; and

2. Consistent with both the statutory purposes of the grant and the limitations of the statutory authority under which it is made.

A. Extensions of this grant agreement may be approved by the Agency, in writing, provided in the Agency's sole discretion the extension is justified and there is a likelihood that the grantee can accomplish the goals set out and approved in the application package during the extension period;

B. The Grantor must approve any changes in recipient or recipient composition;

C. The Grantor has agreed to give the Grantee the Grant Funds, to the terms and conditions established by the Grantor: Provided, however, That any Grant Funds actually disbursed and not needed for grant purposes be returned immediately to the Grantor. This agreement shall terminate 3 years from this date unless extended or unless terminated beforehand due to default on the part of the Grantee or for convenience of the Grantor and Grantee. The Grantor may terminate the grant in whole, or in part, at any time before the date of completion, whenever it is determined that the Grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of this Agreement or the applicable regulations; Termination for convenience will occur when both the Grantee and Grantor agree that the continuation of the program will not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds.

D. As a condition of the Agreement, the Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with, and will comply in the course of the Agreement with, all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and other generally applicable requirements, which are incorporated into this agreement by reference, and such other statutory provisions as are specifically contained herein.

E. The Grantee will ensure that the recipients comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Executive Order 12250. Each recipient must sign Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement”;

1. The provisions of 7 CFR part 3015, “Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,” part 3016, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,” or part 3019, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations,” and the fiscal year 2005 “Notice of Funds Availability Inviting Applications for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI)” are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference; and

In WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantee has this day authorized and caused this Agreement to be executed by

On May 27, June 3, and June 10, 2005, the Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR 30692, 32570, and 33883) 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 services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services 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 and services to the government.

2. 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.

Accordingly, the following products and services 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 addition, the entities of the Federal government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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 to the government.

2. If approved, 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. Comments on this certification are invited.

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

The following product is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

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 may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the 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 services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

(End of Certification)

The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Taiside”) and Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. (“Shino-Food”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214 (c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, which has a December annual anniversary month, and a June semi-annual anniversary month. Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food identified themselves as producers and exporters of honey. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), and (iii)(A), Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food certified that they did not export honey to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that they have never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported honey to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, the two companies have also certified that their export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

On July 14, 2005, the Department issued a pre-initiation supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Taiside to clarify certain information submitted in their request to the Department for a new shipper review. In Shanghai Taiside's supplemental questionnaire response, dated July 18, 2005, Shanghai Taiside responded to the Department's request for clarification on its relationship to the importer of record, the merchandise under review, and entry documentation. Also, on July 26, 2005, Shanghai Taiside submitted comments on information obtained by the Department concerning their U.S. customer.

The Department conducted Customs database queries to confirm that Shanghai Taiside's and Shino-Food's shipments had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). In addition, the Department confirmed the existence of Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food and their U.S. customers.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating new shipper reviews for Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food. See Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, “New Shipper Review Initiation Checklist,” dated August 1, 2005. Although we found that Shanghai Taiside's U.S. customer had asserted in a trade show publication that it is a packing division of a Chinese exporter of honey, Shanghai Taiside asserts in its July 26, 2005, submission that it is not affiliated with its U.S. customer. Therefore, for purposes of this initiation, we find that Shanghai Taiside and its U.S. customer are not affiliated. However, we will examine the issue of Shanghai Taiside's potential affiliation with its U.S. customer further during the course of the new shipper review. We intend to issue the preliminary results of these reviews not later than 180 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated, and the final results of these reviews within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A) of the Department's regulations, the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi-annual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semi-annual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food is December 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005.

It is the Department's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food, including a separate rates section. The review will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food are not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to their exports of honey. However, if either Shanghai Taiside or Shino-Food does not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate, then that company will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI and the new shipper review will be rescinded as to that company.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e), we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importers, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a single entry bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for certain entries of the merchandise exported by Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food. Specifically, since Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food have stated that they are both the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise for the sales under review, we will instruct CBP to limit the bonding option only to entries of merchandise that were both exported and produced by Shanghai Taiside and Shino-Food, respectively.

Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

On April 1, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 16800 (April 1, 2005). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from DAK Fibers, LLC; Invista S.a.r.l (formerly Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l., d/b/a KoSa); 1 and Wellman, Inc., (collectively “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations (“sunset regulations”). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States. We received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from any of the respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(53)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders.

For the purposes of these orders, the product covered is PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to these orders may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from these orders. Also specifically excluded from these orders are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from these orders. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core.

The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive.

All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2005, (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins:

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Regional Administrator issues EFPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

The proposed collection involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. The applicants would be allowed to retain fish smaller than the minimum size limit and those collected during closed seasons, and would not be bound by applicable trip limits. Specimens would be collected using vertical hook and line and electric reels.

The applicants need the fish described above for use in age and growth studies of reef fishes being carried out by NMFS scientists. Such studies require sub-legal specimens and those caught out of season to give the most complete estimate of reef fish status.

NMFS finds that this application warrants further consideration, based on a preliminary review, and intends to issue an EFP. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to: Reduction in the number of specimens of any or all species to be collected; restrictions on the size of fish to be collected; prohibition of the harvest of any fish with visible external tags; and specification of locations, dates, and/or seasons allowed for collection of any or all species. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, conclusions of environmental analyses conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and consultations with North Carolina, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Past performance information is relevant information, for future source selection purposes, regarding a contractor's actions under previously awarded contracts. When past performance is to be evaluated, the rule states that the solicitation shall afford offerors the opportunity to identify Federal, state and local government, and private contracts performed by offerors that were similar in nature to the contract being evaluated.

Respondents: 150,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 4.

Annual Responses: 600,000.

Hours Per Response: 2.

Total Burden Hours: 1,200,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0142, Past Performance Information, in all correspondence.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Frequency: One time.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 4,629.

 Burden Hours: 2,690.

Abstract: The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a new system of international assessments that focus on 15-year-olds' capabilities in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy. PISA 2000 was the first cycle of PISA, which will be conducted every three years, with a primary focus on one area for each cycle. PISA 2000 focuses on reading literacy; mathematics literacy was the focus in 2003, and science literacy will be the focus in 2006. In addition to assessment data, PISA provides background information on school context and student demographics to benchmark performance and inform policy.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2831. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@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.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires the Department to publish in the Federal Register this notice of a new system of records maintained by the Department. The Department's regulations implementing the Privacy Act are contained in part 5b of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The Privacy Act applies to information about individuals that contains individually identifiable information that is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or social security number. The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.” The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish notices of new or altered systems of records in the Federal Register and to submit reports to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform, whenever the agency publishes a new or altered system of records.

You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department that are 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.

As part of the President's Management Agenda, the E-Authentication Service Component is established to enable trust and confidence in E-Government transactions through the establishment of an integrated policy and technical infrastructure for electronic authentication. Through this initiative, citizens, businesses, and governmental entities will have simpler access to multiple agency applications through the re-use of credentials and established identities. GSA is making the E-Authentication Service Component (ASC) available to Federal E-Government applications through the Federal Enterprise Architecture. In this way, Federal agencies can use the common policy and technical infrastructure of the ASC without the cost and burden of re-creating the infrastructure individually.

GSA has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the lead agency for the development, implementation and operation of the Federal electronic authentication infrastructure. GSA has established a Program Management Office (PMO) in the Federal Technology Service for the operation of the ASC. The GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy provides policy support for the initiative.

After careful analyses and proofs-of-concept, GSA determined that the most viable means to implement a common E-Authentication infrastructure was through a decentralized approach. The E-Authentication Service Component leverages credentials from multiple credential providers through certifications, guidelines, standards and policies. The E-Authentication Service Component accommodates assertion-based authentication ( i.e. , authentication of PIN and Password credentials) and certificate-based authentication ( i.e. , Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) digital certificates, and other forms of strong authentication) within the same environment. Over time, the E-Authentication Service Component will support multiple protocols and communication schemes and, therefore, is not built around a single scheme or commercial product. The E-Authentication Service Component currently uses the industry standard of SAML 1.0.

The E-Authentication Service Component is aligned with OMB Policy Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy04/m04-04.pdf ), which provides policy guidance for identity authentication and establishes four levels of authentication assurance. It is also aligned with National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-63, Recommendation for Electronic Authentication ( http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-63/SP800-63v6_3_3.pdf ). This document accompanies and supports OMB M-04-04 and provides technical and procedural requirements for authentication systems which correlate to the four defined authentication assurance levels defined in OMB M-04-04. The E-Authentication Service Component provides the infrastructure for Federal agencies to implement the policies and recommendations of OMB M-04-04 and NIST SP 800-63. These documents as well as other technical, policy, and informational documents and materials can be accessed at the website: http://www.cio.gov/eauthentication .

Following are the key requirements and design goals established for the E-Authentication initiative.

• Leverage credentials : A credential from any approved credential service should be usable at any application of equal or lower assurance level. Agency applications must be able to leverage existing credentials rather than establish new identity management systems.

• Single Sign-on : Once a user has authenticated they must be able to move among applications with equivalent assurance levels without re-authenticating. For privacy considerations, the end user is required to take an explicit action to opt into single sign-on for that browser session.

• Privacy : There must be no central repository of personal information about end users and no centralized database. Credentialing must be federated among multiple providers. End users can choose to federate their identity information as they determine appropriate.

• Security controls : The architecture must provide for explicit control over which applications and credential services can join and participate in the E-Authentication Federation.

• Standards : The architecture should rely on existing industry standards.

• COTS : The architecture should employ multiple Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) products that have demonstrated the capability to interoperate.

• Federation : Authentication should be federated among multiple credential providers.

• Durability : The architecture should be designed to allow for the evolution of technology, providing for easy migration as the industry and technology evolves.

• Flexibility : The architecture should not create undue reliance on any single standard, vendor, product, or integrator.

Based on these requirements and design goals, the technical approach for E-Authentication is to allow for multiple identity management schemes ( e.g. , identity proofing, credential technology, credential strength, credential management) within a single architecture. The framework includes a methodology and process for the evaluation and adoption of these schemes over time. The goal of the framework is to provide a lasting architectural model for E-Authentication that is not irrevocably bound to a single industry standard, vendor, or product.

The Federal E-Authentication Service Component establishes four levels of authentication assurance, defines risk management guidelines for associating a required level of authentication to applications, and provides a Credential Assessment Framework for evaluating authentication systems to determine whether they meet Federal standards for any of the four specified authentication levels. The initiative also provides a technical architecture that leverages federated identity through the use of Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 1.0, PKI (X509 v.3 certificates), and the Federal Bridge Certification Authority.

The E-Authentication Service Component is designed to ensure that government services delivered over the Internet are accessed by and delivered to the intended individual. The E-Authentication Service Component allows authorized participants to share responsibility for federating identity to mutual benefit. Together, the E-Authentication Service Component and the authorized participants of the service component represent the E-Authentication Federation. The participants of the E-Authentication Federation are:

• Agency Applications (AAs) : E-Government applications that perform some business function online. If an E-Government application has multiple interfaces ( e.g. , administration and service application), each interface with distinct authentication requirements is considered a stand-alone AA. Agency Applications manage all business transactions and all end user authorization decisions. One of the principle goals of the E-Authentication initiative is to provide broad authentication services to AAs, making separate credentialing unnecessary.

• Credential Services Providers (CSPs) : Commercial or government services which provide end users identity management services which include credentials that can be used at E-Authentication-enabled AAs. Credential Services Providers are authorized to participate in the E-Authentication Federation by the GSA E-Authentication Program Management Office (PMO). Authorized CSPs are presented to the public on the E-Authentication Federation Trust List. The Trust List of Authorized Credential Services is available at the E-Authentication website ( http://www.cio.gov/eauthentication/TCSPlist.htm ) and at the E-Authentication portal.

• E-Authentication Portal : A website that helps users locate the CSPs and AAs they need to complete their transactions. The portal is maintained and operated by the E-Authentication PMO.

• End Users : Any citizen, Government employee, contractor, business, or governmental entity that uses an AA. One of the principle goals of E-Authentication is to make the end user experience as simple as possible by improving the availability and ease of use of credentials.

Within the framework of the E-Authentication Service Component, the end user interacts directly with AAs, CSPs, and the E-Authentication Portal. Typically the user starts at the portal in order to locate the appropriate AAs and CSPs which the end user intends to use. The end user can choose the AA that they wish to access and the CSP that they choose to validate their credential(s). In general, AAs are E-Government services that agencies provide end users; typically, the agencies maintain records on individuals' use of the services provided. Authentication of end users is required to allow authorization privileges in accordance with the rules of the AA. The E-Authentication Federation uses the term “activation process” to refer to the process of matching the authenticated end user to the correct individual in an AA records system.

The end user interacts directly with the CSP to obtain, manage, and validate their credentials. The CSP interacts directly with the AA in order to pass the end users' identity information. The identity information that is passed between the CSP and the AA is standardized for the E-Authentication Federation through the requirements of the E-Authentication Technical Interface Specifications. The ASC currently uses the OASIS standard Security Assertion Mark-up Language (SAML) 1.0 to express authentication identity assertions. Technical documents describing the E-Authentication architecture and the E-Authentication Interface Specifications for the SAML Artifact Profile can be found at http://www.cio.gov/eauthentication/TechSuite.htm . The Interface Specifications require the following information to be contained in the SAML assertion between the Credential Service Provider and an e-Government Agency Application which is the relying party to the identity assertion:

• Common Name : expressed as First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, suffix surname;

• User ID : provided by the CSP so that no two subscribers within a credential service can share the same User ID;

• Authentication Assurance Level : i.e. , assurance level 1, 2, 3, or 4; and

• CSP : CSP is identified in the assertion.

Since the SAML assertion contains only common name and user ID of the end user for the selected CSP, most agencies have determined that a separate activation process is necessary to identify the specific individual as represented in the AA. This generally requires creating a separate query process to identify the end user to the AA. To facilitate the activation process and avoid requiring the end user to reenter the same identifying information multiple times, GSA is proposing to add the following attribute information to the SAML 1.0 Interface Specifications as optional information:

• Partial Social Security Number (SSN) : the last four digits of the end users' SSN;

• Date of Birth (DOB) : MM/DD/YYYY; and

• Physical Address : street address, city, state, and zip code.

The end user name, partial SSN, physical address and DOB are intended to allow the AA to identify the correct end user during the activation process, without necessarily requiring the AA to query the end user for any additional information. AAs will match the last four digits of the identity information in the SAML assertion against the information currently maintained in application records systems. The Interface Specification requires that CSPs which do not collect or maintain SSN, DOB, and/or physical address information to enter a null field for these attribute elements. The attribute information contained in the assertion is intended for the purposes of activation, and will not be provided to agencies that do not already have the authority to maintain this attribute information. AAs/records systems that do not collect or maintain the attribute fields of SSN, DOB, or physical address will not be passed that information in the SAML assertion from the CSPs. The E-Authentication AAs can also determine that they do not want to receive the additional attribute information of partial SSN, DOB and physical address and can opt out of receiving this information in the SAML assertions.

The E-Authentication Federation/Service Component does not involve any new collection of information from end users. If a Federal agency chooses to create or modify a records system to maintain information expressed in the SAML assertion, it must establish or amend a system of records (SOR) notice through publication in the Federal Register . Federal agencies that serve as CSPs or AAs may choose to maintain audit logs for browser-based access; such logs may include transaction data associated with the SAML assertion. Such audit logs are used to monitor browser access and are not considered systems of records requiring coverage under the Privacy Act.

Once the identity information is known to the AA, the user interacts directly with the AA for business transactions. While the E-Authentication Service Component addresses the need for common infrastructure for authenticating end users to applications, authorization privileges at the application are beyond the scope of the E-Authentication initiative. Authorization and related functionality such as access control and privilege management are left to the application owners.

Ensuring trust between the participating entities of the E-Authentication Federation (AAs, CSPs and End users) is core to the mission of the E-Authentication initiative. The E-Authentication Service Component provides:

• Policies and guidelines for Federal authentication;

• Credential assessments and authorizations;

• Technical architecture and documents, including Interface Specifications, for communications within the E-Authentication Federation Network;

• Interoperability testing of candidate products, schemes or protocols;

• Business rules for operating within the Federation; and

• Management and control of accepted federation schemes operating within the environment.

The E-Authentication Service Component technical approach has two different architectural techniques, assertion-based authentication and certificate-based authentication. PIN and Password authentications typically use assertion-based authentication, where users authenticate to the selected CSP, which in turn asserts their identity to the AA. Certificate-based authentication relies on X.509v3 digital certificates in a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for authentication, and can be used at any assurance level. PKI credentials offer considerable advantages for authentication. Certificates can be validated using only public information. Standards for PKI are also more mature than other authentication technologies and more widely used than the emerging standards for assertion-based authentication of PIN and password credentials. Nevertheless, the E-Authentication Service Component incorporates both assertion-based and certificate-based authentication to provide the broadest range of flexibility and choices to Federal agencies and end users.

The purpose of the notice is to explain the E-Authentication Service Component, how it operates, and how participants, including end users, in the Federation relate. The E-Authentication Service Component portal merely routes the end user to the AA or CSP which the end user has chosen to access. The portal maintains no personally identifiable information about end users and therefore this notice proposes no new Privacy Act system of records.

However, Federal agency participants in the E-Authentication Service Component may maintain systems of records under the Privacy Act. Federal participants maintaining Privacy Act Systems of Records relating to identity authentication must develop appropriate systems of records notices with routine uses providing for the exchange of information through the Federation. As an initial matter, agencies must ensure they possess the appropriate authority to collect and maintain records in order to interface with the E-Authentication Federation. Additionally, agencies must publish Privacy Act Systems of Records notices in the Federal Register in accordance with guidance set out in OMB Circular A-130, Appendix 1. For further information contact, E-Authentication Service Component manager, Stephen Timchak, Director, E-Authentication Program Management Office, Suite 911, 2001 Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202. Mr. Timchak can be reached at 703-872-8604 or via email Stephen.timchak@gsa.gov .

Section 1014 of Pub. L. 108-173, (known as the Medicare Modernization Act) directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to establish a Citizens' Health Care Working Group (Citizen Group). This statutory provision, codified at 42 U.S.C. 299 n., directs the Working Group to: (1) Identify options for changing our health care system so that every American has the ability to obtain quality, affordable health care coverage; (2) provide for a nationwide public debate about improving the health care system; and (3) submit its recommendations to the President and the Congress.

The Citizens' Health Care Working Group is composed of 15 members: the Secretary of DHHS is designated as a member by the statute and the Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was directed to appoint the remaining 14 members. The Comptroller General announced the 14 appointments on February 28, 2005.

The meeting on August 16 will be devoted to ongoing Working Group business. Topics to be addressed at this meeting include reports from Working Group Committees, plans for release of the required Report to the American People, a budget update and future scheduling plans.

At the hearing on August 17, there will be four panels addressing these initiatives: Mental health; state, county and community health initiatives; employer initiatives; and end of life care.

In general, individuals or organizations wishing to provide written information for consideration by the Citizens' Health Care Working Group should submit information electronically to citizenshealth@ahrq.hhs.gov. The Working Group invites submissions that address the topics to be addressed at the August 16th meeting listed above. Since all electronic submissions will be posted on the Working Group Web site, separate submissions by topic will facilitate review of ideas submitted on each topic by the Working Group and the public.

This notice is published in less than 15 days of meeting & hearing dates due to the logistical difficulties.

Sections 1866(a)(1)(I), 1866(a)(1)(N), and 1867 of the Act impose specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services. These obligations concern individuals who come to a hospital emergency department and request examination or treatment for medical conditions, and apply to all of these individuals, regardless of whether or not they are beneficiaries of any program under the Act. Section 1867 of the Act sets forth requirements for medical screening examinations of medical conditions, as well as necessary stabilizing treatment or appropriate transfer. In addition, section 1867(h) of the Act specifically prohibits a delay in providing required screening or stabilization services in order to inquire about the individual's payment method or insurance status. Section 1867(d) of the Act provides for the imposition of civil monetary penalties on hospitals responsible for negligently violating a requirement of that section, through actions such as the following: (a) Negligently failing to appropriately screen an individual seeking medical care; (b) negligently failing to provide stabilizing treatment to an individual with an emergency medical condition; or (c) negligently transferring an individual in an inappropriate manner. (Section 1867(e)(4) of the Act defines “transfer” to include both transfers to other health care facilities and cases in which the individual is released from the care of the hospital without being moved to another health care facility.)

These provisions, taken together, are frequently referred to as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the patient antidumping statute. EMTALA was passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Congress enacted these antidumping provisions in the Act because of its concern with an increasing number of reports that hospital emergency rooms were refusing to accept or treat individuals with emergency conditions if the individuals did not have insurance.

The authority to conduct the program is given under the provisions of Section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173).

The Section 1011 program includes the provider name and identification number, provider address, provider employer identification number, provider banking information, provider federal tax identification number, patient's control number, medical record number, date of service, patient's gender, zip code, state and county, the principle diagnosis code, admitting diagnosis code, and total charges. It also includes claims information related to Section 1011 payment requests, and other research information needed to pay claims and administer the Section 1011 program.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release Section 1011 program information that can be associated with an individual provider as provided for under “Section III. Entities Who May Receive Disclosures under Routine Use.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. Identifiable data includes individual records with Section 1011 program information and identifiers. Non-identifiable data includes individual records with Section 1011 program information and masked identifiers or Section 1011 program information with identifiers stripped out of the file.

We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of the Section 1011 program. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. In general, disclosure of information from the system will be approved only for the minimum information necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected; e.g. , to maintain information needed when submitting an enrollment application and make payment requests associated with Section 1011(a) of the MMA;.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if

b. The record is provided in individually identifiable form;

c. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

d. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which CMS may release information from the Section 1011 program without the consent of the individual to whom such information pertains. Each proposed disclosure of information under these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible, including but not limited to ensuring that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To agency contractors or consultants who have been contracted by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing agency business functions relating to purposes for this system of records.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor whatever information is necessary for the contractor to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To a CMS contractor that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such program.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual relationship or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud and abuse.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions and makes grants when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

3. To another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any State or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require Section 1011 program information for the purpose of combating fraud and abuse in such Federally-funded programs. Releases of information would be allowed if the proposed use(s) for the information proved compatible with the purposes of collecting the information.

4. To another Federal or state agency to:

a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS” proper payment of a health benefit, or

b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.

Other Federal or state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require Section 1011 program information in order to ensure that proper payment for services were provided. Releases of information would be allowed if the proposed use(s) for the information proved compatible with the purpose for which CMS collects the information.

5. To a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the Congressional Office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

Individuals sometimes request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving some issue relating to a matter before CMS. The Member of Congress then writes CMS, and CMS must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.

6. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:

a. The agency or any component thereof, or

b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or

c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. The United States Government;

Is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS’ policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved. A determination would be made in each instance that, under the circumstances involved, the purposes served by the use of the information in the particular litigation is compatible with a purpose for which CMS collects the information.

This system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00), Subparts A and E. Disclosures of PHI authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent NIST publications; the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will monitor the collection and reporting of Section 1011 data. Section 1011 information on patients is submitted to CMS in a standard payment system. Accuracy of the data is important since incorrect information could result in the wrong payment for services. CMS will utilize a variety of onsite and offsite edits and audits to increase the accuracy of Section 1011 payment requests.

CMS will take precautionary measures (see item IV. above) to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data is maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act.

CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of maintaining this system of records.

The primary agenda topic is the peer review of the findings and conclusions of ten draft NTP Technical Reports (TR) of rodent toxicology and carcinogenicity studies conducted by the NTP (see Preliminary Agenda below). Five of the reports are on studies with conventional strains of rats and mice (TR 523, TR 534, TR 535, TR 537, TR 538); four reports are on studies performed in genetically modified models (GMM) including Tg.AC hemizygous and p53 haploinsufficient mice (GMM 5, GMM 6, GMM 10 and GMM 11), and one study is with Crl:SKH-1 hairless mice (TR 524). There will also be a presentation on background seizures in the F344/N rats used by the NTP.

The meeting is scheduled for September 27-28, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment and is open to the public with attendance limited only by the space available. Individuals who plan to attend are encouraged to register online at the NTP Web site by September 13, 2005, at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ select “Advisory Boards and Committees” to facilitate access to the NIEHS campus. Please note that a photo ID is required to access the NIEHS campus. The NTP is making plans to videocast the meeting through the Internet at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/video.htm.

A copy of the preliminary agenda, committee roster, and any additional information, when available, will be posted on the NTP Web site ( http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ select “Advisory Boards and Committees”) or may be requested in hardcopy from the NTP (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Following the meeting, summary minutes will be prepared and made available on the NTP Web site.

Public input at this meeting is invited and time is set aside for the presentation of public comments on any draft technical report. Each organization is allowed one time slot per agenda topic. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each speaker, and if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes. Registration for oral comments will also be available on-site, although time allowed for presentation by on-site registrants may be less than that for pre-registered speakers and will be determined by the number of persons who register at the meeting.

Persons registering to make oral comments are asked, if possible, to send a copy of their statement to Dr. Shane (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above) by September 13, 2005, to enable review by the TRR Subcommittee and NIEHS/NTP staff prior to the meeting. Written statements can supplement and may expand the oral presentation. If registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 40 copies of the statement for distribution to the TRR Subcommittee and NIEHS/NTP staff and to supplement the record. Written comments received in response to this notice will be posted on the NTP website. Persons submitting written comments should include their name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail, and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document.

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

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors, Technical Reports Review Subcommittee Meeting, September 27-28, 2005, Rodbell Auditorium, Rall Building, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC.

The technology relates to another use of Cripto-1 as a biomarker and possible therapeutic target for a variety of neurodegenerative diseases, including NeuroAids, Alzheimer's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and encephalitis. Cripto-1 appears to be overexpressed by 20-fold or more in NeuroAids and as such, may be enhanced in other inflammatory neurological diseases, and thus assist in the early detection of neurological changes associated with these diseases, as well as a possible therapeutic target for slowing progression.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty (60) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Privacy Office is holding a public workshop to explore the policy, legal, and technology issues surrounding the government's use of personally identifiable commercial data for homeland security. The program will include a broad range of experts and perspectives, including representatives from academia, business leaders, privacy advocates, legal experts, technologists, and policy leaders. In addition to the panel discussions, time will be allotted during the workshop for questions and comments from the audience that may be directed to each panel.

The government's use of technology to access and analyze vast amounts of personally identifiable data collected by companies and data aggregators raises important privacy concerns. The DHS Privacy Office is holding this workshop to inform the Privacy Office, DHS, and the public about the policy, legal, and technology issues surrounding the government's access and use of such information for counterterrorism and how to protect privacy given the government's need for better data analysis.

Commercially available personal information ranges from directory information, such as individual names, addresses, and telephone numbers, to records of retail purchases, including travel, insurance, and financial data, to public record information obtained from Federal, state, and local offices, including court documents, professional licenses, and property records.

A number of reports have been issued urging that the government adopt standards for using such information for intelligence analysis, including the Department of Defense, Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee (TAPAC) Report and the two reports of the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. 1 This workshop is intended to provide a forum for considering such standards as well as for examining whether and how information technology and commercial data can help improve national security. Finally, the workshop will look at technologies to aid in data analysis and information management that are more privacy protective.

The program will begin with a discussion of how government agencies are using personally identifiable commercial data in homeland security. Among the questions that we may examine are: What types of personally identifiable commercial data are being used; what are the benefits of using such data; what commercial data is needed to help identify terrorists; can commercial data be used to reduce the incidence of false positives, and if so, what data is needed to do so; and how accurate is commercial data for such purposes.

The second topic will address the privacy and legal issues raised by government use of commercial data. This panel will explore the adequacy of current laws, particularly the Privacy Act of 1974, to protect against government abuses when using commercial data. The panel will also examine the privacy implications of government's use of commercial data and whether there should be any limitations or protections. The panel may also discuss whether there are international laws and standards that can provide models for protecting privacy in this context.

The third panel will focus on current and developing technologies to aid the government in analyzing data for homeland security. This panel will examine the technologies government agencies are using to access and process data and whether such uses raise privacy concerns. The panel may also discuss how to evaluate the quality of such technologies, the accuracy of the underlying data, and whether further research is needed before agencies invest in such technologies.

The fourth panel will examine how technology can help protect individual privacy while enabling government agencies to analyze data. This panel will review privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) that enable data analysis without disclosing the identity of individuals by using de-identified or anonymized data. In addition, the technologists will discuss how matching, linking, and knowledge discovery can be done in a more privacy-sensitive manner.

The final panel will build on the discussion of the previous panels to develop a recommended roadmap for DHS on building privacy protections into information programs that use commercial data. This closing panel will discuss options concerning privacy protective rules and standards DHS can adopt without waiting for changes in law. The panel may also consider how technology can be used as a governance tool to ensure that the agency's privacy polices are implemented.

The workshop is open to the public and there is no fee for attendance. For general security purposes, all attendees will be required to show a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver's license, to enter the building.

The Privacy Office will accept registration for this workshop. Registration is not necessary to attend, but is encouraged so that we may better plan this event. To register, please send an e-mail to the e-mail box for the workshop, privacyworkshop@dhs.gov , indicating your intent to attend. The Privacy Office will not retain your e-mail or e-mail address. For additional information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see the DHS Privacy Policy on the DHS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/privacy.jsp .

The Privacy Office will post additional information about the workshop, including a detailed agenda, on the DHS Privacy Office Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/privacy prior to the event. A transcript of the workshop will be posted shortly after the workshop.

All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice (USCG-2000-7833) and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments received during the comment period.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time, click on “Simple Search,” enter the last five digits of the docket number for this rulemaking, and click on “Search.” You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

We are requesting your comments on environmental concerns you may have related to the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) for the rulemaking on Vessel and Facility Response Plans for Oil; 2003 Removal Equipment Requirements and Alternative Technology Revisions published on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31487). We will publish comments received during the DPEIS review period in the final PEIS. We will publish a notice of availability of the final PEIS in the Federal Register . Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened comment period, and will be fully considered.

Class members must notify USCIS of any change of address by submitting Form AR-11, Alien's Change of Address Card, to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) address listed on the Form within 10 days after an address change. If the ABC asylum application is pending with a USCIS Asylum Office, the class member should also notify that office of the change in address by submitting a copy of the completed Form AR-11, or a signed and dated letter containing the change of address.

To further that goal, USCIS intends to discontinue the use of Form I-855, ABC Change of Address Form, and to permanently close the ABC Project Post Office Box because it is no longer necessary to have a separate centralized location for receiving ABC class members' change of address notifications. This action will allow USCIS to expedite action in response to a change of address and will be more convenient for USCIS and ABC class members.

American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) ( ABC ) sets out the settlement of class action law suit brought in 1985 by Salvadorans and Guatemalans who alleged that the United States government discriminated against them in the adjudication of their asylum claims. On December 19, 1990, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered preliminary approval of a settlement agreement reached between the Departments of Justice and State and the class members, which provided for a de novo adjudication of asylum applications by members of the Asylum Officers Corps. The agreement was approved on January 31, 1991 and published as American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

The agreement defined the affected class members to be those Salvadorans in the United States as of September 19, 1990 and those Guatemalans in the United States as of October 1, 1990. Subsequent sections of the agreement limited the availability of relief under the settlement to class members who met specific deadlines for registration and submitting asylum applications. Guatemalan class members were required to apply for asylum on or before January 3, 1995. Salvadoran class members were required to apply for asylum on or before January 31, 1996 (with an administrative grace period to February 16, 1996). The agreement also excluded from eligibility those persons who were convicted of aggravated felonies or who were apprehended at the time of entry on or after December 19, 1990. Following the dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), USCIS assumed responsibility for administering the terms of the agreement relating to adjudication of asylum claims.

The former INS established the ABC Project Post Office Box in Washington, DC to provide a centralized location for the approximately 240,000 ABC class members to submit change of address forms via Form I-855, ABC Change of Address Form. At the time, many ABC class members who were eligible to seek benefits of the settlement agreement had not yet applied for asylum or any other benefit with the former INS, and therefore had no A-number and no record in a national database system, such as the Refugee, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS), for the INS to update. By creating a central repository, the ABC Project Post Office Box eliminated confusion and simplified the process of reporting a change of address for those ABC class members, particularly those who had not yet applied for asylum or any other immigration benefit.

The ABC Project Post Office Box no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. ABC class members must have applied for asylum in order to retain their benefits under the settlement agreement, and the deadlines for applying for asylum have long passed. Many ABC class members have also filed applications pursuant to Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA 203) (Public Law 105-100) and the regulations (8 CFR part 240, (H)). ABC class members now have records in central DHS databases, where their addresses may be updated, and a separate centralized location for submitting changes of address is no longer required.

Additionally, ABC class members with pending asylum and/or NACARA 203 applications are now required to follow standard DHS procedures for submitting change of address notifications. Under current DHS procedure for reporting changes of address, ABC class members who have an asylum and/or NACARA application pending with USCIS are required to submit Form AR-11 to a centralized DHS repository and are requested to notify the Asylum Office having jurisdiction over their application(s) of the change address. This can be accomplished by providing the Asylum Office with a copy of the Form AR-11.

In light of the foregoing, ABC class members may end up reporting a change of address to three different locations: the central DHS repository, the Asylum Office, and the ABC Project Post Office Box. Since the ABC Project Post Office Box no longer serves its intended purpose, submission of changes of address to that location is superfluous. Closing the ABC Project Post Office Box and discontinuing Form I-855 will eliminate confusion on the part of ABC class members and ensure that address changes are properly updated in accordance with current DHS procedure.

The Form I-855, ABC Change of Address, will be discontinued with the effective closing of the ABC Project Post Office Box on October 4, 2005.

USCIS will close the ABC Project Post Office Box on October 4, 2005. Before the ABC Project Post Office Box is closed, USCIS will take additional steps to publicly, through the media and community base organizations, inform ABC class members of the need to submit Form AR-11, Alien's Change of Address Card, directly to the address listed below and the request that they additionally notify in writing the appropriate Asylum Office of any change of address.

The U.S. Postal Service will not forward Form I-855, ABC Change of Address, or other mail sent to the ABC Project Post Office Box to the Asylum Offices. The U.S. Postal Service will return to the sender all mail addressed to the ABC Project Post Office Box after the box has been closed, as long as the mail contains a return address on the envelope. Mail without a return address will be destroyed.

It is important that a class member notify USCIS of any changes to ensure that the class member receives notice of his or her asylum interview. An ABC class member may lose the right to an ABC asylum interview and USCIS may deny his or her asylum application if the class member fails to appear for an interview and that failure to appear has not been excused for good cause.

Pursuant to 8 CFR part 265 all aliens, including ABC class members who change their address, must file Form AR-11, Alien Change of Address Card, within 10 days of any change of address, at the following address:

For regular U.S. Postal Service: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Change of Address, P.O. Box 7134, London, KY 40742-7134.

For overnight mailings only: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Change of Address, 1084-I South Laurel Road, London, KY 40744.

Applicants may obtain Form AR-11 at their nearest post office, nearest DHS office, online at http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/ar-11.htm , or by calling the USCIS forms request line at 1-800-870-3676.

Additionally, ABC class members should notify the Asylum Office that has jurisdiction over the class member's asylum application of any change of address. This additional notification can be accomplished by making a copy of the Form AR-11, or providing a signed and dated letter containing the change of address to the Asylum Office processing the asylum application.

The information should be clearly printed. Individuals should not use any copies of the Form I-855 to notify USCIS of a change of address after the ABC Project Post Office Box is closed. After the ABC Project Post Office Box is closed, Form AR-11, Alien's Change of Address Card, is the only form to be used by an alien to officially report a change of address to USCIS.

On March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), HUD published its Notice of HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), Policy Requirements and General Section to the SuperNOFA for HUD's Discretionary Grant Programs. The Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program, which was included in the SuperNOFA, made approximately $10 million available in HUD assistance. According to the SuperNOFA, the application submission date for the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program NOFA was June 24, 2005. On May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24835), HUD published additional guidance to the General Section, that included a link to Frequently Asked Questions, located at http://www.grants.gov/ForApplicants#. Frequently asked questions can also be found on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/egrants/grantsgovfaqs.pdf.

HUD understands that many eligible applicants may have had difficulty submitting their applications. Therefore, in order to give all NOFA applicants sufficient time to submit completed applications, and ensure their Grants.gov registration is complete, this notice published in today's Federal Register reopens the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program NOFA competition. The new application submission date for the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program NOFA competition is September 6, 2005.

Please note that the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program NOFA competition description, application submission information, and application review information were published in HUD's FY2005 SuperNOFA on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575). All requirements listed in the SuperNOFA General Section and in the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program NOFA are applicable to this reopened competition except for those requirements explicitly changed by this notice (such as the due date and requirement for electronic submission).

If you have already submitted an application electronically through Grants.gov and received a confirmation of successful receipt from Grants.gov, you do not need to resubmit another application. If you submitted a paper application, however, without first obtaining a waiver from the electronic submission requirement, you must resubmit your applications electronically or by paper submission. If an applicant decides to resubmit an application, the applicant must download a new application package and submit a complete new application. HUD will not accept partial amendments to applications that were previously submitted.

Applicants that have already submitted an application do not need to resubmit another application. However, if an applicant chooses to make any changes to an application that has already been submitted, it must download a new application from Grants.gov, complete the application, and resubmit by the new deadline date. HUD will review the most recent application and disregard any previously submitted application.

Applicants are encouraged to complete their registration and submit their electronic applications through Grants.gov as described in the SuperNOFA. In addition, for this FY2005 reopened funding opportunity, an applicant may submit a paper application without requesting a waiver from this requirement. HUD does not intend to accept paper applications in the future without a waiver. Applicants that choose to submit a paper application must submit an original and two copies by mail or permitted delivery service to the appropriate HUD Multifamily (MF) Hub or Program Center office identified on HUD's Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/nofa05/scmhfldofflist.doc. Please do not use the field office list provided in the General Section of the SuperNOFA, published March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575).

As described in section IV.F.5.b of the General Section, applicants submitting a paper application must use the United States Postal Service (USPS) to submit its application to HUD. Applicants must take their application to a post office to get a receipt of mailing that provides the date and time the package was submitted to the USPS. USPS rules now require that large packages must be brought to a postal facility for mailing. In many areas, the USPS has made a practice of returning to the sender, large packages that have been dropped in a mail collection box. Paper copy applications submitted to the USPS by the submission date and time and received by HUD no later than 15 days after the established submission date will receive funding consideration. If the USPS does not have a receipt with a digital time stamp, HUD will accept a receipt showing USPS Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing with a dated postmark. The proof of submission receipt provided by the Postal Service must show receipt no later than the application submission deadline. Applicants whose applications are determined to be late, who cannot furnish HUD with a receipt from the USPS that verifies the package was submitted to the USPS prior to the submission due date and time will not receive funding consideration. Applicants may use any type of mail service provided by the USPS to have their application package delivered to HUD in time to meet the submission requirements.

HUD will not accept hand delivery of applications.

On March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), HUD published its Notice of HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), Policy Requirements and General Section to the SuperNOFA for HUD's Discretionary Grant Programs. The Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program, which was included in the SuperNOFA, made approximately $462.9 million available in HUD assistance. According to the SuperNOFA, the application submission date for the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA was originally May 31, 2005, and this date was extended to July 1, 2005, by a technical correction published on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488). On May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24835), HUD published additional guidance to the General Section, that included a link to Frequently Asked Questions, located at http://www.grants.gov/ForApplicants#. Frequently asked questions can also be found on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/egrants/grantsgovfaqs.pdf.

HUD understands that many eligible applicants may have had difficulty submitting their applications. Therefore, in order to give all NOFA applicants sufficient time to submit completed applications, and to ensure their Grants.gov registration is complete, this notice published in today's Federal Register reopens the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA competition. The new application submission date for the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA competition is September 6, 2005.

Please note that the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA competition description, application submission information, and application review information were published in HUD's FY2005 SuperNOFA on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575). All requirements listed in the SuperNOFA General Section, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA, and the technical correction to the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488) are applicable to this reopened competition except for those requirements explicitly changed by this notice (such as the application submission date, the requirement for electronic submission, and the date requirement associated with certain exhibits).

If you have already submitted an application electronically through Grants.gov and received a confirmation of successful receipt from Grants. Gov, you do not need to resubmit another application. If you submitted a paper application, however, without first obtaining a waiver from the electronic submission requirement, you must resubmit your applications electronically or by paper submission. If an applicant decides to resubmit an application, the applicant must download a new application package and submit a complete new application. HUD will not accept partial amendments to applications that were previously submitted.

Applicants that have already submitted an application do not need to resubmit another application. However, if an applicant chooses to make any changes to an application that has already been submitted, it must download a new application from Grants.gov, complete the application, and resubmit by the new deadline date. For the purpose of rating and ranking, HUD will review the most recent application and disregard any previously submitted application.

Applicants are encouraged to complete their registration and submit their electronic applications through Grants.gov as described in the SuperNOFA. In addition, for this FY2005 reopened funding opportunity, an applicant may submit a paper application without requesting a waiver from this requirement. HUD does not intend to accept paper applications in the future without a waiver.

Applicants that choose to submit a paper application must submit an original and four copies by mail or permitted delivery service to the appropriate HUD Multifamily (MF) Hub office identified in Appendix A to the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA, published March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), as amended by the technical correction to the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly NOFA published on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), Attention: Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly.

As described in section IV.F.5.b of the General Section, applicants submitting a paper application must use the United States Postal Service (USPS) to submit their application to HUD. Applicants must take their application to a post office to get a receipt of mailing that provides the date and time the package was submitted to the USPS. USPS rules now require that large packages must be brought to a postal facility for mailing. In many areas, the USPS has made a practice of returning to the sender, large packages that have been dropped in a mail collection box. Paper copy applications submitted to the USPS by the submission date and time and received by HUD no later than 15 days after the established submission date will receive funding consideration. If the USPS does not have a receipt with a digital time stamp, HUD will accept a receipt showing USPS Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing with a dated postmark. The proof of submission receipt provided by the Postal Service must show receipt no later than the application submission deadline. Applicants whose applications are determined to be late, who cannot furnish HUD with a receipt from the USPS that verifies the package was submitted to the USPS prior to the submission due date and time will not receive funding consideration. Applicants may use any type of mail service provided by the USPS to have their application package delivered to HUD in time to meet the submission requirements.

HUD will not accept hand delivery of applications.

As indicated in the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA, published on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), all applicants must submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared in accordance with the ASTM Standards E 15270-00, as amended, completed or updated no earlier than six months prior to the application deadline date, in order for the application to be considered as an application with site control. The technical corrections to the Section 202 NOFA, published on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), clarified that as a result of the previous extension of the application deadline, a Phase I ESA that is dated November 24, 2004, or later, will meet the requirement for submitting a Phase I ESA. Please note that a Phase I ESA that is dated November 24, 2004, or later, also will meet the requirement for submitting a Phase I ESA for those applications submitted in response to this reopened competition.

For those applicants who choose to submit an application in response to the reopened Section 202 NOFA, HUD is extending the date on which to submit a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a plan for clean-up of the site, if required, based on the findings of the Phase I ESA. As described in the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA, published on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), if the Phase I ESA indicates the possible presence of contamination and/or hazards, you, the applicant, must decide whether to continue with this site or choose another site. Should you choose another site, the same Phase I ESA process identified in the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA, published on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), as amended by technical corrections to the Section 202 NOFA, published on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), must be followed for the new site. However, if you choose to continue with the original site on which the Phase I ESA indicated contamination or hazards, you must undertake a detailed Phase II ESA by an appropriate professional. In order for your application to be considered for review under this reopened FY 2005 Section 202 NOFA, the Phase II must be received by the local HUD office on or before October 4, 2005. Additionally, if the Phase II ESA reveals site contamination, the extent of the contamination and a plan for clean-up of the site must be submitted to the local HUD office. The plan for clean-up must include a contract for remediation of the problem(s) and an approval letter from the applicable federal, state, and/or local agency with jurisdiction over the site. In order for your application to be considered for review under this reopened FY 2005 Section 202 NOFA, this information must be received by the local HUD office on or before October 4, 2005. If the above information is not received by the local HUD office by that date, the application will be rejected.

As stated in the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program NOFA, published on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), acceptable evidence of site control includes an option to purchase or for a long-term leasehold, which must remain in effect for six months from the date on which the applications are due, must state a firm price binding on the seller, and be renewable at the end of the six-month period. The only condition on which the option may be terminated is if you, the applicant, are not awarded a fund reservation. As a result of the previous extension of the application deadline, the technical corrections to the Section 202 NOFA, published on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), amended this requirement to the extent necessary to permit HUD to accept an option to purchase or a long-term leasehold that remained in effect through November 30, 2005, or later, as acceptable evidence of site control. However, in view of the timing of this reopened Section 202 NOFA and because HUD does not anticipate announcing the Section 202 selected applications until the middle of December, 2005, if your option expires prior to December 31, 2005, in order to ensure that you have an acceptable application, you should execute the extension provision in your option or leasehold agreement, whichever applies. This requirement applies to all applicants resubmitting applications that were previously submitted in response to the FY 2005 NOFA and applicants submitting new applications.

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.

On March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), HUD published its Notice of HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), Policy Requirements and General Section to the SuperNOFA for HUD's Discretionary Grant Programs. The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, which was included in the SuperNOFA, made approximately $95.8 million available in HUD assistance. According to the SuperNOFA, the application submission date for the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA was originally May 24, 2005, and this date was extended to June 10, 2005, by technical corrections published on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24609) and June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488). On May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24835), HUD published additional guidance to the General Section, that included a link to Frequently Asked Questions, located at http://www.grants.gov/ForApplicants# . Frequently asked questions can also be found on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/egrants/grantsgovfaqs.pdf.

HUD understands that many eligible applicants may have had difficulty submitting their applications. Therefore, in order to give all NOFA applicants sufficient time to submit completed applications, and to ensure their Grants.gov registration is complete, this notice published in today's Federal Register reopens the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA competition. The new application submission date for the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA competition is September 6, 2005.

Please note that the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA competition description, application submission information, and application review information were published in HUD's FY2005 SuperNOFA on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575). All requirements listed in the SuperNOFA General Section and in the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA, including the technical corrections to the Section 811 NOFA published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24609) and June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), are applicable to this reopened competition except for those requirements explicitly changed by this notice (such as the application submission date, the requirement for electronic submission, and the date requirement associated with certain exhibits).

If you have already submitted an application electronically through Grants.gov and received a confirmation of successful receipt from Grants.gov, you do not need to resubmit another application. If you submitted a paper application, however, without first obtaining a waiver from the electronic submission requirement, you must resubmit your applications electronically or by paper submission. If an applicant decides to resubmit an application, the applicant must download a new application package and submit a new application. HUD will not accept partial amendments to applications that were previously submitted.

Applicants that have already submitted an application do not need to resubmit another application. However, if an applicant chooses to make any changes to an application that has already been submitted, it must download a new application from Grants.gov, complete the application, and resubmit by the new deadline date. For the purpose of rating and ranking, HUD will review the most recent application and disregard any previously submitted electronic application.

Applicants are encouraged to complete their registration and submit their electronic applications through Grants.gov as described in the SuperNOFA. In addition, for this FY2005 reopened funding opportunity, an applicant may submit a paper application without requesting a waiver from this requirement. HUD does not intend to accept paper applications in the future without a waiver.

Applicants that choose to submit a paper application must submit an original and four copies by mail or permitted delivery service to the appropriate HUD Multifamily (MF) Hub office identified in Appendix A to the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA, published March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), as amended by the technical corrections to the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities NOFA that published on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24609), and June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), Attention: Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities.

As described in section IV.F.5.b of the General Section, applicants submitting a paper application must use the United States Postal Service (USPS) to submit their application to HUD. Applicants must take their application to a post office to get a receipt of mailing that provides the date and time the package was submitted to the USPS. USPS rules now require that large packages must be brought to a postal facility for mailing. In many areas, the USPS has made a practice of returning to the sender, large packages that have been dropped in a mail collection box. Paper copy applications submitted to the USPS by the submission date and time and received by HUD no later than 15 days after the established submission date will receive funding consideration. If the USPS does not have a receipt with a digital time stamp, HUD will accept a receipt showing USPS Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing with a dated postmark. The proof of submission receipt provided by the Postal Service must show receipt no later than the application submission deadline. Applicants whose applications are determined to be late, who cannot furnish HUD with a receipt from the USPS that verifies the package was submitted to the USPS prior to the submission due date and time will not receive funding consideration. Applicants may use any type of mail service provided by the USPS to have their application package delivered to HUD in time to meet the submission requirements. HUD will not accept hand delivery of applications.

As indicated in the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA, published March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), all applicants must submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared in accordance with the ASTM Standards E 15270-00, as amended, completed or updated no earlier than six months prior to the application deadline date, in order for the application to be considered as an application with site control. The technical corrections to the Section 811 NOFA, published on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24609) and June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), clarified that as a result of the previous extension of the application deadline, a Phase I ESA that is dated November 24, 2004, or later, will meet the requirement for submitting a Phase I ESA. Please note that a Phase I ESA that is dated November 24, 2004, or later, also will meet the requirement for submitting a Phase I ESA for those applications submitted in response to the reopened competition.

For those applicants who choose to submit an application in response to the reopened Section 811 NOFA, HUD is extending the date on which to submit a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a plan for clean-up of the site, if required, based on the findings of the Phase I ESA. As described in the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA, published in March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), if the Phase I ESA indicates the possible presence of contamination and/or hazards, you, the applicant, must decide whether to continue with this site or choose another site. Should you choose another site, the same Phase I ESA process identified in the Section 811 NOFA, published on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), as amended by technical corrections to the Section 811 NOFA, published on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24609) and June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), must be followed for the new site. However, if you choose to continue with the original site on which the Phase I ESA indicated contamination or hazards, you must undertake a detailed Phase II ESA by an appropriate professional. In order for your application to be considered for review under this reopened FY 2005 Section 811 NOFA, the Phase II must be received by the local HUD office on or before October 4, 2005. Additionally, if the Phase II ESA reveals site contamination, the extent of the contamination and a plan for clean-up of the site must be submitted to the local HUD office. The plan for clean-up must include a contract for remediation of the problem(s) and an approval letter from the applicable federal, state, and/or local agency with jurisdiction over the site. In order for your application to be considered for review under this reopened FY 2005 Section 811 NOFA, this information must be received by the local HUD office on or before October 4, 2005. If the above information is not received by the local HUD office by that date, the application will be rejected.

As stated in the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program NOFA, published on March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13575), acceptable evidence of site control includes an option to purchase or for a long-term leasehold, which must remain in effect for six months from the date on which the applications are due, must state a firm price binding on the seller, and be renewable at the end of the six-month period. The only condition on which the option may be terminated is if you, the applicant, are not awarded a fund reservation. As a result of the previous extension of the application deadline, the technical corrections to the Section 811 NOFA, published on May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24609) and June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31488), amended this requirement to the extent necessary to permit HUD to accept an option to purchase or a long-term leasehold that remained in effect through November 30, 2005, or later as acceptable evidence of site control. However, in view of the timing of this reopened Section 811 NOFA and because HUD does not anticipate announcing the Section 811 selected applications until the middle of December, 2005, if your option expires prior to December 31, 2005, in order to ensure that you have an acceptable application, you should execute the extension provision in your option or leasehold agreement, whichever applies. This requirement applies to all applicants resubmitting applications that were previously submitted in response to the FY 2005 NOFA or applicants submitting new applications.

The Powder River and Billings RMP areas comprise approximately 1,506,011 acres of BLM managed surface and 5,009,784 acres of BLM managed mineral estate. There are approximately 3,185,016 acres of BLM managed oil and gas.

The Powder River RMP area includes Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties; and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties. The Billings RMP area includes Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone counties; and the remaining portion of Big Horn County.

BLM published the original Notice of Intent for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Final EIS and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs in the Federal Register on December 19, 2000. The Statewide Document Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2003, and the Record of Decision approved on April 30, 2003. The State of Montana and BLM were co-leads for the Statewide Document. Several lawsuits were filed immediately against the BLM decision. Two of the lawsuits resulted in an April 5, 2005 ruling by the U.S. District Court ordering BLM to prepare a Supplemental EIS to consider a phased development alternative for CBNG production in the Billings and Powder River RMP Areas of Montana.

Topics to be addressed in the SEIS/Amendment are those provided by the U.S. District Court: Phased CBNG development, the inclusion of the proposed Tongue River Railroad in the cumulative impact analysis, and a discussion on how private water well mitigation agreements will help alleviate the impacts of methane migration and groundwater drawdown. The purpose of the public scoping period is to help BLM define “phased development” and to identify relevant issues that should be considered and analyzed in the SEIS/Amendment, in addition to those mentioned above.

The SEIS/Amendment will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team of specialists for recreation, fisheries, economics, sociology, archeology, air quality, wildlife, realty, minerals and range management.

Please note that comments and information submitted regarding this SEIS/Amendment, including names, e-mail addresses and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address. BLM will not accept anonymous comments. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Individuals who wish to withhold their name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act must state this prominently at the beginning of their written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda. Public comment for items not on the agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday morning.

Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, Public Affairs Office, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes.

On September 8, the RAC will be introduced to the cultural resources and their relationship to other resources. The field trip will focus on the Comb Ridge area and include short hikes and a drive through Butler and Comb Washes. On September 9, the RAC will be given updates on the Resource Management Plans, Fires across the state, and Day-Ride Maps. An overview of issues occurring on BLM Utah lands, an update from the Factory Butte RAC Subgroup and a presentation on the role of the Public Lands Council will also be given.

All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public.

Title: 30 CFR part 220—Accounting Procedures for Determining Net Profit Share Payment for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leases, § 220.010 NPSL capital account, § 220.030 Maintenance of records, § 220.031 Reporting and payment requirements, § 220.032 Inventories, and § 220.033 Audits.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0073.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Abstract: The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for matters relevant to mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 1923) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353) is responsible for managing the production of minerals from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals, and distributing the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The MMS performs the royalty management functions for the Secretary.

Applicable citations of the laws are the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-451—Jan. 12, 1983); the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1353) (Pub. L. 212—Aug. 7, 1953, as amended by Pub. L. 93-627—Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 95-372—Sept. 18, 1978, and Pub. L. 98-498—Oct. 19, 1984); and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 1923). These citations can be viewed on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citations covering the net profit share lease (NPSL) program are located at 30 CFR part 220—Accounting Procedures for Determining Net Profit Share Payment for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leases.

When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share of the value received from production from the leased lands. The lease creates a business relationship between the lessor and the lessee. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is similar to data reported to private and public mineral interest owners and is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure royalties or net profit share payments are properly valued and appropriately paid. Proprietary information submitted to MMS under this collection is protected, and no items of a sensitive nature are collected.

To encourage exploration and development of oil and gas leases on submerged Federal lands on the OCS, regulations were promulgated at 30 CFR part 260—Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing. Specific implementation regulations for the NPSL bidding system are promulgated at 30 CFR 260.110(d), covered under ICR 1010-0143 (expires December 31, 2006). The MMS established the NPSL bidding system to properly balance a fair market return to the Federal Government for the lease of its lands, with a fair profit to companies risking their investment capital. The system provides an incentive for early and expeditious exploration and development and provides for sharing the risks by the lessee and the Federal Government. The NPSL bidding system incorporates a fixed capital recovery system as a means through which the lessee recovers costs of exploration and development from production revenues, along with a reasonable return on investment.

The Federal Government does not receive a profit share payment from an NPSL until the lessee shows a credit balance in its capital account; that is, cumulative revenues and other credits exceed cumulative costs. The credit balance is multiplied by the net profit share rate (30 to 50 percent), resulting in the amount of net profit share payment due the Federal Government.

The MMS requires lessees to maintain an NPSL capital account for each lease, which transfers to a new owner when sold. Following the cessation of production, lessees are also required to provide either an annual or a monthly report to the Federal Government, using data from the capital account.

The NPSL lessees must notify MMS of their intent to perform an inventory and file a report after each inventory of controllable materiel.

When non-operators of an NPSL call for an audit, they must notify MMS. When MMS calls for an audit, the lessee must notify all non-operators on the lease. These requirements are located at 30 CFR 220.033.

This collection of information is necessary in order to determine when net profit share payments are due and to ensure royalties or net profit share payments are properly valued and appropriately paid.

We are revising this ICR to add citations related to records management at 30 CFR 220.030(a) and inventories at § 220.032(b). We added a new citation for a PRA-exempt requirement related to audits at § 220.033(e). For clarification, we added § 220.031(c) related to payment requirements. We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business, which are considered usual and customary.

The MMS is requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments. Proprietary information submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.

Frequency: Annually, monthly, and on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 9 lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 1,583 hours.

All nine lessees report monthly because all current NPSLs are in producing status. Because the requirements for establishment of capital accounts at § 220.010(a) and capital account annual reporting at § 220.031(a) are necessary only during non-producing status of a lease, we included only one response annually for these requirements, in case a new NPSL is established. The following chart shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burdens.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in the Federal Register on November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67162), announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. We received no comments in response to the notice.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by September 6, 2005.

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/InfoColl/InfoColCom.htm. We will also make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Upon request, we will withhold an individual respondent's home address from the public record, as allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you request that we withhold your name and/or address, state your request prominently at the beginning of your comment. 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.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.