This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The terms used in this Notice shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the regulations governing the Summer Food Service Program for Children (7 CFR part 225).

In accordance with Section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1761), Section 12 of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1760 (f)), and the regulations governing the SFSP (7 CFR part 225), notice is hereby given of adjustments in Program payments for meals served to children participating in the SFSP in 2007. Adjustments are based on changes in the food away from home series of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for the period November 2005 through November 2006.

The 2007 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for all States excluding Alaska and Hawaii:

The 2007 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for Alaska:

The 2007 reimbursement rates, in dollars, for Hawaii:

The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to Program sponsors will be based upon these Program reimbursement rates and the number of meals of each type served.

The above reimbursement rates, for both operating and administrative reimbursement rates, represent a 3.07 percent increase during 2006 (from 195.6 in November 2005 to 201.6 in November 2006) in the food away from home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. The Department would like to point out that the SFSP administrative reimbursement rates continue to be adjusted up or down to the nearest quarter-cent, as has previously been the case. Additionally, operating reimbursement rates have been rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by Section 11(a)(3)(B) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1759 (a)(3)(B)).

Title: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.

OMB Number: 0596-0127.

Expiration Date of Approval: 8/31/07.

Type of Request: Revision.

Abstract: Federal land-managing agencies are responsible for the management of more than 650 million acres of public lands; this includes management for recreation opportunities. To manage well and wisely, knowledge of recreation demands, opinions, preferences, and attitudes regarding the management of these lands is imperative and necessary to the development of effective policy, planning, and on-the-ground management. For all federal agencies, input from and knowledge about the public is mandatory.

For both land and non-land management agencies, the collection and analysis of public demand data is vital to designing effective policies and programs for the management and use of water, forest, and wildlife resources. Authorizing legislation for this collection is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) (PL 93-378-88 Stat. 475), which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to assess the status of the Nation's forest and range lands periodically and to recommend a Forest Service program for their sustained management and use. Among the program areas included in the Forest Service assessment are outdoor recreation and wilderness.

This collection is a multi-agency partnership. The Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U. S. Department of Commerce) are the lead agencies. This is the ninth in a series of surveys conducted since 1960. The survey:

(1) Measures the public demand on the Nation's land, water, and other natural resources for outdoor recreation;

(2) Identifies public perceptions of accessibility to recreational sites;

(3) Seeks public feedback regarding the management of public recreation sites and natural resources;

(4) Asks for suggestions on how public agencies can improve management of public recreation areas and natural resources;

(5) Seeks information on public attitudes about the environment and preferences for public and private recreational sites; and

(6) Identifies shifts in recreational demands that might influence the delivery of recreational services.

The survey consists of a telephone survey of 75,000 individuals, age 16 or older, residing in the United States and will be conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. The Human Dimensions Research Laboratory at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN will conduct the telephone interviews and data collection. A team of research scientists representing the main federal agencies involved in the survey will analyze the data. Both English and Spanish versions of the questionnaires will be used.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 15 minutes per respondent.

Type of Respondents: Individuals.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 25,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 65.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,915.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

Title: Disposal of Mineral Materials.

OMB Number: 0596-0081.

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2007.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended, and the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, as amended, authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to dispose of petrified wood and common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other similar materials on lands administered by the Forest Service. The collected information enables the Forest Service to document planned operations, to prescribe the terms and conditions the agency deems necessary to protect surface resources, and to effect a binding contract agreement. Forest Service employees will evaluate the collected information to ensure that entities applying to mine mineral materials are financially accountable and will conduct their activities in accordance with the mineral regulations at Part 228, subpart C of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Individuals, organizations, companies, or corporations interested in mining mineral materials on National Forest System lands may contact their local Forest Service office to inquire about opportunities, to learn about areas on which such activities are permitted, and to request form FS-2800-9 (Contract of Sale for Minerals Materials). Interested parties are asked to provide information that includes the purchaser's name and address, the location and dimensions of the area to be mined, the kind of material that will be mined, the quantity of material to be mined, the sales price of the mined material, the payment schedule, the amount of the bond, and the period of the contract. If this information is not collected, the Forest Service would not comply with Federal regulations and operations to mine mineral materials could cause undue damage to surface resources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 2.5 hours.

Type of Respondents: Mineral materials operators.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 8,400.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 21,000 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on October 18, 2006, requesting panel review of the Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) a Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is February 21, 2007);

(b) a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is March 8, 2007); and

(c) the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

This program was originally solicited in the Federal Register on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75712). Since the date of publication of the original solicitation, two Estuarine Reserve sites have indicated to the program that they were interested in hosting graduate fellows. In addition, the program received a number of inquiries from part-time graduate students indicating their interest in participating in this new fellowship program. As a result, NOAA amends the competitive solicitation for the Social Science Fellowship in the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program to add Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve in Huron, Ohio and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve in Watsonville, California to the list of eligible reserves where candidates can propose their research, and to modify the eligibility criteria to allow part-time students to apply for the program. In order to accommodate the two new sites and allow the expanded pool of potential applicants to submit proposals, NOAA is extending the deadline for the receipt of applications from 11 p.m. EST, on February 1, 2007 to 11 p.m. EST, on February 28, 2007, for both electronic and paper applications. All other requirements for this solicitation remain the same as that published on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75712).

Funding for this program is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for the programs listed in this notice. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

Applicants should be aware that they are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002, Federal Register , Vol. 67, No. 210, pp. 66177-66178, for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet ( http://www.dunandbradstreet.com ).

NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/ , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this solicitation.

This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA 2000) provides for duty- and quota-free treatment for certain textile and apparel articles imported from designated beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. Section 112(b)(3) of TDA 2000 provides duty-and quota-free treatment for apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in one or more beneficiary countries from yarn originating in the U.S. or one or more beneficiary countries. This preferential treatment is also available for apparel articles assembled in one or more lesser-developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, regardless of the country of origin of the fabric used to make such articles, subject to quantitative limitation. Title VI of the TRHCA 2006 extended this special rule for lesser-developed countries through September 30, 2012. Further, this Act amended the percentage to be used in calculating the quantitative limitation for preferential treatment available for apparel articles entered under this special rule for lesser-developed Countries for the 12-month period beginning on October 1, 2006 and extending through September 30, 2007. See Limitations of Duty-and Quota-Free Imports of Apparel Articles Assembled in Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries from Regional and Third-Country Fabric , published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56112).

Title VI of the TRHCA 2006 provides that the quantitative limitation for apparel imported under the special rule for lesser-developed countries for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2006 will be an amount not to exceed 3.5 percent of the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are available. See Section 6002(a) of TRHCA 2006. Presidential Proclamation 7350 directed CITA to publish the aggregate quantity of imports allowed during each 12-month period in the Federal Register . The purpose of this notice is to amend the quantitative limitation previously published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56112).

For the one-year period, beginning on October 1, 2006, and extending through September 30, 2007, the aggregate quantity of imports eligible for preferential treatment under the provision for apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in one or more beneficiary countries from yarn originating in the U.S. or one or more beneficiary countries is 1,498,846,694 square meters equivalent. Of this amount, 815,001,892 square meters equivalent is available to apparel articles imported under the special rule for lesser-developed countries. Apparel articles entered in excess of these quantities will be subject to otherwise applicable tariffs.

These quantities are calculated using the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States, derived from the set of Harmonized System lines listed in the Annex to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), and the conversion factors for units of measure into square meter equivalents used by the United States in implementing the ATC.

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council consists of representatives of five agencies. These agencies are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, and Army. The duties of the Council include, among others, soliciting, reviewing, and evaluating estuarine habitat restoration project proposals, and submitting to the Secretary of the Army a prioritized list of projects recommended for construction.

Agenda topics will include decisions on recommending additional proposals to the Secretary of the Army for funding and a brief update on projects previously recommended and funded.

Current security measures require that persons interested in attending the meeting must pre-register with us before 2 p.m. February 9, 2007. We cannot guarantee access for requests received after that time. Please contact Ellen Cummings to pre-register. When leaving a voice mail message please provide the name of the individual attending, the company or agency represented, and a telephone number, in case there are any questions. The public should enter on the “G” Street side of the GAO building. All attendees are required to show photo identification and must be escorted to the meeting room by Corps personnel. Attendee's bags and other possessions are subject to being searched. All attendees arriving between one-half hour before and one-half hour after 9:30 a.m. will be escorted to the meeting. Those who are not pre-registered and/or arriving later than the allotted time will be unable to attend the public meeting.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute sensitive information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

The Department of the Navy systems of records notices 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 proposed deletion 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.

The Department of the Navy systems of records notices 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 amendments are 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.

The Department of the Navy systems of records notices 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 records systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are 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.

Requests to speak at the hearing may be submitted in writing or by telephone. The Board asks that commentators describe the nature and scope of their oral presentation. Those who contact the Board prior to close of business on March 21, 2007, will be scheduled for time slots, beginning at approximately 12:30 p.m. The Board will post a schedule for those speakers who have contacted the Board before the hearing. The posting will be made at the entrance to the Public Hearing Room at the start of the 9 a.m. hearing and meeting. Anyone who wishes to comment or provide technical information or data may do so in writing, either in lieu of, or in addition to, making an oral presentation. The Board Members may question presenters to the extent deemed appropriate. Documents will be accepted at the hearing and meeting or may be sent to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Washington, DC, office. The Board will hold the record open until April 21, 2007, for the receipt of additional materials. A transcript of the hearing and meeting will be made available by the Board for inspection by the public at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Washington office and at DOE's public reading room at the DOE Federal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

The Board provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this public hearing and meeting, or need this notice in another format ( e.g. braille, large print), please notify Brian Grosner, General Manager, at the toll-free contact number listed above. Determination of requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. The Board specifically reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the course of the meeting and hearing, to recess, reconvene, postpone, or adjourn the meeting and hearing, conduct further reviews, and otherwise exercise its power under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: America's Career Resource Network State Grant Annual Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; individuals or household; not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 59.

  Burden Hours: 354.

Abstract: Section 118(e) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (PL 105-332) requires the Department of Education to submit an annual report to the Congress. Information for that report is obtained from semi-annual and annual progress reports required of grantees by Sec. 74.51 EDGAR. Information is used by Departmental managers and project officers: (1) To develop the required annual report to the Congress; (2) to monitor State activities for compliance; and (3) to identify high quality practices for dissemination among the States, as required by the law.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3219. 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 ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@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.

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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title: National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 210.

 Burden Hours: 1,071.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers created to assist state education agencies with the implementation of the requirements of No Child Left Behind legislation. Evaluators will conduct site visits to each Center and a sample of each Center's work will be assessed for quality and relevance by expert peer reviewers.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3232. 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 ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@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 PRA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to display OMB control numbers and inform respondents of their legal significance after OMB has approved an agency's information collections. In accordance with those requirements, the Department notifies the public that the following information collections have been approved (or re-approved) by OMB following the Department's submission of an information collection request (ICR):

• OMB Control No. 1810-0681, Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged—Assessment and Accountability for LEP students (final regulations). The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2007.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0030, Annual State Application Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0043, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0517, Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Implementation of FAPE Requirements. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0518, Personnel (in Full-Time Equivalency of Assignments) Employed to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children with Disabilities. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0521, Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0600, State and Local Educational Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Under Part B of the IDEA. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0621, Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0624, IDEA Part B State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1820-0677, Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The expiration date for this collection is August 31, 2009.

• OMB Control No. 1845-0020, Federal Family Education Loan Program Regulations. The expiration date for this collection is December 31, 2008.

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

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

On May 19, 2006, we published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 29130) inviting applications for new awards under the Strengthening Institutions Program.

We received a significant number of applications for grants under the Strengthening Institutions Program in FY 2006 and made 34 new grants. Because such a large number of high-quality applications were received, many applications that were awarded high scores by peer reviewers did not receive funding for FY 2006.

Limited funding is available for new awards under this program in FY 2007. To conserve funding that would have been required for a peer review of new grant applications and use those funds to support grant activities, we will select grantees in FY 2007 from the existing slate of applicants. This slate was developed during the FY 2006 competition using the selection criteria, application requirements, and definitions referenced in the May 19, 2006 notice. No changes to the selection criteria, application requirements, and definitions will be required by this action.

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

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component; (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Forms FE-746R, “The Natural Gas Import and Export Authorization Application and Monthly Reports”.

2. Department of Energy.

3. OMB Number 1901-0294.

4. Three-year extension.

5. Mandatory.

6. DOE's Office of Fossil Energy (FE) is delegated the authority to regulate natural gas imports and exports under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act of 1938, 15 U.S.C. 717b. In order to carry out its delegated responsibility, FE requires those persons seeking to import or export natural gas to file an application containing the basic information about the scope and nature of the proposed import/export activity. Historically, FE has collected information on a quarterly and monthly basis regarding import and export transactions. That information has been used to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the authorizations. In addition, the data are used to monitor North American gas trade, which, in turn, enables the Federal government to perform market and regulatory analyses; improve the capability of industry and the government to respond to any future energy-related supply problems; and keep the general public informed of international natural gas trade.

7. Business or other for-profit (or other appropriate type of respondents).

8. 10,080 hours.

Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Title XV, Subtitle B of this act, entitled the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005, contains amendments to Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This is the first federal legislative change for the underground storage tank (UST) program since its inception over 20 years ago. The UST provisions of the law significantly affect federal and state UST programs, require major changes to the programs, and are aimed at further reducing UST releases to our environment. Among other things, the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act require that states receiving funding under Subtitle I comply with certain requirements contained in the law. OUST worked, and is continuing to work, with its partners to develop grant guidelines that EPA regional tank programs will incorporate into states' grant agreements. The guidelines will provide states that receive UST funds with specific requirements, based on the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act, for their state UST programs.

Section 9002 of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by Section 1526 of the Energy Policy Act, requires EPA to require states that receive Subtitle I funding to maintain, update, and make available to the public a record of federally regulated USTs. As a result of that requirement, EPA worked with states and other UST stakeholders to develop draft public record grant guidelines. In June 2006, EPA released a draft of the public record grant guidelines. EPA considered comments and, subsequently on January 22, 2007, issued the public record grant guidelines. EPA will incorporate these guidelines into grant agreements between EPA and states. States receiving funds from EPA for their UST programs must comply with the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act and will be subject to action by EPA under 40 CFR 31.43 if they fail to comply with the guidelines.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews: Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because this grant action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this action does create new binding legal requirements, such requirements do not substantially and directly affect tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Although this grant action does not have significant federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), EPA consulted with states in the development of these grant guidelines. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Section 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Section 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Since this final action will contain legally binding requirements, it is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a report to Congress containing this final action prior to the publication of this action in the Federal Register .

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with states, developed these grant guidelines to implement the public record provision in Section 9002(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), enacted by the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act, part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005.

Subsection (c) of Section 1526 of the Energy Policy Act amends Section 9002 in Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to add requirements for states to maintain, update, and make available to the public a record of underground storage tanks (USTs) regulated under Subtitle I. EPA must require each state that receives funding under Subtitle I to meet the public record requirements. Subsection (d) of Section 9002 in Subtitle I requires EPA to prescribe the manner and form of the public record, and says that, to the maximum extent practicable, the public record of a state must include:

• The number, sources, and causes of underground storage tank releases in the state.

• The record of compliance by underground storage tanks in the state with Subtitle I or a state program approved under Section 9004 of Subtitle I.

• Data on the number of underground storage tank equipment failures in the state.

EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) is issuing these grant guidelines to establish the minimum requirements a state receiving Subtitle I funding (hereafter referred to as “state”) must meet in order to comply with the public record requirements in Section 9002(d).

These guidelines describe the minimum requirements for public record that a state's underground storage tank program must meet in order for a state to comply with statutory requirements for Subtitle I funding. These guidelines include: developing and updating the public record; making the record available to the public; describing the minimum public record content; ensuring data quality; and demonstrating and ensuring compliance with these guidelines.

A state must develop a program for gathering information and begin gathering data to meet the public record requirement by October 1, 2007.

For purposes of providing the public information on percent compliance and numbers of underground storage tanks, facilities, and inspections, states must, at a minimum, include underground storage tanks regulated under Subtitle I that satisfy the definition of underground storage tank in 40 CFR 280.12, except for those tanks identified in 40 CFR 280.10(b) and 280.10(c) as excluded or deferred underground storage tanks. Underground storage tanks used for emergency power generation [deferred from release detection by 280.10(d)] must be included as part of the public record.

For purposes of providing the public information on confirmed releases and sources and causes of releases, states must, at a minimum, include underground storage tanks regulated under Subtitle I that satisfy the definition of underground storage tank in 40 CFR 280.12, except for those tanks identified in 40 CFR 280.10(b) as excluded underground storage tanks. Underground storage tanks deferred in 40 CFR 280.10(c) and those used for emergency power generation [deferred from release detection by 280.10(d)] must be included as part of the public record.

A state implements these guidelines by making a record containing information consistent with these guidelines available to the public.

A state may choose to make a record that contains more comprehensive information than described in these guidelines available to the public. For example, a state may choose to make a record available to the public that includes underground storage tanks regulated by the state but not regulated under Subtitle I.

In 2007, state underground storage tank programs must:

In 2008 and beyond, state underground storage tank programs must:

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Title XV, Subtitle B of this act, titled the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005, contains amendments to Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This is the first federal legislative change for the underground storage tank (UST) program since its inception over 20 years ago. The UST provisions of the law significantly affect federal and state UST programs, require major changes to the programs, and are aimed at further reducing UST releases to our environment. Among other things, the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act require that states receiving funding under Subtitle I comply with certain requirements contained in the law. OUST worked, and is continuing to work, with its partners to develop grant guidelines that EPA regional tank programs will incorporate into states' grant agreements. The guidelines will provide states that receive UST funds with specific requirements, based on the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act, for their state UST programs.

Section 9003(i) of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by Section 1530 of the Energy Policy Act, requires EPA to require states that receive Subtitle I funding to impose measures to protect groundwater from contamination by USTs through use of either evidence of financial responsibility and installer certification or secondary containment. As a result of that requirement, EPA worked with states, tribes, other Federal agencies, tank owners and operators, UST equipment industry, and other stakeholders to develop draft financial responsibility and installer certification grant guidelines. In May 2006, EPA released a draft of the financial responsibility and installer certification grant guidelines. EPA considered comments and, subsequently on January 22, 2007, issued the financial responsibility and installer certification grant guidelines. EPA will incorporate these guidelines into grant agreements between EPA and states. States receiving funds from EPA for their UST programs must comply with the UST provisions of the Energy Policy Act and will be subject to action by EPA under 40 CFR 31.43 if they fail to comply with the guidelines. (Please note that EPA issued the secondary containment grant guidelines in November 2006 and published a notice of availability in the November 22, 2006 Federal Register [Volume 71, Number 225]. See EPA's Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/final_sc.htm to view the secondary containment grant guidelines.)

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews: Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because this grant action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. .) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this action does create new binding legal requirements, such requirements do not substantially and directly affect tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Although this grant action does not have significant federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), EPA consulted with states in the development of these grant guidelines. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Section 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Since this final action will contain legally binding requirements, it is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a report to Congress containing this final action prior to the publication of this action in the Federal Register .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Underground Storage Tanks; January 2007.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with states and industry, has developed these grant guidelines to implement the financial responsibility and installer certification provision in Section 9003(i) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), enacted by the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act, which is part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005.

Section 1530 of the Energy Policy Act amends Section 9003 in Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to add requirements for additional measures to protect groundwater from contamination. State underground storage tank (UST) programs that receive funding under Subtitle I must meet, at a minimum, one of the following:

1. Evidence Of Financial Responsibility And Certification —A person that manufactures an underground tank or piping for an underground storage tank system or installs an underground storage tank system must maintain evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003(d) of Subtitle I in order to provide for the costs of corrective actions directly related to releases caused by improper manufacture or installation unless the person can demonstrate themselves to be already covered as an owner or operator of an underground storage tank under Section 9003, Subtitle I. In addition, underground storage tank installers must: be certified or licensed; have the installation certified or approved; install the underground storage tank system compliant with a code of practice and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; or use another method determined to be no less protective of human health and the environment.

2. Tank And Piping Secondary Containment —Each new or replaced underground tank, or piping connected to any such new or replaced tank, that is within 1,000 feet of any existing community water system or any existing potable drinking water well must be secondarily contained and monitored for leaks. In the case of a replacement of an existing underground tank or existing piping connected to the underground tank, the secondary containment and monitoring shall apply only to the specific underground tank or piping being replaced, not to other underground tanks and connected pipes comprising such system. In addition, each new motor fuel dispenser system installed within 1,000 feet of any existing community water system or any existing potable drinking water well must have under-dispenser containment. These requirements do not apply to repairs meant to restore an underground tank, pipe, or dispenser to operating condition. (These requirements are described in the secondary containment guidelines, EPA 510-R-06-001, published on November 15, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/final_sc.htm .)

These guidelines describe the minimum requirements for financial responsibility and installer certification that a state's underground storage tank program must contain in order for a state to comply with statutory requirements for Subtitle I funding. These guidelines include definitions, requirements, criteria, and options for states choosing to implement the financial responsibility and installer certification provision.

States receiving Subtitle I funding must implement either the financial responsibility and installer certification requirements described in these guidelines or the secondary containment requirements (EPA 510-R-06-001, published on November 15, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/final_sc.htm ) by February 8, 2007.

These guidelines apply to underground storage tank systems regulated under Subtitle I, except those excluded by regulation at 40 CFR Part 280.10(b) and those deferred by regulation at 40 CFR 280.10(c).

A state implements these guidelines by:

• Requiring financial responsibility for all manufacturers of underground storage tanks or piping for an underground storage tank system that is installed in the state,

• Requiring financial responsibility and installer certification for all installers of underground storage tank systems in the state, and

• Developing processes and procedures for financial responsibility and installer certification provisions that, at a minimum, meet the requirements in these guidelines.

The state must meet these guidelines by February 8, 2007. States may choose to be more stringent than these minimum requirements.

State requirements must, at a minimum, include the following provisions:

State financial responsibility and installer certification requirements must clearly define who will be covered by them. At a minimum, the following persons must be covered:

• A person that manufactures an underground storage tank or piping for an underground storage tank system that is installed in the state (manufacturer). 1

• A person that installs part or all of an underground storage tank system in the state (installer).

The term “underground storage tank system” has the same definition as contained in 40 CFR 280.12.

Manufacturers or installers that demonstrate to the state that they already maintain financial responsibility as the owner or operator of an underground storage tank do not need to maintain financial responsibility as a manufacturer or installer for that same underground storage tank.

In states where a single installer of an underground storage tank system is identified by the state ( e.g. , for purposes of obtaining a permit), that person is the one required to maintain financial responsibility for that installation and meet the certification requirements described in these guidelines. Where there is not a single installer on record, states must define those who must maintain evidence of financial responsibility and meet the certification requirements described in these guidelines.

States must require a minimum of:

• $1 million per occurrence and $2 million annual aggregate for manufacturers to cover the costs of corrective action of a release from a regulated underground storage tank or piping, as appropriate, caused by improper manufacturing, and

• $1 million per occurrence and $2 million annual aggregate for installers to cover the costs of corrective action of a release from a regulated underground storage tank system due to improper installation.

These limits do not include legal defense costs.

States must require that:

• Manufacturers of tanks and piping maintain financial responsibility coverage for 30 years after installation, or until the underground storage tank system is permanently closed, in accordance with 40 CFR 280.71, whichever of these events comes first.

• Installers of underground storage tank systems maintain financial responsibility for ten years after installation, or until the underground storage tank system is permanently closed, in accordance with 40 CFR 280.71, or whichever of these events comes first.

States may allow manufacturers and installers to obtain financial responsibility mechanisms with annual or other limited policy periods, as long as the manufacturer/installer maintains uninterrupted coverage for the full period required by these guidelines (30 years or ten years, as appropriate). These types of mechanisms are currently available. For example, insurance is currently available in various forms, including occurrence-based with annual policy periods or claims-made with annual policy periods coupled with appropriate retroactive and extended reporting periods.

States may allow manufacturers and installers to use a variety of financial mechanisms as long as these mechanisms meet all of the following four criteria:

1. The mechanism must be valid and enforceable;

2. The mechanism must be issued by a provider that is licensed, registered, and/or otherwise qualified to provide such coverage in the state;

3. The mechanism must pay for the costs of corrective action, up to the coverage limits described above, resulting from a release from a regulated underground storage tank or tank system caused by improper manufacture or installation, as appropriate; and

4. The mechanism must require that the provider notify the insured and the state of cancellation or non-renewal of the mechanism, within a time frame determined to be reasonable by each state.

These mechanisms may include the ones currently used by tank owners and operators to meet their financial responsibility requirements under 40 part 280.94 to 280.103.

However, not all of these current mechanisms may be appropriate for use in all instances to meet the new manufacturer and installer financial responsibility requirement, and some may have to be modified to meet this new requirement and be consistent with State regulations.

In developing their requirements, states are encouraged to consider, as a model, provisions in 40 CFR part 280, Subpart H, that reasonably prevent gaps in coverage, such as in cases of cancellation or non-renewal by the financial responsibility provider, bankruptcy of the installer/manufacturer, or incapacity or liquidation of the financial responsibility provider.

If a State chooses to use a State assurance fund to provide financial responsibility for manufacturers and/or installers, the state must develop a separate fund, independent from its existing state assurance fund ( i.e. , State fund used to provide financial responsibility for underground storage tank owners and operators). This requirement for a separate fund is to ensure the financial integrity of existing State assurance funds.

If a State allows a mechanism that includes a deductible, the state must either require first dollar coverage or that manufacturers and installers maintain separate financial responsibility coverage for the deductible amount.

State requirements must contain a provision or provisions requiring a system of notification and record keeping to and/or by the manufacturer, installer, owner, operator, and/or the State program. These provisions must reasonably address, at a minimum, the following questions:

• To whom and when must the evidence of financial responsibility be provided?

• How and where must manufacturers and installers maintain evidence of financial responsibility?

• If an underground storage tank system is permanently closed, in accordance with 40 CFR 280.71, who needs to notify the manufacturer/installer?

• If the manufacturer or installer files for bankruptcy or ceases operation for any other reason, whom should they notify and when?

• Any other question(s) that the state may deem appropriate.

The state must require that a person that installs an underground storage tank system meet one of the following:

• Be certified or licensed by the tank and piping manufacturer;

• Be certified or licensed by the EPA Administrator or a State, as appropriate;

• Have their underground storage tank system installation certified by a registered professional engineer with education and experience in underground storage tank system installation;

• Have their installation of the underground storage tank inspected and approved by the Administrator or the State, as appropriate;

• Be compliant with a code of practice developed by a nationally-recognized association or independent testing laboratory and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; or

• Be compliant with another method that is determined by the Administrator or a state, as appropriate, to be no less protective of human health and the environment.

Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to the Council should be sent to Sonia Altieri, Designated Federal Officer, at the contact information above by February 9, 2007. The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting, but seating is limited and is allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis. Members of the public wishing to gain access to the conference room on the day of the meeting must contact Sonia Altieri at (202) 233-0061 or altieri.sonia@epa.gov by Friday, February 9, 2007.

Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Sonia Altieri at 202-233-0061 or altieri.sonia@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Sonia Altieri, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 18, 2007), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/01/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Hospira Inc. (“Hospira”) and Mayne Pharma Ltd. (“Mayne”), which is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects of Hospira's acquisition of Mayne. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, the companies would be required to assign and divest to Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Barr”) the Mayne rights and assets necessary to manufacture and market the following generic injectable pharmaceuticals: (1) Hydromorphone hydrochloride (“hydromorphone”); (2) nalbuphine hydrochloride (“nalbuphine”); (3) morphine sulfate (“morphine”); (4) preservative-free morphine; and (5) deferoxamine mesylate (“deferoxamine”).

The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).

Pursuant to a Scheme Implementation Agreement dated September 20, 2006, Hospira intends to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Mayne for approximately $2 billion. Both parties manufacture and sell generic pharmaceuticals in the United States. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, in the markets for the manufacture and sale of the following generic injectables: (1) Hydromorphone; (2) nalbuphine; (3) morphine; (4) preservative-free morphine; and (5) deferoxamine (“the Products”). The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the alleged violations by replacing in each of these markets the lost competition that would result from the acquisition.

Hospira's proposed acquisition of Mayne would strengthen Hospira's position in generic injectable pharmaceuticals and provide it with a stronger pipeline of generic products. Injectable pharmaceuticals are not close substitutes for oral drugs because they are used when a patient is unable to ingest pills or capsules or when an immediate onset of action is required and the patient cannot wait for the treatment to pass through the gastrointestinal system. The companies overlap in a number of generic injectable pharmaceutical markets, and if consummated, the transaction likely would lead to anticompetitive effects in five of the overlap markets.

The transaction would reduce the number of competing generic suppliers in five already concentrated markets. When the number of suppliers of a generic is small, the number of suppliers has a direct and substantial effect on generic pricing, as each additional supplier can have a competitive impact on the market. Because there are (or would be) multiple generic equivalents for each of the Products absent the proposed acquisition, the branded versions would not significantly constrain the generics' pricing.

For one of the generic injectable products at issue, hydromorphone, Hospira and Mayne currently are two of only three suppliers offering the product. In the remaining four markets, Mayne is one of a limited number of suppliers capable of, and in the process of, entering these markets. As a result, the proposed acquisition would eliminate important future competition in these markets.

Injectable hydromorphone is a narcotic opioid analgesic used to relieve moderate to severe pain, both acute and chronic, and is classified by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) as a Schedule II narcotic. The branded product, Dilaudid-HP, is manufactured and sold by Abbott Laboratories Inc. In 2006, sales of generic injectable hydromorphone exceeded $39 million. Only three companies compete in the generic injectable hydromorphone market: Hospira, Baxter Healthcare Corp. (“Baxter”), and Mayne. Hospira is the market leader with a market share of approximately 60 percent. Mayne and Baxter are the only other suppliers, with market shares of 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively. After Hospira's acquisition of Mayne, Hospira's market share would increase from 60 percent to approximately 85 percent, and Baxter would be the only other competitor.

Nalbuphine is an injectable opioid analgesic used to relieve moderate to severe pain in patients. Hospira currently is the only supplier of generic injectable nalbuphine in the United States. Mayne is in the process of entering this market and is one of a limited number of firms capable of entering this market in a timely manner. The proposed acquisition would eliminate Mayne's entry into the injectable nalbuphine market.

Injectable morphine is a widely-used opioid analgesic for the treatment of moderate to severe, acute and chronic pain, and is classified by the DEA as a Schedule II narcotic. Hospira is the leading supplier of injectable morphine, and provides a full-line of preservative and preservative-free morphine products in various strengths, sizes, and delivery mechanisms. Baxter and Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are the only other suppliers of injectable morphine in the United States. Mayne is in the process of entering this market and is one of a limited number of suppliers capable of entering this market in a timely manner. The proposed acquisition would eliminate Mayne's entry into the injectable morphine market. Absent the proposed transaction, Mayne would have been the only competitor to Hospira for the 50 mg/ml strength presentations of injectable morphine.

Injectable preservative-free morphine, unlike injectable morphine, is used when the drug is delivered to the intrathecal or epidural space next to the nerves in a patient's spine. Currently, only Hospira and Baxter sell preservative-free morphine in the United States in the manner of generic suppliers. Mayne is in the process of entering this market and is one of a limited number of suppliers capable of entering this market in a timely manner. The proposed transaction would eliminate Mayne's entry into the injectable preservative-free morphine market.

Injectable deferoxamine is an iron chelator used to treat acute iron poisoning or chronic iron overload. Hospira and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. are the only suppliers of generic injectable deferoxamine in the United States. Mayne is in the process of entering this market and is well-positioned to enter this market in a timely manner. The proposed acquisition would eliminate Mayne's entry into the injectable deferoxamine market.

Entry into the markets for the manufacture and sale of the Products would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in its magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Developing and obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval for the manufacture and sale of each of the Products takes at least two (2) years due to substantial regulatory, technological, and intellectual property barriers.

The proposed acquisition would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers in the U.S. markets for the manufacture and sale of generic injectable hydromorphone, generic injectable nalbuphine, generic injectable morphine, generic injectable preservative-free morphine, and generic injectable deferoxamine. In generic pharmaceutical markets, pricing is heavily influenced by the number of competitors that participate in a given market. Here, the evidence shows that, given the small number of suppliers, the prices of the generic pharmaceutical product at issue decrease with the entry of each additional competitor. Evidence gathered during our investigation indicates that anticompetitive effects—whether unilateral or coordinated—are likely to result from the decrease in the number of independent competitors in the markets at issue that would be a consequence of the proposed acquisition.

In the market for generic injectable hydromorphone, the proposed acquisition would leave only two current competitors: The combined firm and one other company. The evidence indicates that the presence of three independent competitors in these markets allows customers to negotiate lower prices, and that a reduction in the number of competitors would allow the merged entity and the other market participant(s) to raise prices.

The competitive concerns in the market for generic injectable hydromorphone can be characterized as both unilateral and coordinated in nature. Certain conditions in the relevant market may reduce the ability of suppliers to reach and maintain an agreement on price. For example, bids to GPOs typically specify prices and rebates for an array of drugs and presentations, and there are long term contracts. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the transaction will increase the likelihood of coordination. The transparency of awards by GPOs makes coordination among the suppliers, especially customer allocation, more likely to occur, because deviation from an agreement would be relatively easy to detect. Also, the fact that there will be only two suppliers after the proposed acquisition is an important consideration in evaluating the likelihood of coordination.

The impact that a reduction in the number of firms would have on pricing can also be explained in terms of unilateral effects. With fewer bidders, the probability of winning a given bid is higher and the incentives to bid aggressively are lower. With transactions that lead to a significant decrease in the number of bidders for a given drug, such as the instant one, a significant increase in the price charged to customers is likely to result. Such effects are likely to be particularly large in the market for generic injectable hydromorphone, where there would be only two competitors after Hospira's acquisition of Mayne.

The proposed acquisition also would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers by eliminating potential competition between Hospira and Mayne in the markets for the manufacture and sale of generic injectable nalbuphine, generic injectable morphine, generic injectable preservative-free morphine, and generic injectable deferoxamine. In each of these markets, there are no more than three current suppliers, and Mayne is poised to enter in the near future. Mayne's independent entry into these markets would likely result in lower prices. The proposed transaction would eliminate that independent entry, and hence would leave prices at levels that are higher than would prevail absent the acquisition.

The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the relevant product markets. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, Hospira and Mayne are required to divest certain rights and assets related to the relevant products to a Commission-approved acquirer no later than ten (10) days after the acquisition. Specifically, the proposed Consent Agreement requires that the parties assign and divest all of the Mayne rights and assets for the Products to Barr.

The acquirers of the divested assets must receive the prior approval of the Commission. The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the acquisition. A proposed acquirer of divested assets must not itself present competitive problems.

Barr is a reputable generic injectable pharmaceutical manufacturer and is well-positioned to compete effectively in each of the relevant product markets. Following its recent acquisition of Pliva d.d., Barr markets several injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and has multiple manufacturing facilities, an established sales organization, FDA and DEA regulatory expertise, and a robust injectable product pipeline. Moreover, Barr will not present competitive problems in any of the markets in which it will acquire a divested asset because it currently does not compete in those markets. With its resources, capabilities, and good reputation, Barr is well-positioned to replicate the competition that would be lost with the proposed acquisition.

If the Commission determines that Barr is not an acceptable acquirer of the assets to be divested, or that the manner of the divestitures to Barr is not acceptable, the parties must unwind the sale and divest the Products within six (6) months of the date the Order becomes final to another Commission-approved acquirer. If the parties fail to divest within six (6) months, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the Product assets.

The proposed remedy contains several provisions to ensure that the divestitures are successful. The Order requires Hospira and Mayne to provide transitional services to enable the Commission-approved acquirers to obtain all of the necessary approvals from the FDA. These transitional services include technology transfer assistance to manufacture the Products in substantially the same manner and quality employed or achieved by Hospira and Mayne.

The Commission has appointed R. Owen Richards of Quantic Regulatory Services, LLC (“Quantic”) to oversee the asset transfer and to ensure Hospira and Mayne's compliance with all of the provisions of the proposed Consent Agreement. Mr. Richards is President of Quantic and has several years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. He is a highly-qualified expert on FDA regulatory matters and currently advises Quantic clients on achieving satisfactory regulatory compliance and interfacing with the FDA. In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the proposed divestitures and the transfers of assets, the proposed Consent Agreement requires Hospira and Mayne to file reports with the Commission periodically until the divestitures and transfers are accomplished.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.

The Office of Government Ethics intends to submit, shortly after publication of this notice, the unmodified Standard Form 278 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OMB control number 3209-0001) for extension of approval for three years by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The current paperwork approval for the SF 278 expires at the end of February 2007 (the clearance will be further extended during OMB review once OGE submits the complete package requesting renewed paperwork clearance of the SF 278 to OMB). The Office of Government Ethics, as the supervising ethics office for the executive branch of the Federal Government under the Ethics in Government Act (the Ethics Act), is the sponsoring agency for the Standard Form 278. OGE will not request General Services Administration (GSA) standard forms clearance for this extension because no modification to this standard form is proposed.

In accordance with section 102 of the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. app. section 102, and OGE's implementing financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634, the SF 278 collects pertinent financial information from certain officers and high-level employees in the executive branch on an annual basis and once they terminate their reportable positions, for conflicts of interest review and public disclosure. The SF 278 is also completed by individuals who are nominated by the President for high-level executive branch positions requiring Senate confirmation, new entrants to other public reporting positions in the executive branch, and candidates for U.S. President and Vice President. The financial information collected under the statute and regulations relates to: Assets and income; transactions; gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses; liabilities; agreements or arrangements; outside positions; and compensation over $5,000 paid by a source other than the U.S. Government—all subject to various reporting thresholds and exclusions.

The Office of Government Ethics is proposing no modifications to the SF 278 at this time. OGE will continue to make the unmodified SF 278 available to departments and agencies and their reporting employees through the Forms, Publications & Other Ethics Documents section of OGE's Web site. This provides filers with two electronic options for preparing their report on a computer (as well as a downloadable blank form). There is also a link on the OGE Web site to another electronic version of the SF 278 maintained by the Department of Defense. In addition, GSA separately maintains two electronic versions of the form on its Web site ( http://www.gsa.gov ).

The Office of Government Ethics has determined that at this time, electronic filing of the SF 278 using an Internet-based system will not be permitted. A printout and manual signature of the form are still required unless otherwise specifically approved by OGE.

There are two ways in which the content of the current SF 278 report form is affected. The first concerns adjustments in the gifts/reimbursements reporting thresholds. The second involves revised routine use language contained in the Privacy Act Statement of the form. OGE is proposing no revisions to the SF 278, but will continue to ask executive branch departments and agencies to inform SF 278 filers, through cover memorandum or otherwise, of these two updates when the existing March 2000 edition of the SF 278 report forms are provided for completion. See OGE's August 25, 2003 memorandum to designated agency ethics officials (DO-03-015), posted in the “DAEOgrams” section of the OGE Web site. Information regarding these changes is also posted along with the SF 278 in the forms section of OGE's Web site. In addition, OGE will post on its Web site an updated summary of one of the Privacy Act routine uses on the report form (see discussion below).

Every three years OGE issues final rule amendments that revise the executive branch financial disclosure regulation to increase the aggregation and exception thresholds for reporting of gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses for the public and confidential report systems. See 5 U.S.C. app. section 102(a)(2)(A) & (B). The OGE aggregation threshold provides a limit below which the total value of gifts and reimbursements received from a source is not reportable. The exception threshold limits the value of individual gifts and reimbursements that must be counted toward the aggregation threshold.

OGE's threshold adjustments are tied to the “minimal value” threshold of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, as determined by GSA under 5 U.S.C. 7342. Since 2002, OGE has asked agencies to notify filers of the SF 278 of the updated adjustments to the reporting thresholds for gifts and reimbursements. Effective January 1, 2005, GSA raised the “minimal value” threshold under 5 U.S.C. 7342 to $305 or less for the three-year period 2005-2007. See 70 FR 2317-2318 (part V) (January 12, 2005). Following GSA's action, OGE advised agencies of the adjusted thresholds and revised its financial disclosure regulation to reflect the increase in the thresholds for SF 278 reporting of gifts and travel reimbursements received from any one source to “more than $305” for the aggregation level for reporting and to “$122 or less” for the de minimis aggregation exception threshold. See the March 17, 2005 OGE memorandum to designated agency ethics officials (DO-05-007) and 70 FR 12111-12112 (March 11, 2005). Both GSA and OGE rulemakings and OGE's memorandum are posted on the OGE Web site.

In addition, OGE has updated the OGE/GOVT-1 Privacy Act system of records notice (covering SF 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports and other name-retrieved ethics program records). See 68 FR 3097-3109 (January 22, 2003), as corrected at 68 FR 24744 (May 8, 2003). As a result, the Privacy Act Statement, which includes summaries of the routine uses on page 11 of the instructions on the SF 278, is affected. As explained in the above-noted OGE memorandum DO-03-015 and the SF 278 notice posted on OGE's Web site, the system notice update added three new routine uses applicable to SF 278 reports. Moreover, OGE will also ask agencies to inform filers of an update needed to the summary of the sixth listed routine use on the form in their periodic notifications to filers of changes to the SF 278. See revised routine use “h” at 68 FR 3100 for the OGE/GOVT-1 records system notice. OGE has already updated that same sixth routine use summary for three of its other forms, the OGE Form 201, the OGE Form 450, and the OGE Optional Form 450-A. These forms are posted in the forms section of the OGE Web site. A summary of the updates relevant to that SF 278 statement will be included with the paperwork clearance submission to OMB.

The SF 278 is completed by candidates, nominees, new entrants, incumbents and terminees of certain high-level positions in the executive branch of the Federal Government. These reports are routinely reviewed by the agencies concerned. The Office of Government Ethics, along with the agencies concerned, conducts the review of the SF 278 reports of Presidential nominees subject to Senate confirmation and incumbents in and terminees from such positions.

The Office of Government Ethics estimates, based on the agency ethics program questionnaire responses for 2003-2005, that an average of some 23,971 SF 278 report forms are filed annually at departments and agencies throughout the executive branch. (Questionnaire responses for 2006 are not yet available.) Most of those executive branch filers are current Federal employees at the time they file. However, OGE estimates that approximately 2,475, or just over 10.3 percent, of the branchwide total of SF 278 filers over each of the next three years (2007-2009) will be members of the public. This annual estimate includes: (a) Private citizen Presidential nominees to executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation (and their private representatives—lawyers, accountants, brokers and bankers); (b) other private citizen prospective new entrants to such reportable positions; (c) those who file termination reports (or combination annual and termination reports) from such positions after their Government service ends; and (d) Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. The OGE estimate includes an anticipated total of some 3,900 SF 278 reports (which yields an annualized average of 1,300 per year) that will be filed in connection with the fall 2008 Presidential election and following transition. In OGE's first round SF 278 paperwork notice (noted below), the statistics OGE used to compute the reporting burden on the public over the next three years mistakenly omitted the estimated additional private citizen filers expected during the forthcoming Presidential election/transition.

The estimated average amount of time to complete the report form, including review of the instructions and gathering of needed information, remains the same as previously reported, at three hours. Thus, the overall estimated annual public burden for the SF 278 for the private citizen/representative nominee and terminee report forms processed in executive branch agencies, and those report forms processed by the OGE, including private citizen Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates report forms, is 7,425 hours (rather than the 3,525 hours as mistakenly indicated in the first round notice).

The current average yearly paperwork hour burden for the SF 278 form, based on OGE's prior 2003 annual estimate for the 2003-2005 period, is 1,347 hours. This burden estimate was based upon an anticipated annual average of 449 SF 278 report forms (x 3 hours per form) to be received at OGE only from private citizen/representative nominee and terminee filers, plus Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates whose report forms are also reviewed by OGE. OGE's new annual burden estimate for the 2007-2009 period has been adjusted to cover private citizen SF 278 filers anticipated throughout the executive branch, in accordance with updated OMB guidance for such a branchwide form.

On November 3, 2006, OGE published a first round notice of its intent to request paperwork clearance for the proposed unmodified SF 278. See 71 FR 64708-64710. OGE received only one response to that notice, which was critical of the Government, and provided no specific comment about the SF 278 form. One other person requested a copy of the form.

In this second notice, public comment is again invited on the SF 278 Public Financial Disclosure Report as set forth in this notice, including specifically views on the need for and practical utility of this collection of information, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the potential for enhancement of the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). The Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with OMB, will consider all comments received, which will become a matter of public record.

Section 224(p) of the Public Health Service Act, which was established by section 304 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and amended by section 3 of the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Act of 2003 (“SEPPA”), is intended to alleviate certain liability concerns associated with administration of smallpox countermeasures and, therefore, ensure that the countermeasures are available and can be administered in the even of a smallpox-related actual or potential public health emergency such as a bioterrorist incident.

On January 24, 2003, due to concerns that terrorists may have access to the smallpox virus and attempt to use it against the American public and U.S. Government facilities abroad, the Secretary issued a declaration making section 224's legal protections available. The declaration was effective until and including January 23, 2004; it included in section VI a number of definitions, which are no longer appropriate because of the statutory amendments in section 3 of SEPPA.

On January 24, 2004, the Secretary amended the definitions contained in the January 24, 2003 declaration in light of the statutory amendments in section 3 of SEPPA because such definitions were no longer appropriate, and extended the declaration for one year until January 23, 2005. On January 24, 2005, the Secretary extended the declaration for another year through January 23, 2006. On January 24, 2006, the Secretary extended the declaration for another year through January 23, 2007. Pursuant to section 224(p)(2)(A), the Secretary issues the amendment below to extend for one year, up to and including January 23, 2008, the January 24, 2003 declaration, as amended.

Amendment To Extend January 24, 2003 Declaration Regarding Administration of Smallpox Countermeasures.

I. Policy Determination: The underlying policy determinations of the January 24, 2003 declaration continue to exist, including the heightened concern that terrorists may have access to the smallpox virus and attempt to use it against the American public and U.S. Government facilities abroad.

II. Amendment of Declaration: I, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, have concluded in accordance with the authority vested in me under section 224(p)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act, that a potential bioterrorist incident makes it advisable to extend the January 24, 2003 declaration regarding administration of smallpox countermeasures until and including January 23, 2008. The January 24, 2003, declaration as hereby amended may be further amended as circumstances require.

III. Effective Dates: This extension is effective January 24, 2007 until and including January 23, 2008. The effective period may be extended or shortened by subsequent amendment to the January 24, 2003 declaration as hereby amended.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: HUD Initiative for the Removal of Regulatory Barriers.

OMB Approval Number: 2510-0013.

Form Numbers: HUD-27300.

Description of the need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information is to be submitted by grant applicants to obtain higher rating points based on association with successful efforts to remove regulatory barriers which may impede the production of affordable housing.

Frequency Of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 25,500.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Application and Re-certification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA Activities.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0540.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information collection requirement covers the criteria that a nonprofit organization must meet to participate in Single Family programs. In general, a nonprofit organization must be HUD-approved and meet specific requirements to maintain approval and remain on the Nonprofit Organization Roster (Roster). This includes an application, affordable housing plan, annual reports, and required record keeping. Participants must submit a new application and updated affordable housing plan every two years to remain on the Roster.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion, biennially, annually.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 6,156.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information:

Title Of Proposal: Capital Advance Program Submission Requirements for the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Capital Advance Program.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0470.

Form Numbers: HUD-2453.1-CA, 2554, 90163-CA, 90164-CA, 90165-CA, 90166A-CA, 90166-CA, 90167-CA, 90169-CA, 901691-CA, 90170-CA, 90171-CA, 90172-CA, 90172B-CA, 90173-A-CA, 90173-B-CA, 90173-C-CA, 90174-CA, 90175-CA, 90175.1-CA, 90176-CA, 90177-CA, 90178-CA, 90179-CA, 91732A-CA, 92434-CA, 92435-CA, 92466.1-CA, 92452, 92452-A, 92452-CA, 92476-A-CA, 92004-F, 92433-CA, 92443-CA, 92450-CA, 92466-CA, 92476-A, 93432-CA, 93566-CA, and 93566.1-CA.

Description Of The Need For The Information And Its Proposed Use:

This collection facilitates the processing of all Sections 202 and 811 capital advance projects from firm commitment through final closing. Second, it allows for the collection of information under the mixed-finance section of this program so that those owners who wish to partner with for-profit limited partners can participate in the development and management of supportive housing. And lastly, it allows for the collection of information to satisfy the reporting requirements for owners who receive predevelopment grant funds.

Frequency Of Submission: On occasion, monthly.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 8,413.

Status: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge is in Martin County, Florida, about 20 miles south of Stuart, Florida, and 30 miles north of West Palm Beach, Florida. The refuge covers a total of 1,160 acres within the acquisition boundary. The refuge consists of a 300-acre River Lagoon. The primay vegetation classes on the Mainland Tract consist mainly of sand pine scrub, wetland, mangrove, and hammock habitats. The Jupiter Island Tract has a 3.5-mile sea turtle nesting beach—one of the most productive in Florida—and several hardwood hammocks and mangrove wetlands. Annually, more than 120,000 visitors participate in refuge and nature center activities.

The availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for a 45-day public review and comment period was announced in the Federal Register on January 26, 2004, (69 FR 3590). The plan and Environmental assessment identified and evaluated four alternatives for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, would have continued current management of the refuge within the approved acquisition boundary. Under Alternative 2 (Ecosystem Emphasis), refuge lands would be protected, maintained, and enhanced by adding more staff, equipment, and facilities in order to restore and manage the unique habitats and more than 40 threatened and endangered species. Alternative 3 (Biological Emphasis) would add more staff, equipment, and facilities in order to maximize the biological program. Alternative 4 (Public Use Emphasis) would add more staff, equipment, and facilities in order to foster the refuge's public use program.

Based on the environmental assessment and the comments received, the Service adopted a modified version of Alternative 2 (Ecosystem Emphasis) as its preferred alternative. This alternative was considered to be the most effective for meeting the purposes of the refuge by enhancing habitat for threatened and endangered species, and by downsizing selected projects to help maintain the unique qualities of the refuge that make it so special to the community. The overriding concern reflected in this alternative is that wildlife conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreational uses (e.g., fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged as long as they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Altnerative 2 best achieves national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and objectives and positively addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by the public.

Under the ESA 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the Service maintains a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Then, on the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether or not any species should be removed from the list (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the endangered Maryland darter (Etheostoma sellare), eastern cougar (Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar), Virginia fringed mountain snail (Polygyriscus virginianus), Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus), Hay's Spring amphipod (Stygobromus hayi), American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus), and Lee County Cave isopod (Lirceus usdagalun), as well as the threatened Knieskern's beaked-rush (Rhyncospora knieskernii), bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).

To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the following endangered species since their original listings: The Maryland darter in 1967 (32 FR 4001) with Critical Habitat in 1984 (49 FR 34228-34232); eastern cougar in 1973 (38 FR 14678); Virginia fringed mountain snail in 1978 (43 FR 28932-28935); Virginia big-eared bat in 1979 with Critical Habitat (44 FR 69206-69208); Hay's Spring amphipod in 1982 (47 FR 5425-5427); American burying beetle in 1989 (54 FR 29652-29655); and the Lee County Cave isopod in 1992 (57 FR 54722-54726). In addition, we are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the original listing of the following species as threatened: The Knieskern's beaked-rush in 1991 (56 FR 32978 32983); and bog turtle in 1997 (62 FR 59605-59623); as well as the revised listing of the small whorled pogonia as threatened in 1994 (59 FR 50852-50857).

The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data and all new information that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include: (A) Species biology, including but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (B) habitat conditions, including but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability; (C) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species; (D) threat status and trends; and (E) other new information, data, or corrections—including but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the list, and improved analytical methods.

If you wish to provide information for this 5-year review, you may submit your comments and materials to Ms. Mary Parkin (see ADDRESSES section).

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review, by appointment, during regular business hours (see ADDRESSES section). Individual respondents may request that we withhold their name and/or home address, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The Draft CCP/EA was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Copies of the Draft CCP/EA on compact diskette are available upon request from the Refuge Complex at phone number (509) 371-9212. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be reviewed at the Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 3250 Port of Benton Blvd., Richland, WA. The Draft CCP/EA is also available for viewing and downloading on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/midcolumbiariver/. Printed copies will be available for review at the following libraries.

1. Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Drive, Richland, WA.

2. Hermiston Public Library, 235 E. Gladys Avenue, Hermiston, OR.

3. Walla Walla Public Library, 238 E. Alder St., Walla Walla, WA.

4. Umatilla Public Library, 911 7th St., Umatilla, OR.

Habitat management activities proposed in the Draft CCP/EA include improving the conditions of wetland, riparian, mudflat, and shrub-steppe habitats, with emphasis on reducing invasive species; increasing moist soil habitats beneficial for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland associates; evaluating and, where feasible, enhancing backwater habitats for salmonids; and increasing the amount of grain available for ducks on the Refuges' agricultural lands.

Public use management actions proposed in the Draft CCP/EA include expanding and improving trails, signs, and access areas for wildlife observation; improving the quality of upland bird hunting; implementing some minor trades between sanctuary and hunt areas; continuing waterfowl hunting coordination with the States; improving information available to anglers and boaters; expanding the Umatilla Refuge's environmental education program; improving management of horseback riding; eliminating overnight camping at McNary Refuge; and reducing illegal uses.

Umatilla Refuge encompasses 26,888 acres with units along the Columbia River in both Washington and Oregon. McNary Refuge encompasses approximately 15,894 acres located 30 miles upstream of Umatilla Refuge, near Kennewick, Washington. Habitat types found on both Refuges include shrub-steppe uplands, croplands, woody riparian areas, basalt cliffs, emergent marshes, large marshes, and open water areas of the Columbia River. Several islands are also part of each Refuge. Both Refuges provide important migratory and wintering habitat for numerous bird species especially waterfowl.

The purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically-grounded guidance for improving the Refuges' shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and cliff-talus habitats for the long-term conservation of native plants and animals and migratory birds, while providing high quality public use programs for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The Draft CCP/EA identifies appropriate actions to protect and sustain the cultural and biological features of the river islands, the Refuges' wintering waterfowl populations and habitats, the migratory shorebird populations that use the Refuges, and threatened, endangered, or rare species.

The Service identified and evaluated four alternatives for managing the McNary and Umatilla Refuges for the next 15 years, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4). Brief descriptions of the alternatives follow.

Alternative 1: Emphasize Migratory Waterfowl Management and Consumptive Public Uses. Under Alternative 1, the Refuges' management focus would be on providing migratory waterfowl with high quality, easily accessible food during both normal and severe winters. This would be accomplished by increasing both crop production and waterfowl food plants. Secure, adequately-sized resting areas would be provided to ensure the health of overwintering and migrating waterfowl. Consumptive public uses such as hunting and fishing would be emphasized, with improvements to facilities and increased opportunities. A State pheasant augmentation/release program would be discontinued, and camping would be discontinued at Madame Dorion Park. Other public uses would continue at approximately their current levels of service.

Alternative 2: Emphasize Migratory Birds, Special Status Species and Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses. Under Alternative 2, the Service's preferred alternative, the Refuges would focus on managing habitat for all migratory birds, and enhancing populations of targeted special status species and their habitats. Habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, threatened and endangered species, and other native wildlife would be improved. Weed control and reduction, and improving riparian, shrub-steppe, island, and cliff habitats would be emphasized. Wildlife-dependent public uses would also be emphasized, with opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education maintained or improved from present conditions. A State pheasant augmentation/release program would be discontinued and camping at Madame Dorion Park would be discontinued. Disturbance to island resources would be reduced through implementation of a no-wake zone within 100 feet of Refuge islands. Alternative 2 is the Service's preferred alternative because it best achieves the purpose and need for the CCP while maintaining balance among the varied management needs and programs. Alternative 2 addresses issues and relevant mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.

Alternative 3: Emphasize Native Species Diversity and Nonconsumptive Public Uses. Under Alternative 3, the Refuges' management focus would be on mimicking natural processes, to maintain, enhance, and, where possible, increase native fish, wildlife, and plant diversity representative of historical conditions in the Lower Columbia River Basin. Emphasis would be placed on improving existing island, riverine, and shrub-steppe habitats and restoring modified and/or degraded habitats to a more native condition. Fewer acres would be managed in croplands. Habitat management would contribute to the recovery of threatened, endangered, or rare species such as salmon, steelhead, and long-billed curlews. Hunting and fishing opportunities would be available at most current sites except pheasant and fish stocking would be eliminated, and fewer acres would be managed to provide waterfowl food. Opportunities for wildlife-dependent nonconsumptive uses would be improved and expanded. Camping would be discontinued at Madame Dorion Park. All island areas would be closed to public access during summer.

Alternative 4: No Action Alternative. Alternative 4 is the no action alternative as required under NEPA. It provides a baseline from which to compare Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Under Alternative 4, the Refuges would continue to maintain, and, where feasible, restore habitat for waterfowl, migratory birds, and State and Federally-listed species. Existing public uses would continue.

Public comments are requested, considered, and incorporated throughout the planning process. Comments on the Draft CCP/EA would be appreciated by February 23, 2007. A previous notice concerning development of this CCP/EA was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2004. Comments on the Draft CCP/EA will be analyzed by the Service and addressed in final planning documents. All comments received from individuals become part of the official public record and may be released. Requests for such comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, NEPA regulations, and Service and Department of the Interior policies and procedures.

Three Public Open House Meetings will be held to provide people an opportunity to learn more about the alternatives analyzed in the Draft CCP/EA. Public comments will be collected and recorded at the meetings. Meeting dates, times, and locations follow.

1. February 1, 2007, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., Riverfront Center, 2 Marine Drive, Boardman, Oregon.

2. February 6, 2007, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., McNary Environmental Education Center, 311 Lake Road, Burbank, Washington.

3. February 8, 2007, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Red Lion Hotel, 2525 North 20th Ave., Pasco, Washington.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires the Service to develop a CCP for each National Wildlife Refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife, plants and their habitats, the CCP will identify compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public. The recreational opportunities that will receive priority consideration are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The planning process will consider many other elements, including cultural resource protection, environmental effects, and administrative resources. Public input into this planning process is very important. The CCP will provide other agencies and the public with a clear understanding of the desired conditions for the Complex and how the Service will implement management strategies.

Comments received will be used to help develop goals and objectives, as well as identify key issues evaluated in the NEPA document. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be made available to the public. Opportunities for public participation will occur throughout the process.

The Service will send Planning Updates to people who are interested in the CCP process. These mailings will provide information on how to participate in the CCP process. Interested federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals are invited to provide input. The Service expects to complete the CCP in 2008.

The nearly 4,000 acre Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located in Humboldt County, consists of several different units within and adjacent to Humboldt Bay and associated watersheds. Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge is an island of nearly 14 acres in size located approximately eighty miles north of Humboldt Bay and approximately one half mile offshore from Crescent City, California.

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1971 pursuant to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d), the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460 K.4) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f [a][4]). Lands within the Refuge have been set aside for use as an inviolate sanctuary, and other management purposes, for migratory birds, for incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, for the protection of natural resources, for the conservation of endangered species or threatened species and for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The Lanphere Dunes unit of Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge was added to the Refuge Boundary in 1997 for the purpose of conserving fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species, and plants 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).

Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1981 for the purpose of conserving fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species, and plants 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973).

The Service anticipates a draft CCP and EA to be available for public review and comment in 2007.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee et seq .), requires the Service to develop a CCP for each National Wildlife Refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife, plants and their habitats, the CCP will identify compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public. The recreational opportunities that will receive priority consideration are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Klamath Marsh Refuge was established in 1958 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d). The acquisition boundary approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission included 24,418 acres. Between 1958 and 1980, the Service acquired 16,932 acres. In 1988, the Service expanded the acquisition boundary by 28,584 under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)) and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)). Since this expansion, the Service has acquired 24,508 additional acres.

Klamath Marsh Refuge protects a large natural marsh which provides important nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for waterfowl. The surrounding meadowlands are attractive nesting and feeding areas for sandhill crane, yellow rail, and various shorebirds and raptors. The adjacent pine forests also support diverse wildlife including great gray owl and Rocky Mountain elk. Currently, visitor services are limited to wildlife observation and interpretation along established roads, canoeing during the summer in Wocus Bay, and waterfowl hunting in the southern half of the Refuge during the fall.

Comments and concerns received during this scoping process will be used to help identify key issues, develop goals, establish habitat management and public use strategies, and draft management alternatives. Additional opportunities for public participation will occur throughout the planning process, and details about these opportunities will be provided in special mailings, newspaper articles, and other announcements. Involvement and input from interested Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal governments, organizations, and individuals is encouraged. We expect to have the draft CCP/EA completed and made available for public review in the spring of 2008 and the CCP process completed in late 2008.

On November 1, 2006, a Federal Register notice was published (Volume 71, Number 211, pages 64290-64291) providing the public 60 days to comment on this information collection. No responses were received.

The public now has a second chance to comment on this information collection. Specific public comments are requested as to:

1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. The accuracy of the bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

3. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.

Title: Annual National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Announcement.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0051.

Abstract: Respondents submit proposals to support research in earthquake hazard assessments and earthquake occurrence. This information will be used as the basis for selection and award of projects meeting the program objectives. Final reports of research findings are required for each funded proposal.

Bureau form number: None.

Frequency: Annual proposals, final reports.

Description of respondents and grant recipients: Educational institutions and profit and non-profit organizations.

Annual applicants: 250.

Annual grants awarded: 120

Annual Burden hours for applicants and final reports for grantees: 12,300 hours.

Bureau clearance officer: Fred Travnicek, 703-648-7231.

Title: Mine, Development, and Mineral Exploration Supplement.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0060.

Form Number: 9-4000-A.

Abstract: Respondents supply the U.S. Geological Survey with domestic production, exploration, and mine development data on nonfuel mineral commodities. This information will be published as an Annual Report for use by Government agencies, industry, education programs, and the general public. Response are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked.

Frequency: Annual.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 617 nonfuel mineral producers and exploration operations industry.

Annual burden hours: 463.

Estimated Reporting and Reocordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have not identified any “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq .) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq .) 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, on August 29, 2006, we published a Federal Register notice (71 FR 51208 (announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. We have received no comments on the notice.

Bureau clearance officer: Alfred Travnicek, 703-648-7231.

This collection of information is authorized under Public Law 103-177, the “American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act,” as amended. Tribes, tribal organizations, individual Indians, and those entering into permits with tribes or individual Indians submit information required by the regulation. The information is used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to determine:

(a) Whether or not a permit for grazing may be approved or granted;

(b) The value of each permit;

(c) The appropriate compensation to landowners; and

(d) Provisions for violations of permit and trespass.

A request for comments on this information collection request appeared in the Federal Register on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63345). No comments were received.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs requests you to send your comments on this collection to the locations listed in the ADDRESSES section. Your comments should address:

(a) The necessity of this information collection 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 (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.

OMB has up to 60 days to make a decision on the submission for renewal, but may make the decision after 30 days. Therefore, to receive the best consideration of your comments, you should submit them closer to 30 days than 60 days.

OMB Approval Number: 1076-0162.

Title: Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Regulations Permits, 25 CFR Part 161.

Brief description of collection: Information is collected for the Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing program from respondents who supply all necessary information needed to approve use of the lands, such as a grazing permit which includes: name, address, range unit requested, number of livestock, season of use, livestock owner's brand, kind of livestock, mortgage holder information, ownership of livestock, and requested term of use.

Type of review: Renewal.

Respondents: Possible respondents include: individual tribal members, individual non-Indians, individual tribal member-owned business, non-Indian owned businesses, tribal governments and land owners. Response is mandatory for respondents who wish to obtain a grazing permit.

Number of Respondents: 700.

Estimated Time per Response: 23 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Annually and as needed.

Total Annual Responses: 3,200.

Total Annual Hourly Burden to Respondents: 1,227 hours.

The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting, agenda topics include a proposal for RAC involvement in developing recreation area business plans, a report on Redding Field Office interest in acquiring Pacific Gas and Electric lands, management issues at the Stornetta Public Lands on the Mendocino Coast, and development of a new management plan for public lands on Cow Mountain in Lake and Mendocino counties. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they must provide their own transportation and lunch. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

Under the authority of 43 CFR part 1784, the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board advises the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the BLM, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the Forest Service, on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. The tentative agenda for the meeting is:

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability needing an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting, such as an interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format, must notify the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although the BLM will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange it.

The Federal Advisory Committee Management Regulations [41 CFR 101-6.1015(b),] require BLM to publish in the Federal Register notice of a meeting 15 days prior to the meeting date.

Members of the public may make oral statements to the Advisory Board on February 26, 2007 at the appropriate point in the agenda. This opportunity is anticipated to occur at 3 p.m., local time. Persons wishing to make statements should register with the BLM by noon on February 26, 2007 at the meeting location. Depending on the number of speakers, the Advisory Board may limit the length of presentations. At previous meetings, presentations have been limited to three minutes in length. Speakers should address the specific wild horse and burro-related topics listed on the agenda. Speakers must submit a written copy of their statement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section or bring a written copy to the meeting.

Participation in the Advisory Board meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. The BLM invites written comments from all interested parties. Your written comments should be specific and explain the reason for any recommendation. The BLM appreciates any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on management and protection of wild horses and burros are those that are either supported by quantitative information or studies or those that include citations to and analysis of applicable laws and regulations. Except for comments provided in electronic format, speakers should submit two copies of their written comments where feasible. The BLM will not necessarily consider comments received after the time indicated under the DATES section or at locations other than that listed in the ADDRESSES section.

In the event there is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a copy of your comments, the BLM will make them available in their entirety, including your name and address. However, if you do not want the BLM to release your name and address in response to a FOIA request, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The BLM will honor your request to the extent allowed by law. The BLM will release all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, in their entirety, including names and addresses.

Speakers may transmit comments electronically via the Internet to: Ramona_DeLorme@blm.gov . Please include the identifier “WH&B” in the subject of your message and your name and address in the body of your message.

Title: 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0067.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq., requires the Secretary of the Interior to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environment; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on OCS resources; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332) requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.” This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). To carry out these responsibilities, MMS issues regulations governing oil and gas and sulphur operations in the OCS. This information collection request (ICR) addresses 30 CFR part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTL) intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations.

Regulations at 30 CFR part 250 implement these statutory requirements. The MMS District Managers analyze and evaluate the information and data collected under Subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel safety and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, MMS uses the information to ensure: (a) Compliance with personnel safety training requirements; (b) crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents; (c) proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources; (d) well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and (e) sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits.

We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency: On occasion, weekly, monthly, annually, and varies by section.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS lessees and operators.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 11,995 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

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

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) 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.

Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

Public Comment Procedures: MMS's practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor this request to the extent allowable by law; however, anonymous comments will not be considered. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

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

Title: 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart P, Sulphur Operations.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0086.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations “to provide for the prevention of waste, and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and to include provisions “for the prompt and efficient exploration and development of a lease area.” These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protection of the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases. This information collection request addresses the regulations at 30 CFR Part 250, subpart P, Sulphur Operations, and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations.

Regulations at 30 CFR part 250 implement these statutory requirements. MMS uses the information collected to ascertain the condition of drilling sites for the purpose of preventing hazards inherent in drilling and production operations and to evaluate the adequacy of equipment and/or procedures to be used during the conduct of drilling, well-completion, well-workover, and production operations. For example, MMS uses the information to:

• Ascertain that a discovered sulphur deposit can be classified as capable of production in paying quantities.

• Ensure accurate and complete measurement of production to determine the amount of sulphur royalty payments due the United States; and that the sale locations are secure, production has been measured accurately, and appropriate follow-up actions are initiated.

• Ensure that the drilling unit is fit for the intended purpose.

• Review expected oceanographic and meteorological conditions to ensure the integrity of the drilling unit (this information is submitted only if it is not otherwise available).

• Review hazard survey data to ensure that the lessee will not encounter geological conditions that present a hazard to operations.

• Ensure the adequacy and safety of firefighting plans.

• Ensure the adequacy of casing for anticipated conditions.

• Review log entries of crew meetings to verify that crew members are properly trained.

• Review drilling, well-completion, and well-workover diagrams and procedures to ensure the safety of the proposed drilling, well-completion, and well-workover operations.

• Review production operation procedures to ensure the safety of the proposed production operations.

• Monitor environmental data during operations in offshore areas where such data are not already available to provide a valuable source of information to evaluate the performance of drilling rigs under various weather and ocean conditions. This information is necessary to make reasonable determinations regarding safety of operations and environmental protection.

We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency: Varies by section, but information concerning drilling, well-completion, and well-workover operations and production is collected only once for each particular activity.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 1 Federal OCS sulphur lessee.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 903 hours. The following chart details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

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

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) 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.

Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

Public Comment Procedures: MMS's practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor this request to the extent allowable by law; however, anonymous comments will not be considered. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

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

Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR Part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in: (a) A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or, (b) An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering granting a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B Criterion XVII, for the Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 (Millstone Unit 1) as requested by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut (DNC or the Licensee) on June 8, 2006. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was performed by the NRC staff in support of its review of the exemption request.

Millstone Unit 1 was a single-cycle, boiling water reactor with a Mark I containment which was designed, furnished and constructed by General Electric Company as the prime contractor for the licensee. The General Electric Company engaged Ebasco Services Incorporated as the architect-engineer. Millstone Unit 1 had a reactor thermal output of 2011 megawatts and a net electrical output of 652.1 megawatts. The Millstone site is located in the town of Waterford, New London County, Connecticut, on the north shore of Long Island Sound.

Construction of Millstone Unit 1 was authorized by a provisional construction permit CPPR-20, on May 19, 1966, in AEC Docket 50-245. Millstone Unit 1 was completed and ready for fuel loading during October 1970. The plant went into commercial operation on December 28, 1970. On July 21, 1998, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), the licensee certified to the NRC that, as of July 17, 1998, Millstone Unit No. 1 had permanently ceased operations and that fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. The issuance of this certification fundamentally changed the licensing basis of Millstone Unit 1 in that the NRC issued 10 CFR part 50 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel.

Safety related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and SSCs important to safety remaining at Millstone Unit 1 are associated with the spent fuel pool island where the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel is stored. Other than non-essential systems supporting the balance of plant facilities, the remaining plant equipment has been de-energized, disabled and abandoned in place or removed from the unit and can no longer be used for power generation.

This EA has been developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.

DNC is requesting an exemption from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires certain records be maintained until “termination of a license issued pursuant to” Part 50; (2) 10 CFR 50.71(c) which requires that records required by the regulations, by license condition, or by technical specifications must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification or if a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license; (3) 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A Criterion 1, which requires certain records be retained “throughout the life of the unit”; and (4) 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVll, which requires certain records be retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration established by the licensee.

DNC proposes to eliminate record retention requirements for Millstone Unit 1 SSCs associated with safe power generation that have been de-energized, disabled, and abandoned in place or removed from the unit. DNC is not requesting an exemption associated with record keeping requirements for storage of spent fuel in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool or for systems required to support the safe storage of spent fuel.

The requested exemption and application of the exemption will eliminate the requirement to maintain records that are no longer necessary due to the permanently shutdown status of the facility and thereby reduce the financial burden on ratepayers associated with the storage of a large volume of records.

The proposed action is purely administrative in nature and will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site and there is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents, and it has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the environment.

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Under this alternative DNC would continue to store the records in question until license termination which would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

None.

Based on this review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 8, 2006, (ADAMS Accession No. ML061590490). The NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov .

This overview of the Early Identification and Intervention Demonstration project is included to allow potential applicants to quickly learn the contents of this announcement, and to decide whether they are eligible to apply for the funding opportunity described. It follows the outline of the full text of the three sections of the announcement.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is making cooperative agreement funding available to support a project that will design and implement effective, replicable, and sustainable models which will increase the number of children (birth to age 5) who receive developmental screening and improve the early identification of children with developmental delays and/or disabilities.

This cooperative agreement will target children from birth to age 5 from the following populations: minority, unserved, underserved, native populations, homeless, premature infants, parental depression or serious emotional disturbance, foster care, low-income, inner city, rural, children affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, and children involved in a substantiated case of child abuse. Applicants should show how they intend to assure that participants from diverse populations are served by the project. Applicants must specify the geographic area to be covered by the project.

Awardees of cooperative agreement funding must design and implement a model system of early identification and intervention which increases developmental screening of children birth to age 5. Awardees must screen children from at least three of the target populations identified. The awardees and SSA will identify an agreed upon minimum set of screening instruments that can be supplemented depending on the needs of each child, which will be utilized in the project. If the screening reveals that a child has a potential disability or developmental delay, awardees will be required to provide appropriate assessment or refer the child for appropriate assessment. If an assessment reveals a disability or developmental delay, the awardees must provide appropriate early intervention services or refer the child for appropriate early intervention services. Awardees will also be required to provide transportation assistance through a case coordinator, have or develop relationships with providers of screening, assessment, and early intervention services and provide information to families regarding ombudsman or consumer advocacy services.

Awardees will be required to submit monthly data on participants enrolled in the project. SSA will monitor the outcomes of the project. SSA is particularly interested in ensuring that everything possible is done to ensure that children with developmental delays, children with disabilities and children at risk are identified as early as possible and receive whatever early intervention services they need to achieve their highest potential.

SSA intends to fund two projects for up to 2 years subject to the availability of annual appropriations by Congress. SSA will fund project activities in year one and conduct data reporting activities in year two. SSA will award up to two cooperative agreements at up to $300,000 for the 2-year life of each cooperative agreement funded. These projects are authorized by section 1110 of the Act, and will be funded with cooperative agreements, which anticipate substantial involvement of the government in project design and operation.

Public and private organizations, including educational, nonprofit, profit-making, and faith-based organizations, may apply for cooperative agreement funding made available under this announcement. SSA favors applicants that can demonstrate experience with the full range of needs of children and families to facilitate the provision of needed services and supports beyond developmental screening. The Organization that is awarded funding must: have existing expertise in developmental screening and assessment or demonstrate an ability to refer children for screening, full assessment, and early intervention services; and assist participants to follow through with recommended assessments and early intervention services. The Organization that is awarded funding must be able to provide culturally competent services that are fully accessible to the target populations, including individuals who require accommodations.

Cooperative agreements may not be awarded to: any individual; Social Security Administration Field Offices (FO); State DDS offices; or any organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1968 that engages in lobbying (in accordance with section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1611).

All applications developed jointly by more than one agency or organization must identify only one organization as the lead organization and official applicant. The other participating agencies and organizations can be included as co-applicants, sub-grantees, or subcontractors. All applicants for Federal grants and cooperative agreements are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number. The DUNS number will be required whether an applicant is submitting a paper application or using the government wide electronic portal (www.grants.gov). Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps needed to obtain one as soon as possible. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711.

Federal cooperative agreement funds are not to be used to cover costs that are reimbursable under an existing public or private program. Awardees of SSA cooperative agreements are required to contribute a non-Federal match of at least 5 percent toward the cost of each project. The cost of the project is the sum of the Federal share (up to 95 percent) and the non-Federal share (at least 5 percent).

The Federal government has recognized the importance and value of early intervention for children with disabilities. In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) Congress found, among other things, an urgent and substantial need:

1. To enhance the development of infants and toddlers with disabilities, to minimize their potential for developmental delay, and to recognize the significant brain development that occurs during a child's first 3 years of life;

2. To reduce the educational costs to our society, including our nation's schools, by minimizing the need for special education and related services after infants and toddlers with disabilities reach school age;

3. To maximize the potential for individuals with disabilities to live independently in society; and

4. To enhance the capacity of families to meet the special needs of their infants and toddlers with disabilities.

Part C of IDEA provides financial assistance to States to, among other things, develop and implement statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency systems that provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

IDEA defines an infant or toddler with a disability as an individual under age 3 who needs early intervention services because the individual is experiencing developmental delays, as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in one or more of the areas of cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional development, and adaptive development; or has a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay and may also include, at a State's discretion, at-risk infants and toddlers. The term also includes children with disabilities who are eligible for services under section 619 and who previously received services under this part until such children enter or are eligible under State law to enter, kindergarten or elementary school, as appropriate.

An at-risk infant or toddler is defined as an individual under age 3 who would be at risk of experiencing a substantial developmental delay if early intervention services were not provided.

Early intervention services are defined in Public Law 108-446 as developmental services that are provided under pubic supervision; are provided at no cost except where Federal or State law provides for a system of payments by families, including a schedule of sliding fees; and are designed to meet the developmental needs of an infant or toddler with a disability, in one or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development.

Early intervention services include: family training, counseling, and home visits; special instruction; speech-language pathology and audiologist services, sign language and cued language services; occupational therapy; physical therapy; psychological services; coordination services; medical services only for diagnostic or evaluation purposes; early identification, screening, and assessment services; health services necessary to enable the infant or toddler to benefit from the other early intervention services; social work services; vision services; assistive technology devices and assistive technology services; and transportation and related costs that are necessary to enable the child or the child's family to receive another early intervention service. Services are to be provided by qualified personnel and to the maximum extent appropriate provided in natural environments, including the home, and community settings in which children without disabilities participate, and provided according to the individualized family service plan.

Part B of the IDEA also provides grants to assist States in providing special education and related services to children with disabilities age 3 through 5.

Developmental screening is a procedure designed to identify children who should receive more intensive assessment or diagnosis, for potential developmental delays and is critical to increasing the opportunity of more children to benefit from early intervention.

Many children with developmental delays are not being identified early. In the U.S., 17 percent of children have a developmental or behavioral disability such as autism, mental retardation, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Moreover, many children have delays in language and other areas of development which impact school readiness. Yet, less than 50 percent of these children are identified as having a problem before starting school, by which time significant delays in development may already have occurred and opportunities for treatment missed. 1

Many developmental screening tools are available. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

SSA has a strong interest in ensuring that everything possible is done to ensure children with developmental delays, children with disabilities, and children at risk are identified as early as possible and receive whatever early intervention services they need to achieve their highest potential. In October 2006, 1,084,000 children were receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments due to disability, representing 14.9 percent of the more than 7 million SSI beneficiaries. 3 That same month there were 1,635,000 childhood disability beneficiaries who received Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits based upon the account of a parent (who receives benefits due to disability or retirement, or who is deceased). 4 In December 2005, more than 1,036,000 children with disabilities were receiving SSI payments. 5 Fifteen percent of these children were younger than five years old. The remaining 85 percent were fairly evenly distributed by age. 6 More than 66 percent had a mental disorder, and the largest proportion of this group (20 percent) had mental retardation. 7 Many children receiving SSI/SSDI benefits stay on the benefit rolls for life. In December 2005, the SSI rolls also included almost 681,000 adult recipients who first became eligible for SSI payments before age 18, 22 percent of whom first became eligible during the 1974-1980 period, indicating that they have been receiving SSI for much of their lives. 8 The earlier interventions are provided to address their needs, the more likelihood there is of better outcomes and less dependence on Federal support.

In 2001, nearly 250,000 children were identified as being at risk or having a developmental delay or disability before 36 months of age and were enrolled in Part C Early Intervention programs nationwide.

The National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS)  9 is the first study of Part C of the IDEA EI system with a nationally representative sample of infants and toddlers with disabilities. According to NEILS  10 the variability in children in the EI system is marked by high proportions of children from low-income families, ethnic minorities, those in foster care, and males. Nearly one-third (32 percent) are low birth weight, four times the rate in the general population. Infants and toddlers in EI are eight times more likely to be rated as having fair or poor general health. Children enter at all ages across the first 3 years of life, but those eligible because of developmental delays enter as toddlers, in comparison with those eligible because of diagnosed conditions or subject to biological or environmental risk factors, who tend to enter in the first year of life. The variability of the infants and toddlers in EI indicates that there is no typical child in EI.

The research and data to date show that the reasons for a child's eligibility for services and the child's age at entry are significantly related. In general, infants and toddlers with diagnosed medical conditions, and those subject to environmental and biomedical factors, are at risk for developmental delays. In most cases, eligibility related to developmental delay requires that a child be old enough to show a notable discrepancy between development and age-expected skill mastery.

SSA administers two programs that provide cash benefits for individuals with disabilities: SSDI and SSI.

SSDI Benefits . SSDI benefits are based on worker contributions to the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. There are two types of SSDI benefits: disability and dependents of those with disabilities. Individuals may be eligible for benefits based on their own contributions to the DI Trust Fund, or based on contributions of a family member. The amount of the benefit is based on the amount of the insured worker's contributions.

Individuals who receive SSDI benefits are eligible for Medicare after a 24-month entitlement period. Coverage under Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) is automatic. Beneficiaries must pay a premium to be covered by Part B, which pays for outpatient services, as well as certain medical supplies. Some beneficiaries may qualify for the State Medicaid program to pay their Medicare Part B premium.

SSI . The SSI program is financed from general federal revenue and provides monthly benefit payments to the elderly, blind, and individuals with disabilities who have limited resources and income. The maximum Federal benefit rate (FBR) is adjusted annually. Effective January 1, 2006, the Federal benefit rate is $603 for an individual and $904 for a couple. In addition, many States supplement the FBR. The supplementary benefit amounts and the categories of individuals eligible for these benefits vary from State to State. In most States, SSI beneficiaries are eligible for Medicaid; however, in a few States, individuals must file a separate application for Medicaid.

An individual or couple may have earned or unearned income and still may be eligible for the SSI program. Under numerous provisions, a certain amount of income is excluded in determining eligibility and computing the SSI benefit amount. People who live in a State that supplements the Federal payment may have higher amounts of income and still may qualify for some benefits.

Concurrent Eligibility . Some individuals may be eligible for benefits under both SSDI and the SSI program. Many individuals who receive SSDI benefits, who also have low incomes and limited assets, may qualify for Medicaid, or may qualify for their State Medicaid program to pay their Medicare premiums.

Disability Benefits . In December 2005, about 7.5 million people received Social Security disability benefits as disabled workers, disabled widow(er)s, or disabled adult children. As of December 2005, the number of SSI recipients was 7.1 million. Of this total, 4.1 million were between the ages of 18 and 64, 2 million were aged 65 and older, and 1 million were under age 18.

The Act establishes a stringent eligibility standard for benefits that applies to both SSDI/SSI claims. For individuals aged 18 or older, disability is defined as an inability to “engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) which can be expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” SGA refers to earnings from work. The amount of earnings that constitutes SGA is increased annually. In 2006, the SGA amount was $860 per month for individuals with a disability. The SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals for 2006 was $1,450 per month.

Individuals under age 18 may qualify for SSI benefits based on disability. To be eligible, a child must have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that causes marked and severe functional limitations. The impairment(s) must last or be expected to last 12 months or more, or to result in death. A child may not be considered eligible if he or she has earnings considered to be SGA.

SSA works cooperatively with the States, who are responsible for making eligibility determinations through their Disability Determination Services (DDS) offices. SSA takes a detailed medical history from the claimant during the initial interview and sends that information to the DDS. The DDS then secures medical records and, if needed, schedules additional examinations, called consultative examinations (CE). Based upon this evidence and in combination with other evidence, such as vocational factors (age, education, and work history) a disability or blindness determination is made.

The goal of this cooperative agreement will be to design and implement effective, replicable, and sustainable models which will increase the number of children with disabilities who receive developmental screening; improve the early identification of children with developmental delays and/or disabilities; and increase the self sufficiency of these children. This cooperative agreement will target children from birth to age 5.

The core objective of the project is to screen children (from birth to age 5), in the following general categories: Minority; unserved, underserved, native populations, homeless, premature infants, parental depression or serious emotional disturbance, foster care, low-income, inner city, rural, children affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure; and children involved in substantiated cases of child abuse. In collecting data on race and ethnicity, the study will follow the Provisional Guidance on the Implementation of the 1997 Standards for the Collection of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity .

SSA is interested in learning the degree to which increased provision of screening, early identification, and early intervention services to children improves developmental outcomes including: Quality of life (full integration and inclusion in the community), educational outcomes, independence, employment, and overall self sufficiency. Improved developmental outcomes can be evaluated by tracking services received, educational placement, and special education services after initial screening and services.

The Early Identification and Intervention Demonstration project will help SSA demonstrate the feasibility of special approaches to increasing the screening, early identification, and early intervention services and supports to children and determine how these services improve developmental outcomes. While SSA expects the grantee to make referrals and assist the screened children and their families in obtaining appropriate early intervention services, the focus of the cooperative agreement project is to increase the number of children (birth to age 5) who are screened for developmental delays and/or disabilities from the target populations identified.

The awardees must use cooperative agreement funds to address the goals and objectives described in Section I. D. To that end, SSA is interested in applications from public and private organizations, including educational, nonprofit, profit-making, and faith-based organizations.

SSA favors applicants that can demonstrate experience with the full range of needs of children and families to facilitate the provision of needed services and supports beyond developmental screening. SSA will allow latitude in developing and implementing effective models of early identification and intervention; however, there are standard features that SSA would like to test. Applicants may choose to add other features to make the demonstrations more effective and several examples are given in this regard.

The awardees who receive funds under this announcement must design and implement models of early identification and intervention. Specifically, the awardee must:

Screening

• Design a model system which increases the developmental screening of children birth to age 5, and uses quality screening tools as agreed upon with SSA.

• Screen for cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional development, and adaptive development and be culturally sensitive and linguistically appropriate. Screening must be done by a qualified professional who has been trained in the specific screening instruments that are being used and is credentialed in their State to do such a screening.

• Screen each child participating. If a child is screened and no potential disability is identified, the child shall have follow-up screening as necessary, but at least annually, through the duration of the project. After the final screening, a copy of the child's screening record shall be given to his/her family with any recommendation for future screening and referrals if appropriate.

• Screen children from at least three of the target populations identified;

• If a screening reveals that a child has a potential disability or developmental delay, provide an appropriate assessment or refer the child for an appropriate assessment.

Assessments

• If an assessment reveals a disability or developmental delay, provide appropriate early intervention services and support or refer the child for appropriate early intervention services and supports;

Support Services

• Provide transportation assistance via case coordinator. Assist with follow-through for assessments, appointments, and other actions necessary to obtain needed information and/or services and supports.

• Have a collaborative relationship with providers of screening, assessment, and early intervention services or develop such relationships in order to provide those screened with follow-ups.

• Provide information regarding ombudsman or consumer advocacy services at the beginning of a family's participation in the project for assistance with any future problems which may arise in connection with the project.

The awardee shall design a model system which increases the developmental screening of children (birth to age 5) and includes a quality screening tool(s). The awardee and SSA will identify an agreed upon minimum set of screening instruments that can be supplemented depending on the needs of each child, which will be utilized in the project. The screening instruments must be normed. If they are not normed, SSA and the awardee will develop and agree upon a method for comparing the project results to national screening data. The awardee will also be required to submit all screening instruments and assessment tools through OMB clearance. The awardee must make all data collected in the projects available to SSA.

The information obtained will be used to assist SSA in identifying possible changes in policies or procedures that could enhance service to the public or otherwise improve administration of either disability program. The reports will be disseminated to others involved in providing community-based services and early identification and intervention services to children with developmental delays and/or other disabilities and their families.

The cooperative agreement shall collect information discussed in paragraph G.1., which will help to answer questions including, but not limited to:

• How many children are screened?

• What is the frequency with which each screening instrument is used, and the relevant characteristics of the children being screened with the instrument (e.g., age, gender, target population, and other agreed upon information.)?

• How many children are referred for assessments based upon positive screening results, and the relevant characteristics of these children (e.g., age, gender, target population, and other agreed upon information)?

• How many children assessed are subsequently identified as having a developmental delay or disability?

• What delays or disabilities are identified and what are the relevant characteristics of these children (e.g., age, gender, target population, and other agreed upon information)?

• What early intervention services and supports are the children identified as having a developmental delay or disability referred for?

• How may children referred for early intervention services and supports successfully receive services upon referral?

• How many children screened are currently receiving SSI and/or SSDI benefits;

• The number of parents who are currently receiving SSI and/or SSDI benefits;

• Of the children identified as having a developmental delay or disability, how many subsequently apply for and are determined eligible for SSDI and/or/SSI benefits?

• Of the children identified as having a developmental delay or disability, how many subsequently receive services under IDEA?

The awardee is required to enroll and screen at least 50 children (birth to age 5), in each of the target populations selected to be screened. SSA encourages the grantee to serve large numbers of individuals to improve data collection. The goal is to serve children who are in the target populations described in paragraph D. above.

Grantees will submit a monthly project enrollees list by no later than the 15th of each month. This will be sent over a secure message server to SSA.

The initial list should contain all currently enrolled participants. Thereafter, monthly updates should list only participants newly enrolled or disenrolled during the previous calendar month.

All data elements are to be reported using precise definitions, which will be developed by SSA based upon the needs discussed above, as well as program data needed to monitor the program. Adherence to such definitions is crucial to the comparability of the data to national norms. The awardee must report these elements on the monthly “project enrollees list.” Specific instructions will be available at the time that the project begins enrollment. The data elements below will be provided to the grantees in a template format.

• Enrolled child's name, date of birth, and Social Security number (report only at time of enrollment);

• Percentages/numbers in each target population screened;

• Percentages/numbers identified for services using a screening tool;

• Primary/secondary disabilities identified;

• Percentages/numbers of families that complete an Individual Family Services Plan;

• Percentages/numbers of families that do not complete an Individual Family Services Plan and the reasons identified;

• Percentages/numbers identified that do not follow up at a local SSA field office and the reasons identified;

• SSA disability determination time;

• Percentages/number that follow up with collaborative referral sources;

• Referral number that enter Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) services/programs, levels of ECSE used; and

• Referral sources utilized; e.g. , housing, medical, educational, etc.

Each grant recipient employee or subcontractor employee who will work on this cooperative agreement and will have access to Personally Identifiable Information of clients serviced by this project will have to complete Personnel Suitability Determination forms and be cleared through SSA prior to your organization collecting Personally Identifiable Information while working on this cooperative agreement. Those organizations awarded under this cooperative agreement will receive the necessary Personnel Suitability Determination forms as a part of any issued Notice of Award.

Definition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). PII is defined as information that can be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual. In short, any information that can be used to search for or identify individuals, or can be used to access their files, is PII. Examples of PII may include: name, Social Security Number, Social Security benefit data, date of birth, official State or Government issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration number, Government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, home address and medical information.

All personal information collected by grantees is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. All projects must adhere to SSA's Privacy and Confidentiality Regulations (20 CFR Part 401) for maintaining records of individuals, as well as provide specific safeguards surrounding participant information sharing paper/computer records data, and other issues potentially arising from a team approach to Early Identification Services. At a minimum, all paper records must be kept in locked file cabinets or desk drawers and all computer records must be secure password-protected files. All applications must describe proposed practices for addressing clients' privacy and obtaining informed consent for any disclosure. The plan described in the applicant's project description must address the following elements:

• The development and use of a consent form that will allow the grantee to disclose clients' personal information to SSA. SSA will provide a suggested format for the consent form, which may either be adopted by the grantee, or tailored to include any State or agency-level requirements. Applicants selected under this announcement must provide SSA with a copy of the consent form. The Project Officer must approve this consent form prior to the enrollment of any project participants.

• The use of Form SSA-827, Authorization to Disclose Information to the Social Security Administration. This form is required as written authorization from a claimant for SSA to obtain information required for processing an application for disability benefits.

• The use of Form SSA-3288, Social Security Administration's Consent for Release of Information. This form will allow SSA to give information concerning the client to the grantee and to the evaluation contractor.