Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-05-03 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

39,311 words·~179 min read·/register/2006/05/03/06-4151

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307; FRL-8068-3] Inert Ingredients; Proposal to Revoke 2 Pesticide Tolerance Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 2 inert ingredient exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance because these substances are no longer contained in active Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide product registrations.
These ingredients are subject to reassessment by August 2006 under section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Upon the issuance of the final rule revoking the tolerance exemptions, the 2 tolerance exemptions will be counted as “reassessed” for purposes of FFDCA's section 408(q). DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The telephone number for the Docket Facility is
(703)305-5805. • **Important Note:** OPP will be moving to a new location the first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday, May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any deliveries at the Crystal Mall #2 address and this facility will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number and hours of operation will remain the same after the move. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at the location identified under “Delivery” and “Important Note.” The hours of operation for the Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Docket Facility is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)306-0404; e-mail address: *angulo.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background and Statutory Findings EPA is proposing to revoke 2 inert ingredient exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance because these substances are no longer contained in currently registered pesticide products requiring reassessment under section 408(q) of FFDCA. It is EPA's general practice to revoke tolerances and tolerance exemptions for pesticide chemical residues (which includes both active and inert ingredients) for which there are no associated active registered uses under FIFRA, or for which there are no registered products to which the tolerance or tolerance exemption applies, or for tolerances or tolerance exemptions that have been superseded, unless a person commenting on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic commodities. The 2 inert ingredient tolerance exemptions subject to this proposal are under 40 CFR 180.920 and are “Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether” and “Methylene blue”, the later of which is restricted to use as a dye for formulations used on cotton. EPA is proposing that the revocation of the 2 tolerance exemptions will become effective on the date of the final rule's publication in the **Federal Register** . For counting purposes, and based on this proposed action, 2 exemptions would be counted as reassessments toward the August 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. A. What Can I Do if I Wish to Maintain an Exemption that the Agency is Proposing to Revoke? EPA's records show that the inert ingredients subject to this notice are not contained in any currently registered pesticide products with uses that would require tolerances or tolerance exemptions under section 408 of FFDCA. Parties who believe that EPA's records are incorrect and that one or more of these ingredients are indeed contained in a currently registered pesticide product are encouraged to submit documentation to EPA in the form of the currently registered pesticide product's accepted Confidential Statement of Formula. Parties who know of a pending registration action for a product that contains an inert ingredient subject to this notice may submit documentation to EPA in the form of a copy of the Agency's letter confirming the receipt of an application for registration or registration amendment for such product. In addition, parties who are currently in the process of developing a pesticide product containing an inert ingredient subject to this notice may submit to EPA a letter asserting their intention to apply for a FIFRA section 3 registration of said product within 2 years. This letter must include documentation of the inclusion of the inert ingredient in the proposed pesticide product, such as a description of the formulation's ingredients, and must confirm their intention to submit an application for registration or registration amendment within 2 years from the publication date of this Proposed Rule. EPA is aware that inert ingredients are also contained in pesticide adjuvant products which are not subject to registration under FIFRA. The Agency does not keep records of currently used adjuvants or their ingredients, therefore, it has been unable to conclusively confirm the use of adjuvants containing one of these inert ingredients. Parties who know of currently used adjuvant products that contain an inert ingredient subject to this proposal are encouraged to submit documentation to EPA in the form of the adjuvant product's current label and/or documentation of the registration of the adjuvant product with a State adjuvant registration program. Also, inert ingredient tolerance exemptions will be retained if the tolerances or exemptions (which EPA refers to as “import'' tolerances) are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such residues. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerance exemptions to identify those exemptions that are needed to cover imported commodities. EPA will retain an inert ingredient tolerance exemption if the documentation described above is submitted to EPA by the end of the comment period as specified under DATES in this document, and the Agency can verify the existence of a currently registered pesticide product, a registration action pending at EPA, an import tolerance, or a currently used adjuvant product that contains the ingredient in question. Parties interested in the retention of any of the tolerance exemptions subject to this notice should be aware that because these ingredients are currently subject to reassessment under section 408(q) of FFDCA, additional data may be needed to support retention of the exemption. Reassessment activities for such ingredients must be completed by August 2006. If the Agency is unable to determine that the exemptions for these ingredients meet the FFDCA standard for reassessment, the Agency will revoke the exemptions. B. When Do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing that revocation of these tolerance exemptions become effective on the day the final rule revoking these tolerance exemptions is published in the **Federal Register** . If you have comments regarding whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under Unit I.B. Similarly, if you have comments regarding these tolerance exemption revocations or the effective date of the revocations, please submit comments as described under Unit I.B. Any commodities treated with the pesticide products containing an inert ingredient subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(i)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticide chemicals in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)that: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific tolerance exemptions established under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its available data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes that there is a reasonable international supply of food not treated with pesticides containing the ingredients proposed for revocation in this notice. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 27, 2006. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. § 180.920 [Amended] 2. Section 180.920 is amended by removing from the table the entries for: i. Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether; and ii. Methylene blue [FR Doc. E6-6671 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 03-122; DA 06-927] Unlicensed Devices in the 5 GHz Band AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document seeks to refresh the record on issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the *Report and Order* in this proceeding. The petitions sought reconsideration and clarification, in part, of the equipment authorization requirements for Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices employing dynamic frequency selection (DFS). We seek additional comment on the DFS issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration and, in particular, how these issues are addressed by the Project Team's revised compliance and measurement procedures and the Commission's rules. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 15, 2006, and reply comments must be filed on or before May 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shameeka Hunt, Office of Engineering and Technology,
(202)418-2062, e-mail: *Shameek.Hunt@fcc.gov,* TTY
(202)418-2989. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 03-122, DA No. 06-927, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket number(s) in the subject line of the message. • Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper, disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office. Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.] • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Public Notice,* ET Docket No. 03-122, DA No. 06-927, released April 26, 2006. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: *http://www.fcc.gov.* Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121 (1998). • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Summary of Public Notice 1. The Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET)seeks to refresh the record on issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the *Report and Order,* 69 FR 2677, January 20, 2004, in this proceeding. The petitions sought reconsideration and clarification, in part, of the equipment authorization requirements for Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices employing dynamic frequency selection (DFS). The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee-Radiocommunication (ITAC-R) Government/Industry Project Team (Project Team) recently reached consensus on revised compliance and measurement procedures for DFS, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA)has presented these recommendations to the Commission. NTIA notes that the revised procedures represent the Federal Government's requirements for compliance measurement procedures for U-NII devices employing DFS and include modified definitions, new response requirements, and reporting requirements compared to previous versions of the procedures. 2. On November 12, 2003, the Commission adopted a *Report and Order,* in this proceeding, which amended part 15 of the rules to make an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum available in the 5.470-5.725 GHz band for U-NII devices, including Radio Local Area Networks (RLANs). In addition to making more spectrum available for use by U-NII devices, the Commission took steps to minimize the potential for these devices to cause interference to existing radiofrequency operations. Specifically, the Commission adopted requirements for U-NII devices in the 5.250-5.350 GHz and 5.470-5.725 GHz bands to employ Dynamic Frequency Selection
(DFS)and Transmit Power Control (TPC). The Commission codified requirements for these U-NII devices in part 15, Subpart E of its rules (47 CFR 15.401 *et seq.* ). 3. In the *Report and Order,* the Commission also provided an interim measurement procedure to be used by the Commission and others in determining whether U-NII devices comply with the rules. The Commission stated that the provisions of this test procedure would need to be modified as equipment was developed and as testing methodologies were refined. The Commission also stated that the OET Laboratory may issue updated measurement procedures in the future. The Project Team has worked since the release of the *Report and Order* to develop new measurement procedures for performing DFS compliance measurement tests for U-NII equipment operating in the 5250-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz bands. 4. Globespan Virata (Globespan), Wi-Fi Alliance, and Extreme Networks filed petitions seeking clarification or reconsideration of various aspects of the rules adopted in the *Report and Order.* Globespan requests that the Commission revise the rules to state that U-NII devices are not required to detect and avoid frequency hopping radar signals. Globespan further requests that if it was the intent of the Commission to include frequency hopping radars in the DFS requirements, the Commission should specify a measurement procedure for this requirement. Wi-Fi Alliance seeks clarification, in part, of the channel availability check time requirement in section 15.407(h)(2)(ii). Finally, Extreme Networks seeks clarification of the definition of a U-NII central controller that must include DFS capability. 5. OET notes that these petitions for reconsideration raise issues regarding DFS compliance and measurement procedures that are addressed in the Project Team's revised procedures. Therefore, in order to refresh the record, we seek additional comment on the DFS issues raised in the petitions filed by Globespan, Wi-Fi Alliance, and Extreme Networks and, in particular, how these issues are addressed by the Project Team's revised compliance and measurement procedures and the Commission's rules. Federal Communications Commission. Julius P. Knapp, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology. [FR Doc. E6-6742 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-844; MB Docket No. 06-83; RM-11325] Radio Broadcasting Services; Eagle Lake and Vernon Center, MN AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Radioactive, LLC to reallot and modify its construction permit for an unbuilt FM station from Channel 231A at Vernon Center, Minnesota, to Channel 231A at Eagle Lake, Minnesota. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 6, 2006, and reply comments on or before June 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Marissa G. Repp, Esq. and Tarah S. Grant, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1109 (Counsel for Radioactive, LLC). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 06-83, adopted April 12, 2006, and released April 14, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Pursuant to § 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we shall not accept competing expressions of interest pertaining to the use of Channel 231A at Eagle Lake, Minnesota. Channel 231A can be allotted to Eagle Lake at proposed reference coordinates of 44-12-29 NL and 93-55-00 WL. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Minnesota, is amended by removing Vernon Center, Channel 231A and by adding Eagle Lake, Channel 231A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-6612 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-793; MB Docket No. 06-77; RM-11324] Radio Broadcasting Services; Belle Meade, Goodlettsville, Hendersonville, TN, Hodgenville, Horse Cave, Lebanon, Lebanon Junction, KY, Manchester and Millersville, TN, New Haven and Springfield, KY AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comment on an Amended Proposal filed jointly on behalf of Newberry Broadcasting, Inc., Elizabethtown CBC, Inc., CBC of Marion County, Inc., Washington County CBC, Inc., and Cumulus Licensing LLC. This document proposes the substitution of Channel 294C3 for Channel 294A at Belle Meade, Tennessee, reallotment of Channel 294C3 to Millersville, Tennessee, Station WNFN license to specify operation on Channel 294C3 at Millersville; the substitution of Channel 293A for Channel 294A at Horse Cave, Kentucky, and modification of the Station WHHT license to specify operation on Channel 293A; the substitution of Channel 297A for Channel 292A at Hodgenville, Kentucky, and modification of the Station WKMO license to specify operation on Channel 297A; the substitution of Channel 257A for Channel 297A at Lebanon Junction, Kentucky, and modification of the Station WTHX license to specify operation on Channel 257A; the reallotment of Channel 246C2 from Goodlettsville to Belle Meade, Tennessee, and modification of the Station WRQQ license to specify Belle Meade as the community of license; the reallotment of Channel 221A from Hendersonville to Goodlettsville, Tennessee, and modification of the Station WQQK license to specify Goodlettsville as the community of license; the substitution of Channel 259C0 for Channel 259C at Manchester, Tennessee, reallotment of Channel 259C0 to Hendersonville, and modification of the Station WWTN license to specify operation on Channel 259C0 at Hendersonville; the reallotment of Channel 274A from Springfield, Kentucky, to New Haven, Kentucky, and modification of the Station WAKY-FM license to specify New Haven as the community of license; the substitution of Channel 265A for Channel 265C3 at Lebanon, Kentucky, reallotment of Channel 265A to Springfield, Kentucky, and modification of the Station WLSK license to specify operation on Channel 265A at Springfield. The coordinates for the Channel 294C3 allotment at Millersville, Tennessee, would be 36-26-24 and 86-37-39; the coordinates for Channel 293A allotment at Horse Cave, Kentucky, would be 37-13-57 and 85-52-06; the coordinates for the Channel 297A allotment at Hodgenville, Kentucky, would be 37-40-34 and 85-40-57; the coordinates for the Channel 257A allotment at Lebanon Junction, Kentucky, would be 37-44-37 and 85-38-52; the coordinates for the Channel 246C2 allotment at Belle Meade, Tennessee, would be 36-17-50 and 86-45-11; the coordinates for the Channel 221A allotment at Goodlettsville, Tennessee, would be 36-17-50 and 86-45-11; the coordinates for the Channel 259C0 allotment at Hendersonville, Tennessee, would be 35-49-03 and 86-31-24; the coordinates for the Channel 274 allotment at New Haven, Kentucky, would be 37-46-07 and 85-35-57; the coordinates for the Channel 265A allotment at Springfield, Kentucky, would be 37-38-50 and 85-11-50. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 22, 2006, and reply comments on or before June 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Mark N. Lipp, c/o Vinson & Elkins 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004. John F. Garziglia, c/o Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, 1401 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau.
(202)418-2177. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MB Docket No. 06-77; adopted April 5, 2006, and released April 7, 2006. The full text of this Commission action is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this action may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio Broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kentucky, is amended by removing Channel 292A and by adding Channel 297A at Hodgenville, removing Channel 294A and by adding Channel 293A at Horse Cave, removing Lebanon, Channel 265A, removing Channel 297A and adding Channel 257A at Lebanon Junction, adding New Haven, Channel 274A, and removing Channel 274A and adding Channel 265A at Springfield. 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Tennessee, is amended by removing Channel 294A and adding Channel 246C2 at Belle Meade, removing Channel 246C2 and adding Channel 221A at Goodlettsville, removing Channel 221A and adding Channel 259C0 at Hendersonville, removing Manchester, Channel 259C, and by adding Millersville, Channel 294C3. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-6679 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub in the Lower Colorado River Basin and To List the Headwater Chub as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list a distinct population segment
(DPS)of the roundtail chub ( *Gila robusta* ) in the lower Colorado River basin, and to list the headwater chub ( *G. nigra* ) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The petition also asked the Service to designate critical habitat. After review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find that the petitioned action is not warranted for a DPS of the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, as explained below, but that listing is warranted for the headwater chub. Currently, however, listing of the headwater chub is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition finding, the headwater chub will be added to our candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the headwater chub as our priorities allow. Any determinations on critical habitat will be made during development of the proposed rule. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species or this finding to the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, at the address above (602-242-0210). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that, for any petition to revise the List of Threatened and Endangered Species that contains substantial scientific and commercial information that listing may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is
(a)not warranted,
(b)warranted, or
(c)warranted, but that the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any species is threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded be treated as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, *i.e.* , requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. Each subsequent 12-month finding will be published in the **Federal Register.** On April 14, 2003, we received a petition dated April 2, 2003, requesting that we list a distinct population segment
(DPS)of the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin as endangered or threatened, that we list the headwater chub as endangered or threatened, and that we designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing for both species. The petition, submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (Center), was clearly identified as a petition for a listing rule, and it contained the names, signatures, and addresses of the requesting parties. Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and potential causes of decline. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to Mr. Noah Greenwald, dated June 4, 2003. In that letter, we also advised the petitioners that, due to funding constraints in fiscal year 2003, we would not be able to begin processing the petition in a timely manner. On May 18, 2004, the Center sent a Notice of Intent to sue, contending that the Service had violated the Act by failing to make a timely 90-day finding on the petition to list a DPS of the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, and the headwater chub. On September 20, 2004, the Center filed a complaint against the Secretary of the Interior and the Service for failure to make a 90-day petition finding under section 4 of the Act. In a stipulated settlement agreement we agreed to submit a 90-day finding to the **Federal Register** by June 30, 2005 ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Norton* , CV-04-496-TUC-CKJ (D. AZ)). The settlement agreement was approved by the District Court for the District of Arizona on May 5, 2005. On June 30, 2005, we made our 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that listing the roundtail chub as a DPS in the lower Colorado River basin, and the headwater chub throughout its range, may be warranted. The finding and our initiation of a status review was published in the **Federal Register** on July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39981). We are required, pursuant to the court-approved stipulated settlement agreement, to make our 12-month finding pursuant to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)) on or before April 6, 2006. This notice constitutes our 12-month finding for the petition to list a DPS of the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, and to list the headwater chub, as endangered or threatened. Biology The roundtail and headwater chubs are both cyprinid fish (members of Cyprinidae, the minnow family) with streamlined body shapes. Color in roundtail chub is usually olive-gray to silvery, with the belly lighter, and sometimes with dark blotches on the sides; headwater chub color is usually dark gray to brown overall, with silvery sides that often have faded lateral stripes. Roundtail chub are generally 25 to 35 centimeters
(cm)(9 to 14 inches (in)) in length, but can reach 50 cm (20 in). Headwater chub are quite similar in appearance to roundtail chub, although they are generally smaller, likely due to the smaller streams in which they occur (Minckley 1973; Sublette *et al.* 1990; Propst 1999; Minckley and Demaris 2000; Voeltz 2002). Baird and Girard
(1852)first described roundtail chub from specimens collected from the Zuni River in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. Headwater chub was first described from Ash Creek and the San Carlos River in east-central Arizona in 1874 (Cope and Yarrow 1875). Since the 1800s, both roundtail and headwater chub have been recognized as distinct entities, although at varying taxonomic levels (Miller 1945; Holden 1968; Rinne 1969; Holden and Stalnaker 1970; Rinne 1976; Smith *et al.* 1979; DeMarais 1986; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Douglas *et al.* 1998; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Gerber *et al.* 2001). At present, both are recognized as distinct species, based on discrete occurrences of specific morphology (Minckley and DeMarais 2000). Both roundtail and headwater chub are recognized as species on the American Fisheries Society's most recent list of accepted common and scientific names of fishes (Nelson *et al.* 2004). Roundtail Chub Distinct Population Segment In the petition to list these species, we were asked to consider designating a DPS for the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin. Under the Act, we must consider for listing any species, subspecies, or, DPSs of vertebrate species/subspecies, if information is sufficient to indicate that such action may be warranted. To implement the measures prescribed by the Act and its Congressional guidance, we developed a joint policy with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)Fisheries entitled Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population (DPS Policy) to clarify our interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the Act (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996). Under our DPS policy, we consider three elements in a decision regarding the status of a possible DPS as endangered or threatened under the Act. The elements are:
(1)The population segment's discreteness from the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs;
(2)the population segment's significance to the taxon to which it belongs; and
(3)the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing ( *i.e.* , when treated as if it were a species, is the population segment endangered or threatened?). Our policy further recognizes it may be appropriate to assign different classifications ( *i.e.* , threatened or endangered) to different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996). Discreteness The DPS policy's standard for discreteness requires an entity given DPS status under the Act to be adequately defined and described in some way that distinguishes it from other populations of the species. The historical range of the roundtail chub included both the upper and lower Colorado River basins in the States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and likely Nevada and Baja California and Sonora, Mexico (Propst 1999; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002). In recent times, the upper and lower basin populations of the roundtail chub have been physically separated by the Glen Canyon Dam. Results from comparisons of genetic information of roundtail chubs between the lower and upper basins of the Colorado River were based on small sample sizes and provided inconclusive results (DeMarais 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Gerber *et al.* 2001). Therefore, the best available scientific data are not conclusive on the question of whether the lower basin populations of the roundtail chub are discrete from the upper basin populations. However, because we determine in the following section that the lower basin populations are not significant to the taxon as a whole, we need not address further the “discreteness” test of the DPS policy. Significance Under our DPS policy, a population segment must be significant to the taxon to which it belongs. The evaluation of “significance” may address, but is not limited to,
(1)Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unique for the taxon;
(2)evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon;
(3)evidence that the population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and
(4)evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. *Ecological Setting.* Based on our review of the available information, we found that there are some differences in various ecoregion variables between the upper and lower Colorado River basins. For example, McNabb and Avers
(1994)and Bailey
(1995)delineated ecoregions and sections of the United States based on a combination of climate, vegetation, geology, and other factors. Populations of roundtail chub in the lower basin are primarily found in the Tonto Transition and Painted Desert Sections of the Colorado Plateau Semi-Desert Province in the Dry Domain, and the White Mountain-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Section of the Arizona-New Mexico Mountains Semi-Desert-Open Woodland-Coniferous Forest Province Dry Domain. Populations of roundtail chub in the upper basin are primarily found in the Northern Canyonlands and Uinta Basin Sections of the Intermountain Semi-Desert and Desert Province in the Dry Domain, and the Tavaputs Plateau and Utah High Plateaus and Mountains Sections of the Nevada-Utah Mountains Semi-Desert-Coniferous Forest Province in the Dry Domain (McNabb and Avers 1994; Bailey 1995). These ecoregion differences result in differences in hydrograph, sediment, substrate, nutrient flow, cover, water chemistry, and other habitat variables of roundtail chub. Also, there are differences in type, timing, and amount of precipitation between the two basins, with the upper basin (3-65 inches/year (Sims 1968)) somewhat less arid than the lower (5-25 inches/year (Green and Sellers 1964)). The type and timing of precipitation, which are major factors in determining the pattern of streamflow, and which when plotted as the amount of runoff or discharge against time are known as a hydrograph (Dunne and Leopold 1978), also appear to be somewhat different between the two basins. The hydrograph of a stream is a major factor in determining habitat characteristics and their variability over space and time. Habitats of roundtail chub in the lower basin have a monsoon hydrograph or a mixed monsoon-snowmelt hydrograph. A monsoon hydrograph results from distinctly bimodal annual precipitation, which creates large, abrupt, and highly variable flow events in late summer and large, longer, and less variable flow events in the winter (Burkham 1970; Sellers 1974; Minckley and Rinne 1991). Monsoon hydrographs are characterized by high variability, including rapid rise and fall of flow levels with flood peaks of one or more orders of magnitude greater than base, or “normal low” flow (Burkham 1970). In the upper basin, roundtail chub habitats have strong snowmelt hydrographs, with some summer/fall/winter precipitation, but with the majority of major flow events in spring and early summer (Bailey 1995; Carlson and Muth 1989; Miller and Hubert 1990). Snowmelt hydrographs are characterized by low variability, long, slow rises and falls in flow and peak flow events that are less than an order of magnitude greater than the base flow. The lower basin has lower stream flows and warmer temperatures in late spring and early summer; whereas this is typically the wettest period in the upper basin. Sediment loads vary substantially between streams in both basins, but are generally lesser in the upper basin than the lower (Carlson and Muth 1989), and patterning of sediment movement differs substantially because of the different hydrographs. In general, roundtail chub habitat in the lower Colorado River basin is of lower gradient, smaller average substrate size, higher water temperatures, higher salinity, smaller base flows, higher flood peaks, lesser channel stability and higher erosion, and substantially different hydrographs than the habitat in the upper Colorado River basin. Measurable hydrographic differences between the two basins are evident, as are differences in landscape level roundtail chub habitats between the upper and lower basins; these differences, however, do not appear to result in significant disparities in life history of roundtail chubs between the two basins. Roundtail chub in the upper and lower basins have basically the same life history and occupy similar in-stream habitats (Besserides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002). Furthermore, loss of the lower basin roundtail chub would not result in a loss of a form of the species that occurs in a setting unique from that found in the upper basin. *Gap in the Range and Marked Differences in Genetic Characteristics.* Roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin is at the southern portion of the historic and current distribution of the species. Although the species may have occurred in Mexico, there are no records to support this. Within the distribution of every species there exists a peripheral population, an isolate or subpopulation of a species at the edge of the taxon's range. Long-term geographic isolation and loss of gene flow between populations is the foundation of genetic changes in population resulting from natural selection or change. Evidence of changes in these populations may include genetic, behavioral, and/or morphological differences from populations in the rest of the species' range. While the available genetic information is sparse, it indicates that roundtail chubs sampled from Chevelon Creek in the Little Colorado River drainage of the lower Colorado River basin share the same mtDNA haplotype with upper basin roundtail chubs (Gerber *et al.* 2001; as discussed above under “Discreteness”). Therefore, based on the genetic information currently available, roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin should not be considered biologically or ecologically significant based simply on genetic characteristics. We also considered information regarding morphological and behavioral differences with regard to adaptations that may be occurring in the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub and found no evidence of any differences. Biological and ecological significance under the DPS policy is always considered in light of Congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list DPS's be used ”sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. *Whether the Population Represents the Only Surviving Natural Occurrence of the Taxon.* As part of a determination of significance, our DPS policy suggests that we consider whether there is evidence that the population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range. The roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin is not the only surviving natural occurrence of the species. Consequently, this factor is not applicable to our determination regarding significance. Conclusion Following a review of the available information, we conclude that the roundtail chub populations in the lower Colorado River basin are not significant to the remainder of the taxon. We made this determination based on the best available information, which does not demonstrate that
(1)these populations persist in an ecological setting that is unique for the taxon;
(2)the loss of these populations would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; and
(3)these populations differ markedly from populations of roundtail chub in the upper basin in their genetic characteristics, or in other considerations that might demonstrate significance. Further, available information does not demonstrate that the life history and behavioral characteristics of roundtail chub in the lower basin are unique to the species. Therefore, on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that proposing to list a DPS for the lower Colorado River basin populations of roundtail chub is not warranted; these populations do not meet our definition of a distinct population segment. Headwater Chub Distribution The historical distribution of headwater chub in the lower Colorado River basin is poorly documented, due to the paucity of early collections and the widespread anthropogenic (manmade) changes ( *i.e.* , habitat alteration and nonnative species introductions (Girmendonk and Young 1997)) to aquatic ecosystems beginning in the mid 19th century. The headwater chub was historically considered common throughout its range (Minckley 1973; Holden and Stalnaker 1975; Propst 1999). Voeltz (2002), estimating historical distribution based on museum collection records, agency database searches, literature searches, and discussion with biologists, found that headwater chub likely occurred in a number of tributaries of the Verde River, most of the Tonto Creek drainage, much of the San Carlos River drainage, and parts of the upper Gila River in New Mexico (Voeltz 2002). Voeltz
(2002)estimated that headwater chub historically occupied approximately 500 km (312 mi) in Arizona and New Mexico. The species currently occurs in the same areas, but has a smaller distribution. In Arizona, four tributaries of the Verde River (Fossil Creek, the East Verde River, Wet Bottom Creek, and Deadman Creek), and Tonto Creek and eight of its tributaries (Buzzard Roost, Gordon, Gun, Haigler, Horton, Marsh, Rock, Spring, and Turkey Creeks), are currently occupied; and in New Mexico, in the upper East Fork, lower Middle Fork, and lower West Forks of the Gila River (Voeltz 2002; S. Stefferud *in litt.* 2005) support headwater chub. Headwater chub may still occur in parts of the San Carlos River basin; however recent survey information for these streams is unavailable (Minckley and DeMarais 2000, Voeltz 2002). Headwater chub occur in the middle to upper reaches of moderately-sized streams (Minckley and Demaris 2000). Bestgen and Propst
(1989)examined status and life history in the Gila River drainage in New Mexico and found that headwater chubs occupied tributary and mainstem habitats in the upper Gila River at elevations of 1,325 meters
(m)(4,347 feet (ft)) to 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Maximum water temperatures of headwater chub habitat varied between 20 to 27 °C, and minimum water temperatures were around 7 °C (Bestgen and Propst 1989; Barrett and Maughan 1995). Typical adult microhabitat consists of nearshore pools adjacent to swifter riffles and runs over sand and gravel substrate, with young of the year and juvenile headwater chub using smaller pools and areas with undercut banks and low current (Anderson and Turner 1978; Bestgen and Propst 1989). Spawning in Fossil Creek occurred in spring and was observed in March in pool-riffle areas with sandy-rocky substrates (Neve 1976). Neve
(1976)reported that the diet of headwater chub included aquatic insects, ostracods (small crustaceans), and plant material. Previous Federal Actions We placed the roundtail chub (as *G. r. grahami* , which then included headwater chub) on the list of candidate species as a category 2 species on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454) and on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554). Category 2 species were those for which existing information indicated that listing was possibly appropriate, but for which substantial supporting biological data were lacking. On November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), we continued to list headwater chub (now referred to as *G. robusta* , which included headwater and roundtail chub) as a category 2 species. Due to lack of funding to gather existing information on these fishes, they remained in category 2 through the 1994 (59 FR 58982; November 15, 1994) Candidate Notices of Review. In the 1996 Candidate Notice of Review (61 FR 7596; February 28, 1996), category 2 was eliminated, and roundtail and headwater chub were no longer recognized as candidates for listing. Following receipt of the 2002 petition, and pursuant to a stipulated settlement agreement, we published a 90-day finding on July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39981), in which we found that the petitioners had provided sufficient information to indicate that listing of the roundtail and headwater chubs may be warranted. In order to ensure we had the best scientific and commercial information available to determine whether listing of these species was indeed warranted, we opened a 60-day public comment period, ending September 12, 2005, and commenced a status review. Status of the Headwater Chub Headwater chub (as *G. robusta grahami* ) was considered a threatened species by the American Fisheries Society on its list of fishes receiving legal protection and of special concern in 1987 (Johnson 1987). Since that time, declines of the headwater chub have been further noted both in the scientific peer reviewed literature (Bestgen and Propst 1989) and in State agency reports (Girmendonk and Young 1997; Brouder *et al.* 2000; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002). The most comprehensive and recent of the status reports concerning headwater chub was completed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 2002, and peer-reviewed by Federal agency personnel, university researchers, and experts on the headwater chub (AGFD; Voeltz 2002). Stream-specific distribution and status information for roundtail and headwater chub populations in the lower Colorado River basin was gathered from published literature; unpublished agency reports, records, manuscripts, and files; scientific collecting permit reports; personal communications with knowledgeable biologists; and academic databases. Based on this comprehensive information on all available current and historical survey records, AGFD estimated historical and current ranges of the headwater chub and found that the species had declined significantly from historical levels. The AGFD report also used a classification system, as described below in Table 1, to report status and threat information, which defined populations based on the abundance and recruitment of the population and presence or absence of obvious threats. Table 1.—Definitions of Status Description Categories Used To Describe the Status of Headwater Chub Populations [From Voeltz 2002] Status Definition Stable-Secure Chubs are abundant or common, data over the past 5-10 years shows a stable, reproducing population with successful recruitment; no impacts from nonnative aquatic species exist; and no current or future habitat altering land or water uses were identified. Stable-Threatened Chubs are abundant or common, data over the past 5-10 years shows a reproducing population, although recruitment may be limited; predatory or competitive threats from nonnative aquatic species exist; and/or some current or future habitat altering land or water uses were identified. Unstable-Threatened Chubs are uncommon or rare with a limited distribution; data over the past 5-10 years shows a declining population with limited recruitment; predatory or competitive threats from nonnative aquatic species exist; and/or serious current or future habitat altering land or water uses were identified. Extirpated Chubs are no longer believed to occur in the system. Unknown Lack of data precludes determination of status. Voeltz
(2002)reviewed the 19 currently known populations of headwater chub and found that one was stable-secure, six were stable-threatened, six were unstable-threatened, three were extirpated, and three were unknown. Deadman Creek, the one population that Voeltz considered stable-secure, has since been invaded by nonnative green sunfish ( *Lepomis cyanell* a) (Voeltz, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 2003), and should now be considered stable-threatened. Headwater chub are known to occupy only 40 percent of their former range, and have an unknown distribution on another 10 percent of their former range. Based on the best available scientific information, the headwater chub occurs in 16 of 19 known populations, which now occur in fragmented and isolated stream segments and represent only 40 to 50 percent of the species' former range (approximately 200 km (125 mi) of 500 km (312 mi)) in Arizona and New Mexico (Voeltz 2002). Populations of headwater chub are found in four separate drainage basins that are isolated from one another (the Verde River, Tonto Creek, San Carlos River, and upper Gila River). Within these four basins, there is further fragmentation and isolation of some populations. We consider a particular basin to be at risk of extirpation if there are fewer than a minimum of two stable-secure populations because any single population can be eliminated by stochastic events or catastrophic disturbance, such as fire (see Meffe and Carroll 1994). According to information in Voeltz (2002), and survey information collected since that time (as described above), headwater chub cannot be considered secure in any drainage because there are no stable-secure populations in any drainage in which they occur. In summary, the data show that the status of headwater chub is poor and declining. It has been extirpated from approximately 50 percent of its historical range; all 16 known populations are experiencing threats (see “Summary of Factors Affecting the Headwater Chub” discussion and Table 2 below); and it is no longer considered secure in any part of its historical range (Voeltz 2002; Voeltz, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 2003). Although 6 of the 16 extant populations are considered “stable” based on abundance and evidence of recruitment, we believe all six of these populations have a high likelihood of becoming extirpated in the foreseeable future, primarily because at least one, and in most cases several, nonnative aquatic species that have been implicated in the decline of headwater chub are present in these streams (Voeltz 2002). Summary of Factors Affecting the Headwater Chub Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis of any of five factors, as follows:
(A)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, information regarding the status of, and threats to, the headwater chub in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below and summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2.—Summary of Headwater Chub Status and Threats by Stream Reach [Voeltz 2002; Voetlz, AGFD, pers. comm. 2003] Stream reach Status Threats Christopher Creek E Considered extirpated by nonnative species. Horton Creek E Considered extirpated by nonnative species. Rye Creek E Considered extirpated by nonnative species. Deadman Creek ST Nonnatives, grazing, recreation. Buzzard Roost Creek ST Roads, channelization, grazing, mining, nonnatives, recreation, logging, water use, fire. Gordon Creek ST Roads, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, logging, fire. Haigler Creek ST Roads, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, logging, fire. Marsh Creek ST Roads, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, logging, fire. Rock Creek ST Roads, grazing, mining, nonnatives, recreation, logging, fire. Spring Creek ST Roads, grazing, mining, nonnatives, recreation, logging, fire. Ash Creek U Roads, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, fire. Wet Bottom Creek U Roads, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, fire. San Carlos River U Roads, channelization, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, water use. Upper Gila River UT Roads, channelization, development, grazing, mining, nonnatives, recreation, logging, water use, fire. Gun Creek UT Roads, channelization, grazing, mining, nonnatives, recreation, logging, fire. Tonto Creek UT Roads, channelization, development, grazing, mining, nonnatives, recreation, logging, water use, fire. East Verde River UT Roads, channelization, development, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, logging, water use, fire. Fossil Creek UT Roads, channelization, development, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, logging, water use, fire. Webber Creek UT Roads, channelization, development, grazing, nonnatives, recreation, logging, water use, fire. E=extirpated; ST=stable, threatened; U=unknown; UT=unstable, threatened. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Within the historical range of the headwater chub, much of the stream habitat has been destroyed or degraded, and loss of this habitat continues today (Minckley 1973; Tellman *et al.* 1997; Propst 1999; Voeltz 2002). At certain locations, activities such as groundwater pumping, surface water diversions, impoundments, dams, channelization (straightening of the natural watercourse, typically for flood control purposes), improperly managed livestock grazing, wildfire, agriculture, mining, roads, logging, residential development, and recreation all contribute to riparian and cienega (wetland) habitat loss and degradation in Arizona and New Mexico (Minckley and Deacon 1991; Tellman *et al.* 1997; Propst 1999; Voeltz 2002). These activities and their effects on headwater chub are discussed in further detail below. *Water withdrawal.* Headwater chub has been eliminated from much of its historical range because many areas formerly occupied are now unsuitable due to dewatering (Miller 1961; Miller 1972; Minckley 1973; Deacon *et al.* 1979; Williams *et al.* 1987; Bestgen and Propst 1989; Girmendonk and Young 1997; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002). Habitat for these fishes is likely eliminated once surface flow drops below 0.3 cubic meters per second (10 cubic feet per second) because the stream lacks the depth and habitat features, such as deep pools, that the species requires (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). The upper Gila River, in the vicinities of Cliff, Redrock, and Virden, New Mexico, has been entirely dewatered on occasion by diversions for agriculture (Bestgen 1985). In addition, the communities of Strawberry, Pine, and Payson, Arizona, are exploring means of securing municipal water from Fossil Creek, which could substantially reduce flows in that stream (Voeltz 2002; J. Nystedt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2004). Groundwater pumping in Tonto Creek regularly eliminates surface flows during parts of the year (Abarca and Weedman 1993). Groundwater pumping in the East Verde River eliminates the flow in many parts of the stream, especially when interbasin water transfers from Blue Ridge Reservoir are not occurring (Girmendonk and Young 1997). Groundwater pumping in Webber Creek for municipal use, as well as at least one diversion for agricultural use, reduces flows in that stream (Voeltz 2002). Groundwater pumping and surface water withdrawal directly eliminate headwater chub habitat because they remove water. Obviously, without water, there is no fish habitat, but flowing water also helps to create the habitat diversity that headwater chub require. Lack of flow often results in only pool habitat remaining, which can concentrate headwater chub with nonnative species and increase predation pressure of nonnative fishes on headwater chub, which has been documented in Marsh Creek and the East Verde River (Voeltz 2002). Water withdrawal is a threat in at least 6 of the 16 extant populations of headwater chub (Bestgen and Propst 1989; Girmendonk and Young 1997; Propst 1999; Voeltz 2002). *Livestock grazing.* Poorly managed livestock grazing has been documented to negatively impact headwater chub habitat. Poor livestock-grazing management is often cited as one of the most significant factors contributing to regional stream channel downcutting (the entrenchment of stream channels and creation of arroyos) in the late 1800s; profound effects from this period occurred throughout the watershed of Tonto Creek, which contains 70 percent of all extant headwater chub populations, and these effects are still evident today and compounded by ongoing grazing (Croxen 1926; Ganda 1997). Poorly managed livestock grazing destabilizes stream channels and disturbs riparian ecosystem functions (Herefore 1992; Tellman *et al.* 1997). Poorly managed livestock grazing negatively affects headwater chub habitat through removal of riparian vegetation (Clary and Webster 1989; Clary and Medin 1990; Schulz and Leininger 1990; Armour *et al.* 1991; Fleishner 1994), which results in reduced bank stability, fewer pools, and higher water temperatures, creating habitats that are too extreme to support headwater chub (Meehan 1991; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Swanson *et al.* 1982; Minckley and Rinne 1985; Fleishner 1994; Belsky *et al.* 1999). Poorly managed livestock grazing also causes increased sediment in the stream channel, due to streambank trampling and riparian vegetation loss (Weltz and Wood 1986; Waters 1995; Pearce *et al.* 1998). Livestock physically alter streambanks through trampling and shearing, leading to bank erosion (Platts and Nelson 1989; Trimble and Mendel 1995). In combination, loss of riparian vegetation and bank erosion alters channel morphology, including increased erosion and deposition, downcutting, and an increased width/depth ratio, all of which lead to a loss of deep pool habitats required by the headwater chub, and loss of shallow side and backwater habitats used by larval chub (Trimble and Mendel 1995; Belsky *et al.* 1999). Poorly managed livestock grazing causes the structure and diversity of the fish community to shift due to changes in availability and suitability of habitat types (Rahel and Hubert 1991). This loss of aquatic habitat complexity reduces the diversity of habitat types available to fish communities (Gorman and Karr 1978). In the arid west, this loss of habitat complexity has been found to accelerate the displacement of native fish species by nonnatives (Minckley and Rinne 1991; Baltz and Moyle 1993; Lawler *et al.* 1999). Livestock grazing also contributes significantly to the introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species through the proliferation of ponded water in stock tanks (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The U.S. Forest Service found that livestock grazing “may affect [headwater chub] and eventually trend the species toward federal listing” on allotments on the Tonto National Forest (Biological Evaluation and Assessment for the Green Valley Complex, Tonto National Forest 2002). Though largely a past threat, Voeltz
(2002)found that livestock grazing occurs in every drainage in which headwater chub occur. *Stream channelization and irrigation.* Sections of many Gila Basin rivers and streams have been and continue to be channelized for flood control, which disrupts natural channel dynamics and promotes the loss of riparian plant communities. Channelization changes the gradient of the stream above and below the channel. It increases streamflow in the channelized section, which results in increased rates of erosion of the stream and its tributaries, accompanied by gradual deposits of sediment in downstream reaches that increase the risk of flooding (Emerson 1971; Simpson *et al.* 1982). Channelization has affected headwater chub habitat by reducing its complexity, eliminating cover, reducing nutrient input, improving habitat for nonnative species, changing sediment transport, altering substrate size, and reducing the length of the stream (and therefore the amount of aquatic habitat available) (Gorman and Karr 1978; Simpson 1982; Schmetterling *et al.* 2001). Channelization occurs within at least 50 percent of extant populations (Voeltz 2002). Irrigation directly from streams reduces or eliminates water in existing fish habitat. Fish can be carried into irrigation ditches, where they may die following desiccation (drying). Irrigation dams prevent movement of fish between populations, resulting in genetic isolation within species; small populations are subject to genetic threats, such as inbreeding depression (reduced health due to elevated levels of inbreeding) and to genetic drift (a reduction in gene flow within the species that can increase the probability of unhealthy traits; Meffe and Carrol 1994). There are numerous surface water diversions in headwater chub habitats, including the upper Gila River, East Verde River, and Tonto Creek. Larger dams may also prevent movement of fish between populations, and dramatically alter the flow regime of streams through the impoundment of water behind and below (Ligon *et al.* 1995). *Mining activities.* Mining activities were more widespread historically and likely constituted a greater threat in the past; however, the continued mining of sand, gravel, iron, gold, copper, or other materials remains a potential threat to the habitat of headwater chub. The effects of mining activities on populations include adverse effects to water quality and lowered flow rates due to dewatering of nearby streams needed for mining operations (ADEQ 1993). Ongoing sand and gravel mining in Tonto Creek is eliminating headwater chub habitat (Abarca and Weedman 1993; Voeltz 2002). Sand and gravel mining removes riparian vegetation and destabilizes streambanks, which results in habitat loss for the headwater chub (Brown *et al.* 1998). Mining occurs within at least 6 of the 16 extant populations (Voeltz 2002). *Roads and Logging.* Roads have adversely affected headwater chub habitat by destroying riparian vegetation and by increasing surface runoff, sedimentation, and erosion (Burns 1971; Eaglin and Hubert 1993). Roads require instream structures, such as culverts and bridges, that remove aquatic habitat and can act as barriers to fish movement (Barrett *et al.* 1992; Warren and Pardew 1998). All of these activities negatively impact headwater chub by lowering water quality and reducing the quality and quantity of pools, by filling pools with sediments, by reducing the quantity of large woody-debris necessary to form pools, and by imposing barriers to movement. The end result is deterioration of habitat for the headwater chub (Burns 1971; Eaglin and Hubert 1993). Roads are found within every drainage containing extant populations of headwater chub (Voeltz 2002). Vehicular use of roads in creek bottoms, as has been documented in Tonto Creek (Voeltz 2002), degrades headwater chub habitat and can result in headwater chub mortality. Such use inhibits riparian plant growth, breaks down banks, causes erosion and sedimentation, and increases turbidity in the stream, particularly where vehicles drive through the stream and immediately downstream of the vehicular activity. These effects result in wider and shallower stream channels (Meehan 1991). This causes progressive adjustments in other variables of hydraulic geometry and results in changes to the configuration of pools, runs, riffles, and backwaters; levels of fine sediments and substrate embeddedness; availability of instream cover; and other fish habitat factors in the vicinity of vehicle crossings (Rosgen 1994). Resultant changes to the stream channels alter the way in which flood flows interact with the stream channel and may exacerbate flood damage to banks, channel bottoms, and riparian vegetation. The breaking down of stream banks by vehicles reduces undercut banks and overhanging vegetation that chub use as cover. Fish fry and eggs could also be killed or injured if vehicles are driven through stream segments where these life stages occur. Vehicles driven rapidly through the stream could splash young fish or eggs onto the bank where they may desiccate. Larger fish are likely to swim away and avoid death or injury. Public vehicular use is also often associated with an elevated risk of human-caused fire. Adverse effects of stream sedimentation to fish and fish habitat have been extensively documented (Murphy *et al.* 1981; Newcombe and MacDonald 1991; Barrett *et al.* 1992). Excessive sedimentation causes channel changes that are adverse to headwater chub habitat. These activities have direct impacts on headwater chub habitat because excessive sediment can fill backwaters and deep pools used by headwater chub, and sediment deposition in the main channel can cause a tendency toward stream braiding ( *e.g.* , the stream becomes wider, shallower, and has numerous channels as opposed to one channel), which reduces adult chub habitat. Excessive sediment will smother invertebrates (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991), thereby reducing chub food production and availability, and related turbidity reduces the chub's ability to see and capture food (Barrett *et al.* 1992). Although logging is a landuse in the watersheds of 13 of the remaining 16 streams known to contain headwater chub populations (Voeltz 2002), logging is largely a threat of the past, resulting from previous management practices no longer in place. The alteration of watersheds resulting from road-building and logging is deleterious to fish and other aquatic life forms ( *e.g.* , Burns 1971; Eaglin and Hubert 1993). Roads and logging increase surface runoff, sedimentation, and mudslides, and destroy riparian vegetation (Lewis 1998; Jones *et al.* 2000). *Recreation.* Recreation was noted as a land-use in all of the watersheds containing headwater chub (Voeltz 2002). The impacts of recreation are highly dependant on the type of activity, with activities such as birdwatching having little to no impact and activities such as off-road vehicle use potentially having severe impacts on aquatic habitats. Specific problems with recreation were noted in the Upper Gila River, and Tonto and Webber Creeks (Voeltz 2002). For example, Voeltz
(2002)noted that in-channel vehicular traffic was a threat to headwater chubs in Tonto Creek (also discussed above under *Roads* ). Much of the current range of the headwater chub occurs on public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and public use of these lands is high; such use creates an elevated risk of human-caused impacts such as off-road vehicle use. *Development activities.* Headwater chub habitat is also threatened increasingly from urban and suburban development (Tellman *et al.* 1997). Urban and suburban development affects headwater chub and its habitat in a number of ways, such as direct alteration of streambanks and floodplains from construction of buildings, gardens, pastures, and roads (Tellman *et al.* 1997), or as mentioned above, diversion of water, both from streams and connected groundwater (Glennon 1995). On a broader scale, urban and suburban development alters the watershed, which changes the hydrology, sediment regimes, and pollution input (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Horak 1989; Medina 1990; Reid 1993; Waters 1995). In addition, it has been documented that the introduction of nonnative plants and animals, such as releases from home aquariums, that can adversely affect headwater chub become more likely as nearby human populations increase (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994). Suburban and urban development have degraded and eliminated headwater chub habitat. The Phoenix metropolitan area, founded in part due to its proximity to the Salt and Gila Rivers, is a population center of 3.5 million people. Communities in the middle and upper Verde River watershed, such as the Prescott-Chino Valley, the Cottonwood-Clarkdale-Camp Verde communities, Strawberry, Pine, and Payson, are all seeing rapid population growth. Many of these communities are near headwater chub populations, and 25 percent of known headwater chub populations occur in areas of urban and commercial development (Voeltz 2002). On a broader scale, as of 2005, Arizona was listed as the second fastest in Statewide population growth in the nation, and Arizona is projected to grow by 109 percent by the year 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Human activities in the watershed have had substantial adverse impacts to headwater chub habitat. Watershed alteration is a cumulative result of many human uses, including timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, recreation, channelization, and residential development. The combined effect of all of these actions results in a substantial loss and degradation of habitat (Burns 1971; Reid 1993). For example, in Williamson Valley Wash, human uses ( *e.g.* , recreational use of off-road vehicles) in the highly erodible upper watershed have resulted in increased erosion and high loads of sediment. In 1993, flooding in Williamson Valley Wash carried enough sediment that the isolated pool where Gila chub ( *Gila intermedia* ), a related species to the headwater chub, were previously collected became completely filled with sand and gravel (Weedman *et al.* 1996). Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes We do not believe that overutilization is a threat to headwater chub in Arizona because angler catch is considered light (J. Warnecke, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 2004). However, in the upper Gila River in New Mexico, there are reports of anglers purposefully discarding chub species, which may be having a negative effect on populations of headwater chub locally (Voeltz 2002). Factor C: Disease or Predation Nonnative fish that prey on and/or compete with headwater chub are a serious and persistent threat to the continued existence of this species. Direct predation by nonnative fishes on, and competition of nonnative fishes with, the headwater chub has resulted in rangewide population declines and local extirpations ( *e.g.* , Christopher Creek, Rye Creek, and Horton Creek). Nonnative aquatic organisms negatively affect native fish through predation, aggression and harassment, resource competition, habitat alteration, aquatic community disruption, introduction of diseases and parasites, and hybridization (numerous citations; see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001)). Based on survey information, nonnative species occur in every known population of headwater chub (Voeltz 2002). Headwater chub evolved in a fish community with low species diversity and where few predators existed, and as a result developed few or no mechanisms to deal with predation (Carlson and Muth 1989). In its habitats, the headwater chub was probably the most predatory fish and experienced little or no competition. Nonnative fishes known from within the historical range of headwater chub in the Gila River basin include channel catfish ( *Ictalurus punctatus* ), flathead catfish ( *Pylodictis olivaris* ), red shiner ( *Cyprinella lutrensis* ), fathead minnow ( *Pimephales promelas* ), green sunfish ( *Lepomis cyanellus* ), largemouth bass ( *Micropterus salmoides* ), smallmouth bass ( *Micropterus dolomieui* ), rainbow trout ( *Oncorynchus mykiss* ), western mosquitofish ( *Gambusia affinis* ), carp ( *Cyprinus carpo* ), warmouth ( *Lepomis gulosus* ), bluegill ( *Lepomis macrochiris* ), yellow bullhead ( *Ameiurus natalis* ), black bullhead ( *Ameiurus melas* ), and goldfish ( *Carassius auratus* ) (Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The introduction and spread of nonnative species has long been identified as one of the major factors in the continuing decline of native fishes throughout North America and particularly in the southwest (Miller 1961; Lachner *et al.* 1970; Ono *et al.* 1983; Minckley and Deacon 1991; Carlson and Muth 1989; Cohen and Carlton 1995; Fuller *et al.* 1999). In the American southwest, Miller *et al.*
(1989)concluded that introduced nonnatives were a causal factor in 68 percent of the fish extinctions in North America in the last 100 years. For 70 percent of those fish still extant, but considered to be endangered or threatened, introduced nonnative species are a primary cause of the decline (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994; Lassuy 1995). In Arizona, release or dispersal of new nonnative aquatic organisms is a continuing phenomenon (Rosen *et al.* 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Introduction of nonnative species has also been consistently cited as a threat to the native fish fauna of the Colorado River, and is listed as a factor in the listing rules of nine other fish species with historical ranges that overlap with headwater chub (bonytail ( *Gila elegans* ) (45 FR 27710), humpback chub ( *Gila cypha* ) (32 FR 4001), Gila chub (67 FR 51948), Colorado pikeminnow ( *Ptychocheilus lucius* ) (32 FR 4001), spikedace ( *Meda fulgida* ) and loach minnow ( *Tiaroga cobitis* ),( 51 FR 23769), razorback sucker ( *Xyrauchen texanus* ) (56 FR 54957), desert pupfish ( *Cyprinodon macularius* ) (61 FR 10842), and Gila topminnow ( *Poecilopsis occidentalis* ) (32 FR 4001)). In the Gila River basin, introduction of nonnatives is considered a major factor in the decline of all native fish species (Minckley 1985; Williams *et al.* 1985; Minckley and Deacon 1991). Aquatic nonnative species are introduced and spread into new areas through a variety of mechanisms, both intentional and accidental, and authorized and unauthorized. Mechanisms for nonnative dispersal in the southwestern United States include inter-basin water transfer, sport stocking, aquaculture, aquarium releases, bait-bucket release (release of fish used as bait by anglers), and for use in biological control (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Dudley and Matter
(2000)found that nonnative green sunfish prey on, compete with, and virtually eliminate recruitment of Gila chub (a recently federally listed species that is closely related to headwater chub) in Sabino Creek in Arizona. Similar effects of green sunfish on Gila chub have been documented in Silver Creek in Arizona (Unmack *et al.* 2003). In the Verde River, Bonar *et al.*
(2004)found that largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and yellow bullhead all consumed native fish. Roundtail chub (a closely related species to headwater chub) have been found in stomachs of largemouth bass in the lower Salt River (P. Unmack, Arizona State University, pers. comm. 2004). Bestgen and Propst
(1989)reported that, of nonnatives present in New Mexico, smallmouth bass, flathead catfish, and channel catfish most impacted headwater chub via predation. Nonnative crayfish also appear to prey on and compete with all life stages of Gila chub (Carpenter 2000, 2005), a fish species closely related to headwater chub. At least two species of crayfish ( *Procambaris clarki* and *Orconectes virilis* ) have been introduced into Arizona aquatic systems and one or both species co-occur with headwater chub in at least four streams. Crayfish are considered a cause of decline for one population of headwater chub, and are documented as having contributed to the extirpation of two of its populations (Voeltz 2002). Disease, and especially parasites, are a threat. Asian tapeworm ( *Bothriocephalus acheilognathi* ) was introduced into the United States via imported grass carp in the early 1970s. It has since become well-established in the southeast and mid-south and has been recently found in the southwest. The definitive host in the life cycle of *B. acheilognathi* is cyprinid fishes, and, therefore, it is a potential threat to the headwater chub as well as to the other native fishes in Arizona. The Asian tapeworm affects fish health in several ways. Two direct impacts are by impeding the digestion of food as it passes through the intestinal track, and when large numbers of worms feed off of the fish they can cause emaciation and starvation. The Asian tapeworm is present in the Colorado River basin in the Virgin River (Heckman *et al.* 1986) and the Little Colorado River (Clarkson *et al.* 1997). It has recently invaded the Gila River basin and was found during the fall 1998 Central Arizona Project
(CAP)monitoring in the Gila River near Ashurst-Hayden Dam. Anchor worm ( *Lernaea cyprinacea* ) (Copepoda), an external parasite, is unusual in that it has little host specificity, infecting a wide range of fishes and amphibians. Severe *Lernaea* sp. infections have been noted in a number of chub populations. Hendrickson
(1993)noted very high infections of *Lernaea* sp. during warm periods in the Verde River, and Voeltz
(2002)reported that headwater chubs found in Gun Creek in 2000, when surface flow was almost totally lacking, “showed signs of stress, and many had Lernaea, black grub, lesions and an unidentified fungus.” Increases in infection negatively affect headwater chub populations with Girmendonk and Young
(1997)concluding that “parasitic infestations may greatly affect the health and thus population size of native fishes.” Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms There are currently no specific Federal protections for headwater chub, and generalized Federal protections found in Forest plans, Clean Water Act dredge and fill regulations for streams, and other statutory, regulatory, or policy provisions have not been shown to be effective in preventing the decline of this species. Presently, Federal, State, and Tribal statutes, regulations, and planning have not achieved significant conservation of headwater chub and its habitat. As described above, introductions of nonnative fish are likely a significant threat to headwater chub. Fish introductions are illegal unless approved by the respective States. However, enforcement is difficult. Many nonnative fish populations are established through illegal introductions. Nine species of fish, crayfish, and waterdogs (tiger salamanders ( *Ambystoma pigrimum* )) may be legally used as bait in Arizona, all of which are nonnative to the State of Arizona and several of which are known to have serious adverse effects on native species. The portion of the State in which use of live bait is permitted is limited, and use of live bait is restricted in much of the Gila River system in Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2004). New Mexico allows use of live bait-fish (New Mexico Game and Fish Department 2004). Live bait use of two species of sunfish and all “minnows” are allowed. Goldfish (Carassius auratus), a nonnative formerly allowed for live bait use, is no longer allowed. Arizona and New Mexico also continue to stock nonnative fishes within areas that are connected to habitat of headwater chub. Increasing restrictions of live bait use will reduce the input of nonnative species into headwater chub habitat. However, it will do little to reduce unauthorized bait use or other forms of “bait-bucket” transfer ( *e.g.* , dumping of unwanted aquarium fish, which may be invasive nonnative species) not directly related to bait use. In fact, those other “bait-bucket” transfers are expected to increase as the human population of Arizona increases and as nonnative species remain available to the public through aquaculture and the aquarium trade. The general public has been known to dump unwanted pet fish and other aquatic species into irrigation ditches such as the CAP aqueduct in the Phoenix metropolitan area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The Arizona Game and Fish Department also regulates species of nonnatives that can legally be brought into the State. Prohibited nonnative species are put onto the Restricted Live Wildlife List (Commission Order 12-4-406). However, species are allowed unless they are prohibited by placement on the list, rather than the more conservative approach of prohibited unless specifically allowed, and this leaves a serious regulatory inadequacy that allows the opportunity for many noxious nonnatives to be legally imported and introduced into Arizona. New Mexico has adopted a more stringent approach; no live animal (except domesticated animals or domesticated fowl or fish from government hatcheries) is allowed to be imported without a permit (NMS 17-3-32). However, the majority of the headwater chub range occurs within Arizona. The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 *et seq.* ) direct Federal agencies to prepare programmatic-level management plans to guide long-term resource management decisions. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service is required to manage habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in planning areas (36 CFR 219.19). The Forest Service is the largest landowner and manager of headwater chub habitat. The Forest Service lists the headwater chub as a sensitive species in the lower Colorado River basin in the southwestern region (Arizona and New Mexico). However, a sensitive species designation provides little protection to the headwater chub because it only requires the Forest Service to analyze the effects of their actions on sensitive species, but does not require that they choose environmentally benign actions. Voeltz
(2002)found that livestock grazing occurred in every drainage in which headwater chub occur and he considered this land use an ongoing threat. Most of these areas where the majority of extant populations of headwater chub occur are managed by the Forest Service. Wetland values and water quality of aquatic sites inhabited by the headwater chub are afforded varying protection under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376), as amended; Federal Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); and section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates dredging and filling activities in waterways. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has adopted a wetland protection policy whereby the Department does not endorse any project that would result in a net decrease in either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. This policy may afford some protection to headwater chub habitat, although it is advisory only and destruction or alteration of wetlands is not regulated by State law. The State of Arizona Executive Order Number 89-16 (Streams and Riparian Resources), signed on June 10, 1989, directs State agencies to evaluate their actions and implement changes, as appropriate, to allow for restoration of riparian resources. At this time, we have no monitoring information on the effects of this Executive Order, nor do we have information indicating that actions taken under it have been effective in reducing adverse effects to the headwater chub. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions. Most actions taken by the Forest Service and other Federal agencies that affect the headwater chub are subject to NEPA. NEPA requires Federal agencies to describe the proposed action, consider alternatives, identify and disclose potential environmental impacts of each alternative, and involve the public in the decision-making process. However, Federal agencies are not required to select the alternative having the least significant environmental impacts. A Federal action agency may select an action that will adversely affect sensitive species provided that these effects were known and identified in a NEPA document. Status of headwater chub on Tribal lands is not well known. Any regulatory or other protective measures for the species on Tribal lands would be at the discretion of the individual Tribe and non-Tribal entities would not likely be privy to information on the adequacy of such measures. The San Carlos Apache Tribe has developed a fisheries management plan that provides protection to headwater chub; however, there are only two populations of the species that occur on San Carlos Apache lands. The State of New Mexico is seeking to add the headwater chub as an endangered species under its Wildlife Conservation Act, which prohibits take (New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act 17-2-41(B)). Unlike the Federal Act, however, habitat destruction does not constitute take under New Mexico's law. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has created a draft conservation agreement and strategy for several native Arizona fishes including headwater chub. These efforts are not yet complete. AGFD has also implemented conservation actions that have benefited the species, including assisting with restoration of headwater chub habitat in Fossil Creek. We are working with both Arizona and New Mexico to ensure that these efforts will be as effective as possible. However, at this time, these efforts are not finalized, no funding has been committed to ensure their execution, and their future effectiveness is uncertain. We will evaluate these efforts using the guidelines developed in our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE)(68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence The rarity of headwater chub increases its extinction risk associated with stochastic events such as drought, flood, and wildfire. Headwater chub populations have been fragmented and isolated to smaller stream segments and are thus vulnerable to natural or manmade factors ( *e.g.* , drought, groundwater pumping) that might further reduce their population sizes. Headwater chub are not considered secure in any of the stream segments where they occur (Voeltz 2002). In general, Arizona is an arid state; about one-half of Arizona receives less than 10 inches of rain a year. As described above in factor A, dewatering and other forms of habitat loss have resulted in fragmentation of headwater chub populations, and water demands from a rapidly increasing human population could further reduce habitat available to these species, and further fragment populations. In examining the relationship between species distribution and extinction risk in southwestern fishes, Fagan *et al.*
(2002)found that the number of occurrences or populations of a species is less significant a factor in determining extinction risk than is habitat fragmentation. Fragmentation of habitat makes the headwater chub vulnerable to extinction from threats of further habitat loss and competition from nonnative fish and other threats because immigration and recolonization from adjacent populations is not likely. Thus, the risk of extinction of this species, based on their degree of fragmentation alone, is high and is predicted to increase with increasing fragmentation and rarity (Fagan *et al.* 2002). The probability of catastrophic stochastic events that could eliminate isolated populations of this species is exacerbated by a century of livestock grazing and fire suppression that has led to unnaturally high fuel loadings (Cooper 1960; Covington and Moore 1994; Swetnam and Baison 1994; Touchan *et al.* 1995; White 1985). We have information indicating that the intensity of forest fires has increased in recent times (Covington and Moore 1994; National Interagency Fire Center 2006). Fires in the Southwest frequently occur during the summer monsoon season. As a result, fires are often followed by rain that washes ash-laden debris into streams (Rinne 2004). Extreme summer fires, such as the 1990 Dude Fire, and corresponding ash flows have decimated some fish populations including headwater chub populations in the East Verde River (Voeltz 2002). Recently, several extreme summer fires, including the 2002 Rodeo-Chedeski Fire and the 2004 Willow Fire, have resulted in significant losses of individuals and populations of headwater chub throughout Arizona (A. Robinson, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 2005). Carter and Rinne (unpubl. data) found that the Picture Fire both benefited and eliminated headwater chub from portions of Spring Creek. The fire eliminated chubs from Turkey Creek, a tributary to Spring Creek. In other parts of Spring Creek, however, chubs initially declined but later thrived after the fire, presumably because most of the nonnative fishes were eliminated. Every extant population of headwater chub is at risk of experiencing effects from wildfire. Finding We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the headwater chub. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, other published and unpublished information submitted to us during the public comment period following our 90-day petition finding, and consulted with recognized headwater chub experts and other Federal and State resource agencies. On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that proposing to list the headwater chub throughout its range is warranted, but that immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In making this finding, we recognize that there have been declines in the distribution and abundance of the headwater chub, primarily attributed to the introduction and subsequent predation by, and competition with, nonnative fishes, as documented in a large body of scientific research (Miller 1961; Minckley 1973; Bestgen and Propst 1989; Miller *et al.* 1989; Minkley and Deacon 1991; Creef and Clarkson 1993; Bonar *et al.* 2004), as well as declines resulting from a host of land uses that have dewatered and degraded the species' habitats (Miller 1961; Miller 1972; Minckley 1973; Deacon *et al.* 1979; Bestgen and Propst 1989; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002; Voeltz 2002). Direct predation and competition of nonnative fishes on the headwater chub has resulted in rangewide population declines and local extirpations ( *e.g.* , Christopher Creek, Rye Creek, and Horton Creek). Because we have found that nonnative species are present in every remaining population of this species, we conclude that all remaining populations are at risk of declines and extirpation as a result of predation by nonnative species. Furthermore, all remaining populations are fragmented and isolated, making them vulnerable to further declines and local extirpations from other factors, as discussed in detail above and outlined in Table 2 above (Fagan *et al.* 2002). Populations that go extinct following habitat fragmentation are unlikely to be recolonized due to the isolation from, and lack of, habitat connectivity to potential source populations. The isolation of remaining headwater chub populations and habitat fragmentation as a result of nonnative fish introductions and habitat alteration have made remaining populations vulnerable to extinction from random events such as parasites and stochastic events (Fagan *et al.* 2002). Stochastic events, such as fire, have only recently been recognized as an important factor in the decline of this species (Rinne 2004). We believe that fire will continue to be a factor in the decline of this species (National Interagency Fire Center 2006; *www.nifc.gov* ). Other factors include parasitism and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. These factors have contributed to declines or extirpations of headwater chub. We conclude that the overall magnitude of threats to the headwater chub is high, and that the overall immediacy of these threats is imminent. While we conclude that listing the headwater chub is warranted, an immediate proposal to list this species is precluded by other higher priority listing actions. At the present time there are over 280 species that we regard as candidates for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 95 of which have the same listing priority as the headwater chub. During fiscal year
(FY)2006, almost our entire national listing budget will be consumed by work on various listing actions to comply with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements; to meet statutory deadlines for petition finding or listing determinations; to evaluate and determine emergency listing; and to complete essential litigation-related, administrative, and program management tasks. The headwater chub will be added to the list of candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to monitor the status of this species as new information becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures. We have reviewed the available information to determine if the existing and foreseeable threats pose an emergency. We have determined that an emergency listing is not warranted for this species at this time because a number of populations exist, and some of these appear to be stable at the current time. However, if at any time we determine that emergency listing of the headwater chub is warranted, we will seek to initiate an emergency listing. We intend that any proposed listing action for these fish species will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this finding. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Field Supervisor at the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). Author The primary author of this document is the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: April 27, 2006. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-6648 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 85 Wednesday, May 3, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 27, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service *Title:* List Sampling Frame Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0140. *Summary of Collection:* The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)is to provide data users with timely and reliable agricultural production and economic statistics, as well as environmental and specialty agricultural related statistics. To accomplish this objective, NASS relies heavily on the use of sample surveys statistically drawn from “List Sampling Frame.” The List Sampling Frame is a database of names and addresses, with control data, that contains the components from which these samples can be drawn. *Need and Use of the Information:* The List Sampling Frame is used to maintain as complete a list as possible of farm operations. The goal is to produce for each state a relatively complete, current, and unduplicated list of names to sample for agricultural operation surveys. Government agencies and educational institutions use information from these surveys in planning, farm policy analysis, and program administration. *Description of Respondents:* Farms; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 350,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 55,000. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-6634 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 27, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP). *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0007. *Summary of Collection:* The National Poultry Improvement Plan
(NPIP)is a voluntary Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases and for improving poultry flocks and products through disease control techniques. The National Turkey Improvement Plan was combined with the NPIP in 1970 to create the NPIP, as it now exists. Emu, rhea, ostrich, and cassowary breeding flocks are also allowed participation in the Plan. The effective implementation of the NPIP necessitates the use of several information collection activities, including sentinel bird identification, as well as the creation and submission of flock testing reports, sales reports, breeding flock participation summaries, hatchery participation summaries, salmonella investigation reports, salmonella serotyping requests, and small chick order printouts. Authority for this program is contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 429). The cooperative work is carried out through a Memorandum of Understanding with the participating States. *Need and Use of the Information:* Information is collected from various types of poultry breeders and flock owners to determine the number of eggs hatched and sold as well as to report outbreaks of diseases. This information allows APHIS officials to track, control, and prevent many types of poultry diseases. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government; Federal Government; Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 10,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 39,638. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-6635 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 27, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Departmental Administration *Title:* USDA PIV Request for Credential. *OMB Control Number:* 0505-0022. *Summary of Collection:* To obtain approval of information that must be provided by Federal contractors and other applicable individuals (including all employees and some affiliates) when applying for a USDA credential (identification card). The information is necessary to comply with the requirements outlined in Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)12, and Federal Information Processing Standard
(FIPS)201, Personal Identity Verification
(PIV)Phase I and II. In years past, government agencies have all required various levels and means of authenticating Federal employees and contractors as a requirement to enter government buildings and use government systems. HSPD 12 mandates the creation of a standard for identity proofing and credentialing Federal employees and contractors. *Need and Use of the Information:* Information will be collected using form AD 1197, Request for USDA Identification
(ID)Badge, that will be completed on behalf of employees contractors, or other applicable individuals requiring long term access to federally controlled facilities and/or information systems who began work at USDA on or after October 27, 2005. This information is required as part of USDA's PIV I identity proofing and registration process. For PIV II, implemented before October 27, 2006 form AD 1197 will be eliminated and the identity process will be streamlined with addition of a Web-based HSPD-12 system. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Federal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 37,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 120,350. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-6636 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-96-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0047] Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Availability of an Estimate of Prevalence in the United States AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an analysis of the prevalence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE)in the United States has been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. We are making the analysis of BSE prevalence in this country available to the public. ADDRESSES: Copies of the analysis are available for review on the Internet (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below) and in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Brian McCluskey, National Surveillance Coordinator, National Surveillance Unit, Center for Animal Health Surveillance, VS, APHIS, USDA, 2150 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8177; 970-494-7589. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE)is a progressive and fatal neurological disorder of cattle that results from an unconventional transmissible agent. BSE belongs to the family of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). Since 1990, the United States has conducted surveillance for BSE in this country with increasing intensity, including an enhanced surveillance effort implemented following the diagnosis of BSE in a cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December 2003. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has conducted an analysis of the BSE surveillance data collected in the United States. Based on this analysis, APHIS has arrived at an estimate of BSE prevalence in this country. This information will help to guide and support any future requests for consideration of the overall BSE status of the United States. We are making our analysis of BSE prevalence in the United States available to the public. This report is considered a draft and will undergo peer review. The analysis may be viewed on the APHIS Web site at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/bse_in_usa.shtml.* Click on the document titled “An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States.” The analysis may be also viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0047, click on “Submit,” then click on the Docket ID link in the search results page. The analysis will appear in the resulting list of documents. You may request paper copies of the analysis by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the analysis (“An Estimate of the Prevalence of BSE in the United States”) when requesting copies. The analysis is also available for review in our reading room (information on the location and hours of the reading room is provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice). Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-6728 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Funding Opportunity Title: Commodity Partnerships for Small Agricultural Risk Management Education Sessions (Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program) *Announcement Type:* Announcement of Availability of Funds and Request for Application for Competitive Cooperative Partnership Agreements—Correction. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA):* 10.459. *Dates:* Applications are due June 2, 2006, 5 p.m. EDT. *Summary:* Due to technical errors, the following notice supersedes the original Request for Applications, published on April 18, 2006 for Commodity Partnerships for Small Agricultural Risk Management Education Sessions Program at 71 FR 19858-19864. *Overview:* The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), operating through the Risk Management Agency (RMA), announces the availability of approximately $500,000 for Commodity Partnerships for Small Agricultural Risk Management Education Sessions (the Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program). The purpose of this cooperative partnership agreement program is to deliver training and information in the management of production, marketing, and financial risk to U.S. agricultural producers. The program gives priority to educating producers of crops currently not insured under Federal crop insurance, specialty crops, and underserved commodities, including livestock and forage. A maximum of 50 cooperative partnership agreements will be funded, with no more than five in each of the ten designated RMA Regions. The maximum award for any cooperative partnership agreement will be $10,000. Recipients of awards must demonstrate non-financial benefits from a cooperative partnership agreement and must agree to the substantial involvement of RMA in the project. Funding availability for this program may be announced at approximately the same time as funding availability for similar but separate programs—CFDA No. 10.455 (Community Outreach and Assistance Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.456 (Risk Management Research Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.457 (Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education), and CFDA No. 10.458 (Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States). Prospective applicants should carefully examine and compare the notices for each program. This Announcement Consists of Eight Parts: Part I—Funding Opportunity Description A. Legislative Authority B. Background C. Definition of Priority Commodities D. Project Goal E. Purpose Part II—Award Information A. Type of Award B. Funding Availability C. Location and Target Audience D. Maximum Award E. Project Period F. Description of Agreement Award—Recipient Tasks G. RMA Activities H. Other Tasks Part III—Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing or Matching C. Other—Non-Financial Benefits Part IV—Application and Submission Information A. Address To Submit an Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Intergovernmental Review E. Funding Restrictions F. Limitation on Use of Project Funds for Salaries and Benefits G. Indirect Cost Rates H. Other Submission Requirements I. Electronic Submissions J. Acknowledgement of Applications Part V—Application Review Process A. Criteria B. Selection and Review Process Part VI—Award Administration A. Award Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Requirement To Use Program Logo 2. Requirement To Provide Project Information to an RMA-Selected Representative 3. Private Crop Insurance Organizations and Potential Conflict of Interest 4. Access To Panel Review Information 5. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards 6. Audit Requirements 7. Prohibitions and Requirements Regarding Lobbying 8. Applicable OMB Circulars 9. Requirement To Assure Compliance With Federal Civil Rights Laws 10. Requirement To Participate in a Post Award Conference C. Reporting Requirements Part VII—Agency Contact Part VIII—Additional Information A. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)B. Required Registration With the Central Contract Registry for Submission of Proposals C. Related Programs Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Legislative Authority The Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program is authorized under section 522(d)(3)(F) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act
(Act)(7 U.S.C. 1522(d)(3)(F)). B. Background RMA promotes and regulates sound risk management solutions to improve the economic stability of American agriculture. On behalf of FCIC, RMA does this by offering Federal crop insurance products through a network of private-sector partners, overseeing the creation of new risk management products, seeking enhancements in existing products, ensuring the integrity of crop insurance programs, offering outreach programs aimed at equal access and participation of underserved communities, and providing risk management education and information. One of RMA's strategic goals is to ensure that its customers are well informed as to the risk management solutions available. This educational goal is supported by section 522(d)(3)(F) of the Act, which authorizes FCIC funding for risk management training and informational efforts for agricultural producers through the formation of partnerships with public and private organizations. With respect to such partnerships, priority is to be given to reaching producers of Priority Commodities, as defined below. C. Definition of Priority Commodities For purposes of this program, Priority Commodities are defined as: • *Agricultural commodities covered by (7 U.S.C. 7333).* Commodities in this group are commercial crops that are not covered by catastrophic risk protection crop insurance, are used for food or fiber (except livestock), and specifically include, but are not limited to, floricultural, ornamental nursery, Christmas trees, turf grass sod, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), and industrial crops. • *Specialty crops.* Commodities in this group may or may not be covered under a Federal crop insurance plan and include, but are not limited to, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, syrups, honey, roots, herbs, and highly specialized varieties of traditional crops. • *Underserved commodities.* This group includes:
(a)Commodities, including livestock and forage, that are covered by a Federal crop insurance plan but for which participation in an area is below the national average; and
(b)commodities, including livestock and forage, with inadequate crop insurance coverage. A project is considered as giving priority to Priority Commodities if the majority of the educational activities of the project are directed to producers of any of the three classes of commodities listed above or any combination of the three classes. D. Project Goal The goal of this program is to ensure that “* * * producers will be better able to use financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, and other existing and emerging risk management tools”. E. Purpose The purpose of the Commodity Partnership Small Session Program is to provide U.S. farmers and ranchers with training and informational opportunities to be able to understand: • The kinds of risks addressed by existing and emerging risk management tools; • The features and appropriate use of existing and emerging risk management tools; and • How to make sound risk management decisions. II. Award Information A. Type of Award Cooperative Partnership Agreements, which require the substantial involvement of RMA. B. Funding Availability Approximately $500,000 is available in fiscal year 2006 to fund up to 50 cooperative partnership agreements. The maximum award for any agreement will be $10,000. It is anticipated that a maximum of five agreements will be funded in each of the ten designated RMA Regions. In the event that all funds available for this program are not obligated after the maximum number of agreements are awarded or if additional funds become available, these funds may, at the discretion of the Manager of FCIC, be used to award additional applications that score highly by the technical review panel or allocated pro-rata to award recipients for use in broadening the size or scope of awarded projects if agreed to by the recipient. In the event that the Manager of FCIC determines that available RMA resources cannot support the administrative and substantial involvement requirements of all agreements recommended for funding, the Manager may elect to fund fewer agreements than the available funding might otherwise allow. It is expected that the awards will be made approximately 60 days after the application deadline. All awards will be made and agreements finalized no later than September 30, 2006. C. Location and Target Audience RMA Regional Offices and the States serviced within each Region are listed below. Staff from the respective RMA Regional Offices will provide substantial involvement for projects conducted within the Region. Billings, MT Regional Office: (MT, WY, ND, and SD). Davis, CA Regional Office: (CA, NV, UT, AZ, and HI). Jackson, MS Regional Office: (KY, TN, AR, LA, and MS). Oklahoma City, OK Regional Office: (OK, TX, and NM). Raleigh, NC Regional Office: (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, WV, VA, and NC). Spokane, WA Regional Office: (WA, ID, OR, and AK). Springfield, IL Regional Office: (IL, IN, OH, and MI). St. Paul, MN Regional Office: (MN, WI, and IA). Topeka, KS Regional Office: (KS, MO, NE, and CO). Valdosta, GA Regional Office: (AL, GA, SC, FL, and Puerto Rico). Applicants must designate in their application narratives the RMA Region where educational activities will be conducted and the specific groups of producers within the region that the applicant intends to reach through the project. Priority will be given to producers of Priority Commodities. Applicants proposing to conduct educational activities in more than one RMA Region must submit a separate application for each RMA Region. This requirement is not intended to preclude producers from areas that border a designated RMA Region from participating in that region's educational activities. It is also not intended to prevent applicants from proposing the use of certain informational methods, such as print or broadcast news outlets, that may reach producers in other RMA Regions. D. Maximum Award Any application that requests Federal funding of more than $10,000 for a project will be rejected. E. Project Period Projects will be funded for a period of up to one year from the project starting date. F. Description of Agreement Award Recipient Tasks In conducting activities to achieve the purpose and goal of this program in a designated RMA Region, the award recipient will be responsible for performing the following tasks: • Develop and conduct a promotional program. This program will include activities using media, newsletters, publications, or other appropriate informational dissemination techniques that are designed to:
(a)Raise awareness for risk management;
(b)inform producers of the availability of risk management tools; and
(c)inform producers and agribusiness leaders in the designated RMA Region of training and informational opportunities. • Deliver risk management training and informational opportunities to agricultural producers and agribusiness professionals in the designated RMA Region. This will include organizing and delivering educational activities using the instructional materials that have been assembled to meet the local needs of agricultural producers. Activities should be directed primarily to agricultural producers, but may include those agribusiness professionals that have frequent opportunities to advise producers on risk management tools and decisions. • Document all educational activities conducted under the cooperative partnership agreement and the results of such activities, including criteria and indicators used to evaluate the success of the program. The recipient will also be required to provide information to an RMA-selected contractor to evaluate all educational activities and advise RMA as to the effectiveness of activities. G. RMA Activities FCIC, working through RMA, will be substantially involved during the performance of the funded project through RMA's ten Regional Offices. Potential types of substantial involvement may include, but are not limited to the following activities. • Assist in the selection of subcontractors and project staff. • Collaborate with the recipient in assembling, reviewing, and approving risk management materials for producers in the designated RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient in reviewing and approving a promotional program for raising awareness for risk management and for informing producers of training and informational opportunities in the RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient on the delivery of education to producers and agribusiness leaders in the RMA Region. This will include:
(a)Reviewing and approving in advance all producer and agribusiness leader educational activities;
(b)advising the project leader on technical issues related to crop insurance education and information; and
(c)assisting the project leader in informing crop insurance professionals about educational activity plans and scheduled meetings. • Conduct an evaluation of the performance of the recipient in meeting the deliverables of the project. Applications that do not contain substantial involvement by RMA will be rejected. H. Other Tasks In addition to the specific, required tasks listed above, the applicant may propose additional tasks that would contribute directly to the purpose of this program. For any proposed additional task, the applicant must identify the objective of the task, the specific subtasks required to meet the objective, specific time lines for performing the subtasks, and the specific responsibilities of partners. The applicant must also identify specific ways in which RMA would have substantial involvement in the proposed project task. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include State departments of agriculture, universities, non-profit agricultural organizations, and other public or private organizations with the capacity to lead a local program of risk management education for farmers and ranchers in an RMA Region. Individuals are not eligible applicants. Although an applicant may be eligible to compete for an award based on its status as an eligible entity, other factors may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal assistance under this program governed by Federal law and regulations ( *e.g.* debarment and suspension; a determination of non-performance on a prior contract, cooperative agreement, grant or cooperative partnership; a determination of a violation of applicable ethical standards; a determination of being considered “high risk”). Applications from ineligible or excluded persons will be rejected in their entirety. B. Cost Sharing or Matching Although RMA prefers cost sharing by the applicant, this program has neither a cost sharing nor a matching requirement. C. Other—Non-Financial Benefits To be eligible, applicants must also be able to demonstrate that they will receive a non-financial benefit as a result of a cooperative partnership agreement. Non-financial benefits must accrue to the applicant and must include more than the ability to provide employment income to the applicant or for the applicant's employees or the community. The applicant must demonstrate that performance under the cooperative partnership agreement will further the specific mission of the applicant (such as providing research or activities necessary for graduate or other students to complete their educational program). Applications that do not demonstrate a non-financial benefit will be rejected. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Contact To Request Application Package Program application materials for the Commodity Partnerships Program under this announcement may be downloaded from *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements.* Applicants may also request application materials from: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone:
(202)720-5265, fax:
(202)690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* B. Content and Form of Application Submission A complete and valid application package must include an electronic copy (Microsoft Word format preferred) of the narrative portion (Forms RME-1 and RME-2) of the application package on a compact disc and an original and two copies of the completed and signed application must be submitted in one package at the time of initial submission, which must include the following: 1. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance”. 2. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-A, “Budget Information—Non-construction Programs”. Federal funding requested (the total of direct and indirect costs) must not exceed $10,000. 3. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-B, “Assurances, Non-constructive Programs”. 4. Risk Management Education Project Narrative (Form RME-1). Complete all required parts of Form RME-1: Part I—Title Page. Part II—A written narrative of no more than 2 single-sided pages which will provide reviewers with sufficient information to effectively evaluate the merits of the application according to the evaluation criteria listed in this notice. Although a Statement of Work, which is the third evaluation criterion, is to be completed in detail in RME Form-2, applicants may wish to highlight certain unique features of the Statement of Work in Part II for the benefit of the evaluation panel. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 2 pages will be reviewed. • No smaller than 12-point font size. • Use an easily readable font face ( *e.g.* , Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman). • 8.5 by 11 inch paper. • One-inch margins on each page. • Printed only on one side of paper. • Unbound, held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound or stapled in any other way. Part III—A Budget Narrative, describing how the categorical costs listed on SF 424-A are derived. Part IV—Provide a “Statement of Non-financial Benefits”. (Refer to Section III, Eligibility Information, above). 5. “Statement of Work”, Form RME-2, which identifies tasks and subtasks in detail, expected completion dates and deliverables, and RMA's substantial involvement role for the proposed project. C. Submission Dates and Times *Applications Deadline:* June 2, 2006, 5 p.m. EDT. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that RMA receives a complete application package by the closing date and time. Incomplete or late application packages will not receive further consideration. D. Intergovernmental Review. Not applicable. E. Funding Restrictions Cooperative partnership agreement funds may not be used to: a. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility including a processing facility; b. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment; c. Repair or maintain privately owned vehicles; d. Pay for the preparation of the cooperative partnership agreement application; e. Fund political activities; f. Alcohol, food, beverage or entertainment; g. Pay costs incurred prior to receiving a cooperative partnership agreement; h. Fund any activities prohibited in 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019, as applicable. F. Limitation on Use of Project Funds for Salaries and Benefits Total costs for salary and benefits allowed for projects under this announcement will be limited to not more than 60 percent reimbursement of the funds awarded under the cooperative partnership agreement as indicated in Section III. Eligibility Information, C. Other—Non-financial Benefits. One goal of the Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program is to maximize the use of the limited funding available for risk management education for producers of Priority Commodities. In order to accomplish this goal, RMA needs to ensure that the maximum amount of funds practicable is used for directly providing the educational opportunities. Limiting the amount of funding for salaries and benefits will allow the limited amount of funding to reach the maximum number of farmers and ranchers. G. Indirect Cost Rates a. Indirect costs allowed for projects submitted under this announcement will be limited to ten
(10)percent of the total direct cost of the cooperative partnership agreement. b. RMA will withhold all indirect cost rate funds for an award to an applicant requesting indirect costs if the applicant has not negotiated an indirect cost rate with its cognizant Federal agency. c. If an applicant is in the process of negotiating an indirect cost rate with its cognizant Federal agency, RMA will withhold all indirect cost rate funds from that applicant until the indirect cost rate has been established. d. If an applicant's indirect cost rate has expired or will expire prior to award announcements, a clear statement on renegotiation efforts must be included in the application. e. It is incumbent on all applicants to have a current indirect cost rate or begin negotiations to establish an indirect cost rate prior to the submission deadline. Because it may take several months to obtain an indirect cost rate, applicants needing an indirect cost rate are encouraged to start work on establishing these rates well in advance of submitting an application. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)is responsible for assigning cognizant Federal agencies. f. Applicants may be asked to provide a copy of their indirect cost rate negotiated with their cognizant agency. H. Other Submission Requirements *Mailed submissions:* Applications submitted through express, overnight mail or another delivery service will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received in the mailroom at the address stated below for express, overnight mail or another delivery service on or before the deadline. Applicants are cautioned that express, overnight mail or other delivery services do not always deliver as agreed. Applicants should take this into account because failure of such delivery services will not extend the deadline. Mailed applications will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline in the mailroom at the address stated below for mailed applications. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance, to ensure that applications are received on or before the deadline time and date. Applicants using the U.S. Postal Services should allow for the extra security handling time for delivery due to the additional security measures that mail delivered to government offices in the Washington DC area requires. Address when using private delivery services or when hand delivering: Attention: Risk Management Education Program, USDA/RMA/RME, Room 5720, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Address when using U.S. Postal Services: Attention: Risk Management Education Program, USDA/RMA/RME/Stop 0808, Room 5720, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0808. I. Electronic submissions Applications transmitted electronically via Grants.gov will be accepted prior to the application date or time deadline. The application package can be accessed via Grants.gov, go to *http://www.grants.gov,* click on “Find Grant Opportunities”, click on “Search Grant Opportunities,” and enter the CFDA number (beginning of the RFA) to search by CFDA number. From the search results, select the item that correlates to the title of this RFA. If you do not have electronic access to the RFA or have trouble downloading material and you would like a hardcopy, you may contact Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone:
(202)720-5265, fax:
(202)690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* J. Acknowledgement of Applications Receipt of applications will be acknowledged by e-mail, whenever possible. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses in their applications. If an e-mail address is not indicated on an application, receipt will be acknowledged by letter. There will be no notification of incomplete, unqualified or unfunded applications until after the awards have been made. When received by RMA, applications will be assigned an identification number. This number will be communicated to applicants in the acknowledgement of receipt of applications. An application's identification number should be referenced in all correspondence regarding the application. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgement within 15 days of the submission deadline, the applicant should notify RMA's point of contact indicated in Section VII, Agency Contact. V. Application Review Information A. Criteria Applications submitted under the Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program will be evaluated within each RMA Region according to the following criteria: Priority—Maximum 10 Points The applicant can submit projects that are not related to Priority Commodities. However, priority will be given to projects relating to Priority Commodities and the degree in which such projects relate to the Priority Commodities. Projects that relate solely to Priority Commodities will be eligible for the most points. Project Benefits—Maximum 25 Points The applicant must demonstrate that the project benefits to farmers and ranchers warrant the funding requested. Applicants will be scored according to the extent they can:
(a)Reasonably estimate the number of producers reached through the various educational activities described in the Statement of Work;
(b)justify such estimates with clear specifics;
(c)identify the actions producers will likely be able to take as a result of the activities described in the Statement of Work; and
(d)identify the specific measures for evaluating results that will be employed in the project. Reviewers' scoring will be based on the scope and reasonableness of the applicant's estimates of producers reached through the project, clear descriptions of specific expected project benefits, and well-designed methods for measuring the project's results and effectiveness. Statement of Work—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must produce a clear and specific Statement of Work for the project. For each of the tasks contained in the Description of Agreement Award (refer to Section II Award Information), the applicant must identify and describe specific subtasks, responsible entities, expected completion dates, RMA substantial involvement, and deliverables that will further the purpose of this program. Applicants will obtain a higher score to the extent that the Statement of Work is specific, measurable, reasonable, has specific deadlines for the completion of subtasks, relates directly to the required activities and the program purpose described in this announcement, which is to provide producers with training and informational opportunities so that the producers will be better able to use financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, and other existing and emerging risk management tools. Applicants are required to submit this Statement of Work on Form RME-2. Project Management—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must demonstrate an ability to implement sound and effective project management practices. Higher scores will be awarded to applicants that can demonstrate organizational skills, leadership, and experience in delivering services or programs that assist agricultural producers in the respective RMA Region. Applicants that will employ, or have access to, personnel who have experience in directing local educational programs that benefit agricultural producers in the respective RMA Region will receive higher rankings. Past Performance—Maximum 10 Points If the applicant has been a recipient of other Federal or other government grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts, the applicant must provide information relating to their past performance in reporting on outputs and outcomes under past or current federal assistance agreements. The applicant must also detail that they have consistently complied with financial and program reporting and auditing requirements. RMA reserves the right to add up to 10 points and subtract 5 points to applications due to past performance. Applicants with very good past performance will receive a score from 6-10 points. Applicants with acceptable past performance will receive a score from 1-5 points. Applicants with unacceptable past performance will receive a score of minus 5 points for this evaluation factor. Applicants without relevant past performance information will receive a neutral score of the mean number of points of all applicants with past performance. Under this cooperative partnership agreement, RMA will subjectively rate the recipient on project performance as indicated in Section II, G. The applicant must list all current public or private support to which personnel identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for persons involved is included in the budget. An application that duplicates or overlaps substantially with an application already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. The projects proposed for funding should be included in the pending section. Budget Appropriateness and Efficiency—Maximum 15 Points Applicants must provide a detailed budget summary that clearly explains and justifies costs associated with the project. Applicants will receive higher scores to the extent that they can demonstrate a fair and reasonable use of funds appropriate for the project and a budget that contains the estimated cost of reaching each individual producer. The applicant must provide information factors such as: • The allowability and necessity for individual cost categories; • The reasonableness of amounts estimated for necessary costs; • The basis used for allocating indirect or overhead costs; • The appropriateness of allocating particular overhead costs to the proposed project as direct costs; and • The percent of time devoted to the project for all key project personnel identified in the application. Salaries of project personnel should be requested in proportion to the percent of time that they would devote to the project—Note: cannot exceed 60% of the total project budget. Applicants must list all current public or private support to which personnel identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for persons involved is included in the budget. Only items or services that are necessary for the successful completion of the project will be funded as permitted under the Act. B. Review and Selection Process Applications will be evaluated using a two-part process. First, each application will be screened by RMA personnel to ensure that it meets the requirements in this announcement. Applications that do not meet the requirements of this announcement or that are incomplete will not receive further consideration. Applications that meet announcement requirements will be sorted into the RMA Region in which the applicant proposes to conduct the project and will be presented to a review panel for consideration. Second, the review panel will meet to consider and discuss the merits of each application. The panel will consist of not less than three independent reviewers. Reviewers will be drawn from USDA, other Federal agencies, and others representing public and private organizations, as needed. After considering the merits of all applications within an RMA Region, panel members will score each application according to the criteria and point values listed above. The panel will then rank each application against others within the RMA Region according to the scores received. A lottery will be used to resolve any instances of a tie score that might have a bearing on funding recommendations. If such a lottery is required, the names of all tied applicants will be entered into a drawing. The first tied applicant drawn will have priority over other tied applicants for funding consideration. The review panel will report the results of the evaluation to the Manager of FCIC. The panel's report will include the recommended applicants to receive cooperative partnership agreements for each RMA Region. Funding will not be provided for an application receiving a score less than 45. Funding will not be provided for an application that is highly similar to a higher-scoring application in the same RMA Region. Highly similar is one that proposes to reach the same producers likely to be reached by another applicant that scored higher by the panel and the same general educational material is proposed to be delivered. An organization, or group of organizations in partnership, may apply for funding under other FCIC or RMA programs, in addition to the program described in this announcement. However, if the Manager of FCIC determines that an application recommended for funding is sufficiently similar to a project that has been funded or has been recommended to be funded under another RMA or FCIC program, then the Manager may elect to not fund that application in whole or in part. The Manager of FCIC will make the final determination on those applications that will be awarded funding. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Following approval by the awarding official of RMA of the applications to be selected for funding, project leaders whose applications have been selected for funding will be notified. Within the limit of funds available for such a purpose, the awarding official of RMA shall enter into cooperative partnership agreements with those selected applicants. The agreements provide the amount of Federal funds for use in the project period, the terms, and conditions of the award, and the time period for the project. The effective date of the agreement shall be on the date the agreement is executed by both parties and it shall remain in effect for up to one year or through September 30, 2007, whichever is later. After a partnership agreement has been signed, RMA will extend to award recipients, in writing, the authority to draw down funds for the purpose of conducting the activities listed in the agreement. All funds provided to the applicant by FCIC must be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are obligated in accordance with the approved agreement and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicability of Federal cost principles. No commitment of Federal assistance beyond the project period is made or implied for any award resulting from this notice. Notification of denial of funding will be sent to applicants after final funding decisions have been made. Reasons for denial of funding can include, but are not limited to, incomplete applications, applications with evaluation scores that are lower than other applications in an RMA Region, or applications that are highly similar to a higher-scoring application in the same RMA Region. Highly similar is an application that proposes to reach the same producers likely to be reached by another applicant that scored higher by the panel and the same general educational material is proposed to be delivered. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Requirement To Use Program Logo Applicants awarded cooperative partnership agreements will be required to use a program logo and design provided by RMA for all instructional and promotional materials. 2. Requirement To Provide Project Information to an RMA-Selected Contractor Applicants awarded cooperative partnership agreements may be required to assist RMA in evaluating the effectiveness of its educational programs by providing documentation of educational activities and related information to any contractor selected by RMA for program evaluation purposes. 3. Private Crop Insurance Organizations and Potential Conflicts of Interest Private organizations that are involved in the sale of Federal crop insurance, or that have financial ties to such organizations, are eligible to apply for funding under this announcement. However, such entities will not be allowed to receive funding to conduct activities that would otherwise be required under a Standard Reinsurance Agreement or any other agreement in effect between FCIC and the entity. Also, such entities will not be allowed to receive funding to conduct activities that could be perceived by producers as promoting one company's services or products over another's. If applying for funding, such organizations are encouraged to be sensitive to potential conflicts of interest and to describe in their application the specific actions they will take to avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest. 4. Access to Panel Review Information Upon written request from the applicant, scores from the evaluation panel, not including the identity of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant after the review and awards process has been completed. 5. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards The names of applicants, the names of individuals identified in the applications, the content of applications, and the panel evaluations of applications will all be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of review panel members will remain confidential throughout the entire review process and will not be released to applicants. At the end of the fiscal year, names of panel members will be made available. However, panelists will not be identified with the review of any particular application. When an application results in a partnership agreement, that agreement becomes a part of the official record of RMA transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to be considered confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within an application, including the basis for such designation. The original copy of an application that does not result in an award will be retained by RMA for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Copies of applications not receiving awards will be released only with the express written consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to award. 6. Audit Requirements Applicants awarded cooperative partnership agreements are subject to audit. 7. Prohibitions and Requirements With Regard to Lobbying Section 1352 of Public Law 101-121, enacted on October 23, 1989, imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans. It provides exemptions for Indian tribes and tribal organizations. Current and prospective recipients, and any subcontractors, are prohibited from using Federal funds, other than profits from a Federal contract, for lobbying Congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. In addition, for each award action in excess of $100,000 ($150,000 for loans) the law requires recipients and any subcontractors:
(1)To certify that they have neither used nor will use any appropriated funds for payment of lobbyists;
(2)to disclose the name, address, payment details, and purpose of any agreements with lobbyists whom recipients of their subcontractors will pay with profits or other non-appropriated funds on or after December 22, 1989; and
(3)to file quarterly up-dates about the use of lobbyists if material changes occur in their use. The law establishes civil penalties for non-compliance. A copy of the certification and disclosure forms must be submitted with the application, are available at the address, and telephone number listed in Section VII. Agency Contact. 8. Applicable OMB Circulars All partnership agreements funded as a result of this notice will be subject to the requirements contained in all applicable OMB circulars. 9. Requirement To Assure Compliance With Federal Civil Rights Laws Award recipients of all cooperative partnership agreements funded as a result of this notice are required to know and abide by Federal civil rights laws and to assure USDA and RMA that the recipient is in compliance with and will continue to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), 7 CFR part 15, and USDA regulations promulgated thereunder, 7 CFR 1901.202. RMA requires award recipients to submit Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights), assuring RMA of this compliance prior to the beginning of the project period. 10. Requirement To Participate in a Post Award Teleconference RMA requires that project leaders participate in a post award teleconference to become fully aware of agreement requirements and for delineating the roles of RMA personnel and the procedures that will be followed in administering the agreement and will afford an opportunity for the orderly transition of agreement duties and obligations if different personnel are to assume post-award responsibility. C. Reporting Requirements Award recipients will be required to submit quarterly progress reports, quarterly financial reports (OMB Standard Form 269), and quarterly Activity Logs (Form RME-3) throughout the project period, as well as a final program and financial report not later than 90 days after the end of the project period. Recipients will be required to submit prior to the award: • A completed and signed Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights). • A completed and signed OMB Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”. • A completed and signed AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.” • A completed and signed AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace”. • A completed and signed Faith-Based Survey on EEO. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Stop 0808, Washington, DC 20250-0808, phone: 202-720-5265, fax: 202-690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* You may also obtain information regarding this announcement from the RMA Web site at: *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements.* VIII. Other Information A. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of over 70 million businesses worldwide. The Office of Management and Budget published a notice of final policy issuance in the **Federal Register** June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38402) that requires a DUNS number in every application (i.e., hard copy and electronic) for a grant or cooperative agreement on or after October 1, 2003. Therefore, potential applicants should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps needed to obtain one. For information about how to obtain a DUNS number, go to *http://www.grants.gov.* Please note that the registration may take up to 14 business days to complete. B. Required Registration With the Central Contract Registry for Submission of Proposals The Central Contract Registry
(CCR)is a database that serves as the primary Government repository for contractor information required for the conduct of business with the Government. This database will also be used as a central location for maintaining organizational information for organizations seeking and receiving grants from the Government. Such organizations must register in the CCR prior to the submission of applications. A DUNS number is needed for CCR registration. For information about how to register in the CCR, visit “Get Started” at the Web site, *http://www.grants.gov.* Allow a minimum of 5 business days to complete the CCR registration. C. Related Programs Funding availability for this program may be announced at approximately the same time as funding availability for similar but separate programs—CFDA No. 10.455 (Community Outreach and Assistance Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.456 (Risk Management Research Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.457 (Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education), and CFDA No. 10.458 (Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States). These programs have some similarities, but also key differences. The differences stem from important features of each program's authorizing legislation and different RMA objectives. Prospective applicants should carefully examine and compare the notices for each program. Signed in Washington, DC on April 26, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-6669 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Funding Opportunity Title: Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education (Commodity Partnerships Program) *Announcement Type:* Availability of Funds and Request for Application for Competitive Cooperative Partnership Agreements—Correction. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA):* 10.457. *Dates:* Applications are due June 2, 2006, 5 p.m. EDT. *Summary:* Due to technical errors, the following notice supersedes the original Request for Applications, published on April 18, 2006 for Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education Program at 71 FR 19851-19858. *Overview:* The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), operating through the Risk Management Agency (RMA), announces the availability of approximately $5.0 million for Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education (the Commodity Partnerships Program). The purpose of this cooperative partnership agreement program is to deliver training and information in the management of production, marketing, and financial risk to U.S. agricultural producers. The program gives priority to educating producers of crops currently not insured under Federal crop insurance, specialty crops, and underserved commodities, including livestock and forage. A maximum of 40 cooperative partnership agreements will be funded, with no more than four in each of the ten designated RMA Regions. The maximum award for any of the 40 cooperative partnership agreements will be $150,000. Recipients of awards must demonstrate non-financial benefits from a cooperative partnership agreement and must agree to the substantial involvement of RMA in the project. This Announcement Consists of Eight Parts: Part I—Funding Opportunity Description A. Legislative Authority B. Background C. Definition of Priority Commodities D. Project Goal E. Purpose Part II—Award Information A. Type of Award B. Funding Availability C. Location and Target Audience D. Maximum Award E. Project Period F. Description of Agreement Award—Recipient Tasks G. RMA Activities H. Other Tasks Part III—Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing or Matching C. Other—Non-Financial Benefits Part IV—Application and Submission Information A. Address To Submit an Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Limitation on Use of Project Funds for Salaries and Benefits F. Indirect Cost Rates G. Other Submission Requirements H. Electronic Submissions I. Acknowledgement of Applications Part V—Application Review Process A. Criteria B. Selection and Review Process Part VI—Award Administration A. Award Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Requirement To Use Program Logo 2. Requirement To Provide Project Information to an RMA-Selected Representative 3. Private Crop Insurance Organizations and Potential Conflict of Interest 4. Access to Panel Review Information 5. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards 6. Audit Requirements 7. Prohibitions and Requirements Regarding Lobbying 8. Applicable OMB Circulars 9. Requirement To Assure Compliance With Federal Civil Rights Laws 10. Requirement To Participate in a Post Award Conference C. Reporting Requirements Part VII—Agency Contact Part VIII—Additional Information A. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)B. Required Registration With the Central Contract Registry for Submission of Proposals C. Related Programs I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Legislative Authority The Commodity Partnerships Program is authorized under section 522(d)(3)(F) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act
(Act)(7 U.S.C. 1522(d)(3)(F). B. Background RMA promotes and regulates sound risk management solutions to improve the economic stability of American agriculture. On behalf of FCIC, RMA does this by offering Federal crop insurance products through a network of private-sector partners, overseeing the creation of new risk management products, seeking enhancements in existing products, ensuring the integrity of crop insurance programs, offering outreach programs aimed at equal access and participation of underserved communities, and providing risk management education and information. One of RMA's strategic goals is to ensure that its customers are well informed as to the risk management solutions available. This educational goal is supported by section 522(d)(3)(F) of the Act, which authorizes FCIC funding for risk management training and informational efforts for agricultural producers through the formation of partnerships with public and private organizations. With respect to such partnerships, priority is to be given to reaching producers of Priority Commodities, as defined below. C. Definition of Priority Commodities For purposes of this program, Priority Commodities are defined as: • *Agricultural commodities covered by (7 U.S.C. 7333).* Commodities in this group are commercial crops that are not covered by catastrophic risk protection crop insurance, are used for food or fiber (except livestock), and specifically include, but are not limited to, floricultural, ornamental nursery, Christmas trees, turf grass sod, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), and industrial crops. • *Specialty crops.* Commodities in this group may or may not be covered under a Federal crop insurance plan and include, but are not limited to, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, syrups, honey, roots, herbs, and highly specialized varieties of traditional crops. • *Underserved commodities.* This group includes:
(a)Commodities, including livestock and forage, that are covered by a Federal crop insurance plan but for which participation in an area is below the national average; and
(b)commodities, including livestock and forage, with inadequate crop insurance coverage. A project is considered as giving priority to Priority Commodities if the majority of the educational activities of the project are directed to producers of any of the three classes of commodities listed above or any combination of the three classes. D. Project Goal The goal of this program is to ensure that “* * * producers will be better able to use financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, and other existing and emerging risk management tools.” E. Purpose The purpose of the Commodity Partnership Program is to provide U.S. farmers and ranchers with training and informational opportunities to be able to understand: • The kinds of risks addressed by existing and emerging risk management tools; • The features and appropriate use of existing and emerging risk management tools; and • How to make sound risk management decisions. II. Award Information A. Type of Award Cooperative Partnership Agreements, which require the substantial involvement of RMA. B. Funding Availability Approximately $5,000,000 is available in fiscal year 2006 to fund up to 40 cooperative partnership agreements. The maximum award will be $150,000. It is anticipated that a maximum of four agreements will be funded for each designated RMA Region. Applicants should apply for funding under that RMA Region where the educational activities will be directed. In the event that all funds available for this program are not obligated after the maximum number of agreements are awarded or if additional funds become available, these funds may, at the discretion of the Manager of FCIC, be used to award additional applications that score highly by the technical review panel or allocated pro-rata to award recipients for use in broadening the size or scope of awarded projects if agreed to by the recipient. In the event that the Manager of FCIC determines that available RMA resources cannot support the administrative and substantial involvement requirements of all agreements recommended for funding, the Manager may elect to fund fewer agreements than the available funding might otherwise allow. It is expected that the awards will be made approximately 60 days after the application deadline. All awards will be made and agreements finalized no later than September 30, 2006. C. Location and Target Audience RMA Regional Offices and the States serviced within each Region are listed below. Staff from the respective RMA Regional Offices will provide substantial involvement for projects conducted within their Region. Billings, MT Regional Office: (MT, WY, ND, and SD). Davis, CA Regional Office: (CA, NV, UT, AZ, and HI). Jackson, MS Regional Office: (KY, TN, AR, LA, and MS). Oklahoma City, OK Regional Office: (OK, TX, and NM). Raleigh, NC Regional Office: (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, WV, VA, and NC). Spokane, WA Regional Office: (WA, ID, OR, and AK). Springfield, IL Regional Office: (IL, IN, OH, and MI). St. Paul, MN Regional Office: (MN, WI, and IA). Topeka, KS Regional Office: (KS, MO, NE, and CO). Valdosta, GA Regional Office: (AL, GA, SC, FL, and Puerto Rico). Applicants must designate in their application narratives the RMA Region where educational activities will be conducted and the specific groups of producers within the region that the applicant intends to reach through the project. Priority will be given to producers of Priority Commodities. Applicants proposing to conduct educational activities in more than one RMA Region must submit a separate application for each RMA Region. This requirement is not intended to preclude producers from areas that border a designated RMA Region from participating in that region's educational activities. It is also not intended to prevent applicants from proposing the use of certain informational methods, such as print or broadcast news outlets, that may reach producers in other RMA Regions. D. Maximum Award Any application that requests Federal funding of more than $150,000 will be rejected. E. Project Period Projects will be funded for a period of up to one year from the project starting date. F. Description of Agreement Award Recipient Tasks In conducting activities to achieve the purpose and goal of this program in a designated RMA Region, the award recipient will be responsible for performing the following tasks: • Develop and conduct a promotional program. This program will include activities using media, newsletters, publications, or other appropriate informational dissemination techniques that are designed to:
(a)Raise awareness for risk management;
(b)inform producers of the availability of risk management tools; and
(c)inform producers and agribusiness leaders in the designated RMA Region of training and informational opportunities. • Deliver risk management training and informational opportunities to agricultural producers and agribusiness professionals in the designated RMA Region. This will include organizing and delivering educational activities using instructional materials that have been assembled to meet the local needs of agricultural producers. Activities should be directed primarily to agricultural producers, but may include those agribusiness professionals that have frequent opportunities to advise producers on risk management tools and decisions. • Document all educational activities conducted under the partnership agreement and the results of such activities, including criteria and indicators used to evaluate the success of the program. The recipient may also be required to provide information to an RMA-selected contractor to evaluate all educational activities and advise RMA as to the effectiveness of activities. G. RMA Activities FCIC, working through RMA, will be substantially involved during the performance of the funded project through RMA's ten Regional Offices. Potential types of substantial involvement may include, but are not limited to the following activities. • Assist in the selection of subcontractors and project staff. • Collaborate with the recipient in assembling, reviewing, and approving risk management materials for producers in the designated RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient in reviewing and approving a promotional program for raising awareness for risk management and for informing producers of training and informational opportunities in the RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient on the delivery of education to producers and agribusiness leaders in the RMA Region. This will include:
(a)Reviewing and approving in advance all producer and agribusiness leader educational activities;
(b)advising the project leader on technical issues related to crop insurance education and information; and
(c)assisting the project leader in informing crop insurance professionals about educational activity plans and scheduled meetings. • Conduct an evaluation of the performance of the recipient in meeting the deliverables of the project. Applications that do not contain substantial involvement by RMA will be rejected. H. Other Tasks In addition to the specific, required tasks listed above, the applicant may propose additional tasks that would contribute directly to the purpose of this program. For any proposed additional task, the applicant must identify the objective of the task, the specific subtasks required to meet the objective, specific time lines for performing the subtasks, and the specific responsibilities of partners. The applicant must also identify specific ways in which RMA would have substantial involvement in the proposed project task. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include State departments of agriculture, universities, non-profit agricultural organizations, and other public or private organizations with the capacity to lead a local program of risk management education for farmers and ranchers in an RMA Region. Individuals are not eligible applicants. Although an applicant may be eligible to compete for an award based on its status as an eligible entity, other factors may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal assistance under this program governed by Federal law and regulations ( *e.g.* debarment and suspension; a determination of non-performance on a prior contract, cooperative agreement, grant or partnership; a determination of a violation of applicable ethical standards; a determination of being considered “high risk”). Applications from ineligible or excluded persons will be rejected in their entirety. B. Cost Sharing or Matching Although RMA prefers cost sharing by the applicant, this program has neither a cost sharing nor a matching requirement. C. Other—Non-financial Benefits To be eligible, applicants must also be able to demonstrate that they will receive a non-financial benefit as a result of a partnership agreement. Non-financial benefits must accrue to the applicant and must include more than the ability to provide employment income to the applicant or for the applicant's employees or the community. The applicant must demonstrate that performance under the partnership agreement will further the specific mission of the applicant (such as providing research or activities necessary for graduate or other students to complete their educational program). Applicants that do not demonstrate a non-financial benefit will be rejected. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Contact To Request Application Package Program application materials for the Commodity Partnerships Program under this announcement may be downloaded from *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements.* Applicants may also request application materials from: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone:
(202)720-5265, fax:
(202)690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* B. Content and Form of Application Submission A complete and valid application package must include an electronic copy (Microsoft Word format preferred) of the narrative portion (Forms RME 1 and RME-2) of the application package on a compact disc and an original and two copies of the completed and signed application must be submitted in one package at the time of initial submission, which must include the following: 1. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” 2. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-A, “Budget Information—Non-construction Programs.” Federal funding requested (the total of direct and indirect costs) must not exceed $150,000. 3. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-B, “Assurances, Non-constructive Programs.” 4. Risk Management Education Project Narrative (Form RME-1). Complete all required parts of Form RME-1: Part I—Title Page Part II—A written narrative of no more than 10 single-sided pages which will provide reviewers with sufficient information to effectively evaluate the merits of the application according to the evaluation criteria listed in this notice. Although a Statement of Work, which is the third evaluation criterion, is to be completed in detail in RME Form-2, applicants may wish to highlight certain unique features of the Statement of Work in Part II for the benefit of the evaluation panel. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed. • No smaller than 12 point font size. • Use an easily readable font face ( *e.g.* , Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman). • 8.5 by 11 inch paper. • One-inch margins on each page. • Printed on only one side of paper. • Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound or stapled in any other way. Part III—A Budget Narrative, describing how the categorical costs listed on SF 424-A are derived. Part IV—Provide a “Statement of Non-financial Benefits.” (Refer to Section III, Eligibility Information, C. Other—Non-financial Benefits, above.) 5. “Statement of Work,” Form RME-2, which identifies tasks and subtasks in detail, expected completion dates and deliverables, and RMA's substantial involvement role for the proposed project. C. Submission Dates and Times *Applications Deadline:* Applications are due June 2, 2006, 5 p.m. EDT. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that RMA receives a complete application package by the closing date and time. Incomplete or late application packages will not receive further consideration. D. Funding Restrictions Cooperative partnership agreement funds may not be used to: a. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility including a processing facility; b. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment; c. Repair or maintain privately owned vehicles; d. Pay for the preparation of the cooperative partnership agreement application; e. Fund political activities; f. Purchase alcohol, food, beverage, or entertainment; g. Pay costs incurred prior to receiving a partnership agreement; h. Fund any activities prohibited in 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019, as applicable. E. Limitation on Use of Project Funds for Salaries and Benefits Total costs for salary and benefits allowed for projects under this announcement will be limited to not more than 60 percent reimbursement of the funds awarded under the cooperative partnership agreement as indicated in Section III. Eligibility Information, C. Other—Non-financial Benefits. One goal of the Commodity Partnerships program is to maximize the use of the limited funding available for risk management education for producers of Priority Commodities. In order to accomplish this goal, RMA needs to ensure that the maximum amount of funds practicable is used for directly providing the educational opportunities. Limiting the amount of funding for salaries and benefits will allow the limited amount of funding to reach the maximum number of farmers and ranchers. F. Indirect Cost Rates a. Indirect costs allowed for projects submitted under this announcement will be limited to ten
(10)percent of the total direct cost of the cooperative partnership agreement. b. RMA will withhold all indirect cost rate funds for an award to an applicant requesting indirect costs if the applicant has not negotiated an indirect cost rate with its cognizant Federal agency. c. If an applicant is in the process of negotiating an indirect cost rate with its cognizant Federal agency, RMA will withhold all indirect cost rate funds from that applicant until the indirect cost rate has been established. d. If an applicant's indirect cost rate has expired or will expire prior to award announcements, a clear statement on renegotiation efforts must be included in the application. e. It is incumbent on all applicants to have a current indirect cost rate or begin negotiations to establish an indirect cost rate prior to the submission deadline. Because it may take several months to obtain an indirect cost rate, applicants needing an indirect cost rate are encouraged to start work on establishing these rates well in advance of submitting an application. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)is responsible for assigning cognizant Federal agencies. f. Applicants may be asked to provide a copy of their indirect cost rate negotiated with their cognizant agency. G. Other Submission Requirements *Mailed submissions:* Applications submitted through express, overnight mail or another delivery service will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received in the mailroom at the address stated below for express, overnight mail or another delivery service on or before the deadline. Applicants are cautioned that express, overnight mail or other delivery services do not always deliver as agreed. Applicants should take this into account because failure of such delivery services will not extend the deadline. Mailed applications will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline in the mailroom at the address stated below for mailed applications. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance, to ensure that applications are received on or before the deadline time and date. Applicants using the U.S. Postal Services should allow for the extra security handling time for delivery due to the additional security measures that mail delivered to government offices in the Washington DC area requires. Address when using private delivery services or when hand delivering: Attention: Risk Management Education Program, USDA/RMA/RME, Room 5720, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Address when using U.S. Postal Services: Attention: Risk Management Education Program, USDA/RMA/RME/Stop 0808, Room 5720, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0808. H. Electronic Submissions Applications transmitted electronically via Grants.gov will be accepted prior to the application date or time deadline. The application package can be accessed via Grants.gov, go to *http://www.grants.gov* , click on “Find Grant Opportunities,” click on “Search Grant Opportunities,” and enter the CFDA number (located at the beginning of this RFA) to search by CFDA number. From the search results, select the item that correlates to the title of this RFA. If you do not have electronic access to the RFA or have trouble downloading material and you would like a hardcopy, you may contact Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone:
(202)720-5265, fax:
(202)690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* I. Acknowledgement of Applications Receipt of applications will be acknowledged by e-mail, whenever possible. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses in their applications. If an e-mail address is not indicated on an application, receipt will be acknowledged by letter. There will be no notification of incomplete, unqualified or unfunded applications until the awards have been made. When received by RMA, applications will be assigned an identification number. This number will be communicated to applicants in the acknowledgement of receipt of applications. An application's identification number should be referenced in all correspondence regarding the application. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgement within 15 days of the submission deadline, the applicant should notify RMA's point of contact indicated in Section VII, Agency Contact. V. Application Review Information A. Criteria Applications submitted under the Commodity Partnerships Program will be evaluated within each RMA Region according to the following criteria: Priority—Maximum 10 Points The applicant can submit projects that are not related to Priority Commodities. However, priority is given to projects relating to Priority Commodities and the degree in which such projects relate to the Priority Commodities. Projects that relate solely to Priority Commodities will be eligible for the most points. Project Benefits—Maximum 35 Points The applicant must demonstrate that the project benefits to farmers and ranchers warrant the funding requested. Applicants will be scored according to the extent they can:
(a)Reasonably estimate the total number of producers reached through the various educational activities described in the Statement of Work;
(b)justify such estimates with clear specifics;
(c)identify the actions producers will likely be able to take as a result of the activities described in the Statement of Work; and
(d)identify the specific measures for evaluating results that will be employed in the project. Reviewers' scoring will be based on the scope and reasonableness of the applicant's estimates of producers reached through the project, clear descriptions of specific expected project benefits, and well-designed methods for measuring the project's results and effectiveness. Statement of Work—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must produce a clear and specific Statement of Work for the project. For each of the tasks contained in the Description of Agreement Award (refer to Section II Award Information), the applicant must identify and describe specific subtasks, responsible entities, expected completion dates, RMA substantial involvement, and deliverables that will further the purpose of this program. Applicants will obtain a higher score to the extent that the Statement of Work is specific, measurable, reasonable, has specific deadlines for the completion of subtasks, relates directly to the required activities and the program purpose described in this announcement, which is to provide producers with training and informational opportunities so that the producers will be better able to use financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, and other existing and emerging risk management tools. Applicants are required to submit this Statement of Work on Form RME-2. Partnering—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must demonstrate experience and capacity to partner with and gain the support of grower organizations, agribusiness professionals, and agricultural leaders to carry out a local program of education and information in a designated RMA Region. Applicants will receive higher scores to the extent that they can document and demonstrate:
(a)That partnership commitments are in place for the express purpose of delivering the program in this announcement;
(b)that a broad group of farmers and ranchers will be reached within the RMA Region; and
(c)that a substantial effort has been made to partner with organizations that can meet the needs of producers. Project Management—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must demonstrate an ability to implement sound and effective project management practices. Higher scores will be awarded to applicants that can demonstrate organizational skills, leadership, and experience in delivering services or programs that assist agricultural producers in the respective RMA Region. Applicants that will employ, or have access to, personnel who have experience in directing local educational programs that benefit agricultural producers in the respective RMA Region will receive higher rankings. Past Performance—Maximum 10 Points If the applicant has been a recipient of other Federal or other government grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts, the applicant must provide information relating to their past performance in reporting on outputs and outcomes under past or current federal assistance agreements. The applicant must also detail that they have consistently complied with financial and program reporting and auditing requirements. RMA reserves the right to add up to 10 points to applications due to past performance. Applicants with very good past performance will receive a score from 6-10 points. Applicants with acceptable past performance will receive a score from 1-5 points. Applicants with unacceptable past performance will receive a score of minus 5 points for this evaluation factor. Applicants without relevant past performance information will receive a neutral score of the mean number of points of all applicants with past performance. Under this cooperative partnership agreement, RMA will subjectively rate the recipient on project performance as indicated in Section II, G. The applicant must list all current public or private support to which personnel identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for persons involved is included in the budget. An application that duplicates or overlaps substantially with an application already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. The projects proposed for funding should be included in the pending section. Budget Appropriateness and Efficiency—Maximum 15 points Applicants must provide a detailed budget summary that clearly explains and justifies costs associated with the project. Applicants will receive higher scores to the extent that they can demonstrate a fair and reasonable use of funds appropriate for the project and a budget that contains the estimated cost of reaching each individual producer. The applicant must provide information factors such as: • The allowability and necessity for individual cost categories; • The reasonableness of amounts estimated for necessary costs; • The basis used for allocating indirect or overhead costs; • The appropriateness of allocating particular overhead costs to the proposed project as direct costs; and • The percent of time devoted to the project for all key project personnel identified in the application. Salaries of project personnel should be requested in proportion to the percent of time that they would devote to the project— **Note:** cannot exceed 60% of the total project budget. Applicants must list all current public or private support to which personnel identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for persons involved is included in the budget. Only items or services that are necessary for the successful completion of the project will be funded as permitted under the Act. B. Review and Selection Process Applications will be evaluated using a two-part process. First, each application will be screened by RMA personnel to ensure that it meets the requirements in this announcement. Applications that do not meet the requirements of this announcement or are incomplete will not receive further consideration. Applications that meet announcement requirements will be sorted into the RMA Region in which the applicant proposes to conduct the project and will be presented to a review panel for consideration. Second, the review panel will meet to consider and discuss the merits of each application. The panel will consist of not less than three independent reviewers. Reviewers will be drawn from USDA, other Federal agencies, and others representing public and private organizations, as needed. After considering the merits of all applications within an RMA Region, panel members will score each application according to the criteria and point values listed above. The panel will then rank each application against others within the RMA Region according to the scores received. A lottery will be used to resolve any instances of a tie score that might have a bearing on funding recommendations. If such a lottery is required, the names of all tied applicants will be entered into a drawing. The first tied applicant drawn will have priority over other tied applicants for funding consideration. The review panel will report the results of the evaluation to the Manager of FCIC. The panel's report will include the recommended applicants to receive partnership agreements for each RMA Region. Funding will not be provided for an application receiving a score less than 60. Funding will not be provided for an application that is highly similar to a higher-scoring application in the same RMA Region. Highly similar is one that proposes to reach the same producers likely to be reached by another applicant that scored higher by the panel and the same general educational material is proposed to be delivered. An organization, or group of organizations in partnership, may apply for funding under other FCIC or RMA programs, in addition to the program described in this announcement. However, if the Manager of FCIC determines that an application recommended for funding is sufficiently similar to a project that has been funded or has been recommended to be funded under another RMA or FCIC program, then the Manager may elect to not fund that application in whole or in part. The Manager of FCIC will make the final determination on those applications that will be awarded funding. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Following approval by the awarding official of RMA of the applications to be selected for funding, project leaders whose applications have been selected for funding will be notified. Within the limit of funds available for such a purpose, the awarding official of RMA shall enter into partnership agreements with those selected applicants. The agreements provide the amount of Federal funds for use in the project period, the terms and conditions of the award, and the time period for the project. The effective date of the agreement shall be on the date the agreement is executed by both parties and it shall remain in effect for up to one year or through September 30, 2007, whichever is later. After a partnership agreement has been signed, RMA will extend to award recipients, in writing, the authority to draw down funds for the purpose of conducting the activities listed in the agreement. All funds provided to the applicant by FCIC must be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are obligated in accordance with the approved agreement and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicability of Federal cost principles. No commitment of Federal assistance beyond the project period is made or implied for any award resulting from this notice. Notification of denial of funding will be sent to applicants after final funding decisions have been made. Reasons for denial of funding can include, but are not limited to, incomplete applications, applications with evaluation scores that are lower than other applications in an RMA Region, or applications that propose to deliver education to groups of producers in an RMA Region that are largely similar to groups reached in a higher ranked application. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Requirement To Use Program Logo Applicants awarded partnership agreements will be required to use a program logo and design provided by RMA for all instructional and promotional materials. 2. Requirement To Provide Project Information to an RMA-selected Representative Applicants awarded partnership agreements will be required to assist RMA in evaluating the effectiveness of its educational programs by providing documentation of educational activities and related information to any representative selected by RMA for program evaluation purposes. 3. Private Crop Insurance Organizations and Potential Conflicts of Interest Private organizations that are involved in the sale of Federal crop insurance, or that have financial ties to such organizations, are eligible to apply for funding under this announcement. However, such entities will not be allowed to receive funding to conduct activities that would otherwise be required under a Standard Reinsurance Agreement or any other agreement in effect between FCIC and the entity. Also, such entities will not be allowed to receive funding to conduct activities that could be perceived by producers as promoting one company's services or products over another's. If applying for funding, such organizations are encouraged to be sensitive to potential conflicts of interest and to describe in their application the specific actions they will take to avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest. 4. Access to Panel Review Information Upon written request from the applicant, scores from the evaluation panel, not including the identity of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant after the review and awards process has been completed. 5. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards The names of applicants, the names of individuals identified in the applications, the content of applications, and the panel evaluations of applications will all be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of review panel members will remain confidential throughout the entire review process and will not be released to applicants. At the end of the fiscal year, names of panel members will be made available. However, panelists will not be identified with the review of any particular application. When an application results in a partnership agreement, that agreement becomes a part of the official record of RMA transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to be considered confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within an application, including the basis for such designation. The original copy of a application that does not result in an award will be retained by RMA for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Copies of applications not receiving awards will be released only with the express written consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to award. 6. Audit Requirements Applicants awarded partnership agreements are subject to audit. 7. Prohibitions and Requirements With Regard to Lobbying Section 1352 of Public Law 101-121, enacted on October 23, 1989, imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans. It provides exemptions for Indian Tribes and tribal organizations. Current and prospective recipients, and any subcontractors, are prohibited from using Federal funds, other than profits from a Federal contract, for lobbying Congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. In addition, for each award action in excess of $100,000 ($150,000 for loans) the law requires recipients and any subcontractors:
(1)To certify that they have neither used nor will use any appropriated funds for payment of lobbyists;
(2)to disclose the name, address, payment details, and purpose of any agreements with lobbyists whom recipients of their subcontractors will pay with profits or other non-appropriated funds on or after December 22, 1989; and
(3)to file quarterly up-dates about the use of lobbyists if material changes occur in their use. The law establishes civil penalties for non-compliance. A copy of the certification and disclosure forms must be submitted with the application and are available at the address and telephone number listed in Section VII. Agency Contact. 8. Applicable OMB Circulars All partnership agreements funded as a result of this notice will be subject to the requirements contained in all applicable OMB circulars. 9. Requirement To Assure Compliance With Federal Civil Rights Laws Project leaders of all partnership agreements funded as a result of this notice are required to know and abide by Federal civil rights laws and to assure USDA and RMA that the recipient is in compliance with and will continue to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d *et seq* .), 7 CFR part 15, and USDA regulations promulgated thereunder, 7 CFR 1901.202. RMA requires that recipients submit Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights), assuring RMA of this compliance prior to the beginning of the project period. 10. Requirement To Participate in a Post Award Conference RMA requires that project leaders attend a post award conference to become fully aware of agreement requirements and for delineating the roles of RMA personnel and the procedures that will be followed in administering the agreement and will afford an opportunity for the orderly transition of agreement duties and obligations if different personnel are to assume post-award responsibility. In their applications, applicants should budget for possible travel costs associated with attending this conference. C. Reporting Requirements Award recipients will be required to submit quarterly progress reports, quarterly financial reports (OMB Standard Form 269), and quarterly Activity Logs (Form RME-3) throughout the project period, as well as a final program and financial report not later than 90 days after the end of the project period. Recipients will be required to submit prior to the award: • A completed and signed Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights). • A completed and signed OMB Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” • A completed and signed AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.” • A completed and signed AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace.” • A completed and signed Faith-Based Survey on EEO. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Stop 0808, Room 5720, Washington, DC 20250-0808, phone: 202-720-5265, fax: 202-690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* You may also obtain information regarding this announcement from the RMA Web site at: *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements.* VIII. Other Information A. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of over 70 million businesses worldwide. The Office of Management and Budget published a notice of final policy issuance in the **Federal Register** June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38402) that requires a DUNS number in every application ( *i.e.* , hard copy and electronic) for a grant or cooperative agreement on or after October 1, 2003. Therefore, potential applicants should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps needed to obtain one. For information about how to obtain a DUNS number, go to *http://www.grants.gov.* Please note that the registration may take up to 14 business days to complete. B. Required Registration With the Central Contract Registry for Submission of Proposals The Central Contract Registry
(CCR)is a database that serves as the primary Government repository for contractor information required for the conduct of business with the Government. This database will also be used as a central location for maintaining organizational information for organizations seeking and receiving grants from the Government. Such organizations must register in the CCR prior to the submission of applications. A DUNS number is needed for CCR registration. For information about how to register in the CCR, visit ”Get Started” at the Web site, *http://www.grants.gov.* Allow a minimum of 5 business days to complete the CCR registration. C. Related Programs Funding availability for this program may be announced at approximately the same time as funding availability for similar but separate programs—CFDA No. 10.455 (Community Outreach and Assistance Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.456 (Risk Management Research Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.458 (Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States), and CFDA No. 10.459 (Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program). These programs have some similarities, but also key differences. The differences stem from important features of each program's authorizing legislation and different RMA objectives. Prospective applicants should carefully examine and compare the notices for each program. Signed in Washington, DC on April 26, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-6670 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Funding Opportunity Title: Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States (Targeted States Program) *Announcement Type:* Announcement of Availability of Funds and Request for Application for Competitive Cooperative Agreements—Correction. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA):* 10.458. *Dates:* Applications are due June 2, 2006, 5 p.m. EDT. *Summary:* Due to technical errors, the following notice supersedes the original Request for Applications, published on April 18, 2006 for Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States Program at 71 FR 19864-19871. *Overview:* The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), operating through the Risk Management Agency (RMA), announces the availability of approximately $4.5 million to fund cooperative agreements under the Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States program (the Targeted States Program). The purpose of this cooperative agreement program is to deliver crop insurance education and information to U.S. agricultural producers in certain States that have been designated as historically underserved with respect to crop insurance. The states, collectively referred to as Targeted States, are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. A maximum of 15 cooperative agreements will be funded, one in each of the 15 Targeted States. Recipients of awards must agree to the substantial involvement of RMA in the project. Funding availability for this program may be announced at approximately the same time as funding availability for similar but separate programs—CFDA No. 10.455 (Community Outreach and Assistance Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.456 (Risk Management Research Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.457 (Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education), and CFDA No. 10.459 (Commodity Partnerships for Small Agricultural Risk Management Education Sessions). Prospective applicants should carefully examine and compare the notices for each program. *This Announcement Consists of Eight Parts:* Part I—Funding Opportunity Description A. Legislative Authority B. Background C. Project Goal D. Purpose Part II—Award Information A. Type of Award B. Funding Availability C. Location and Target Audience D. Maximum Award E. Project Period F. Description of Agreement Award—Recipient Tasks G. RMA Activities H. Other Tasks Part III—Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing or Matching C. Other—Non-Financial Benefits Part IV—Application and Submission Information A. Address to Submit an Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Intergovernmental Review E. Funding Restrictions F. Limitation on Use of Project Funds for Salaries and Benefits G. Indirect Cost Rates H. Other Submission Requirements I. Electronic submissions J. Acknowledgement of Applications Part V—Application Review Process A. Criteria B. Selection and Review Process Part VI—Award Administration A. Award Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Requirement to Use Program Logo 2. Requirement to Provide Project Information to an RMA-selected Representative 3. Private Crop Insurance Organizations and Potential Conflict of Interest 4. Access to Panel Review Information 5. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards 6. Audit Requirements 7. Prohibitions and Requirements Regarding Lobbying 8. Applicable OMB Circulars 9. Requirement to Assure Compliance with Federal Civil Rights Laws 10. Requirement to Participate in a Post Award Conference C. Reporting Requirements Part VII—Agency Contact Part VIII—Additional Information A. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)B. Required Registration with the Central Contract Registry for Submission of Proposals C. Related Programs Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description A. Legislative Authority The Targeted States Program is authorized under section 524(a)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act). B. Background RMA promotes and regulates sound risk management solutions to improve the economic stability of American agriculture. On behalf of FCIC, RMA does this by offering Federal crop insurance products through a network of private-sector partners, overseeing the creation of new risk management products, seeking enhancements in existing products, ensuring the integrity of crop insurance programs, offering outreach programs aimed at equal access and participation of underserved communities, and providing risk management education and information. One of RMA's strategic goals is to ensure that its customers are well informed as to the risk management solutions available. This educational goal is supported by section 524(a)(2) of the Act. This section authorizes funding for the establishment of crop insurance education and information programs in States that have historically been underserved by the Federal crop insurance program. In accordance with the Act, the fifteen States designated as “underserved” are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming (collectively referred to as “Targeted States”). C. Project Goal The goal of the Targeted States Program is to ensure that farmers and ranchers in the Targeted States are sufficiently informed so as to take full advantage of existing and emerging crop insurance products. D. Purpose The purpose of the Targeted States Program is to provide farmers and ranchers in Targeted States with education and information to be able to understand: • The kinds of risk addressed by crop insurance; • The features of existing and emerging crop insurance products; • The use of crop insurance in the management of risk; • How the use of crop insurance can affect other risk management decisions, such as the use of marketing and financial tools; and • How to make informed decisions on crop insurance prior to the sales closing date deadline. II. Award Information A. Type of Award Cooperative Agreements, which require the substantial involvement of RMA. B. Funding Availability Approximately $4,500,000 is available in fiscal year 2006 to fund up to 15 cooperative agreements, a maximum of one agreement for each of the Targeted States. The maximum funding amount anticipated for each Targeted State's agreement is as follows. Applicants should apply for funding for that Targeted State where the applicant intends on delivering educational activities. Maine $225,000 New Hampshire 173,000 Vermont 226,000 Connecticut 225,000 Rhode Island 157,000 Massachusetts 209,000 New York 617,000 New Jersey 272,000 Pennsylvania 754,000 Maryland 370,000 Delaware 261,000 West Virginia 209,000 Nevada 208,000 Utah 301,000 Wyoming 293,000 Total 4,500,000 Funding amounts were determined by first allocating an equal amount of $150,000 to each Targeted State. Remaining funds were allocated on a pro rata basis according to each Targeted State's share of 2000 agricultural cash receipts relative to the total for all Targeted States. Both allocations were totaled for each Targeted State and rounded to the nearest $1,000. In the event that additional funds become available under this program or in the event that no application for a given Targeted State is recommended for funding by the evaluation panel, these additional funds may, at the discretion of the Manager of FCIC, be allocated pro-rata to State award recipients for use in broadening the size or scope of awarded projects within the Targeted State if agreed to by the recipient. In the event that the Manager of FCIC determines that available RMA resources cannot support the administrative and substantial involvement requirements of all agreements recommended for funding, the Manager may elect to fund fewer agreements than the available funding might otherwise allow. It is expected that the awards will be made approximately 60 days after the application deadline. All awards will be made and agreements finalized no later than September 30, 2006. C. Location and Target Audience Targeted States serviced by RMA Regional Offices are listed below. Staff from the respective RMA Regional Offices will provide substantial involvement for Targeted States projects conducted within the respective Regions. Billings, MT Regional Office: (WY). Davis, CA Regional Office: (NV and UT). Raleigh, NC Regional Office: (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, and WV). Applicants must designate in their application narrative the Targeted State where crop insurance educational activities for the project will be delivered. Applicants may apply to deliver education to producers in more than one Targeted State, but a separate application must be submitted for each Targeted State. D. Maximum Award Any application that requests Federal funding of more than the amount listed above for a project in a given Targeted State will be rejected. E. Project Period Projects will be funded for a period of up to one year from the project starting date. F. Description of Agreement Award Recipient Tasks In conducting activities to achieve the purpose and goal of this program in a designated Targeted State, the award recipient will be responsible for performing the following tasks: • Develop and conduct a promotional program. This program will include activities using media, newsletters, publications, or other appropriate informational dissemination techniques that are designed to:
(a)Raise awareness for crop insurance;
(b)inform producers of the availability of crop insurance;
(c)inform producers of the crop insurance sales closing dates prior to the deadline; and
(d)inform producers and agribusiness leaders in the designated Targeted State of training and informational opportunities. • Deliver crop insurance training and informational opportunities to agricultural producers and agribusiness professionals in the designated Targeted State in a timely manner in order for producers to make informed decisions prior to the crop insurance sales closing dates deadline. This will include organizing and delivering educational activities using instructional materials that have been assembled to meet the local needs of agricultural producers. Activities should be directed primarily to agricultural producers, but may include those agribusiness professionals that have frequent opportunities to advise producers on crop insurance tools and decisions. • Document all educational activities conducted under the cooperative agreement and the results of such activities, including criteria and indicators used to evaluate the success of the program. The recipient may also be required to provide information to an RMA-selected contractor to evaluate all educational activities and advise RMA as to the effectiveness of activities. G. RMA Activities FCIC, working through RMA, will be substantially involved during the performance of the funded project through three of RMA's ten Regional Offices. Potential types of substantial involvement may include, but are not limited to the following activities. • Assist in the selection of subcontractors and project staff. • Collaborate with the recipient in assembling, reviewing, and approving risk management materials for producers in the designated RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient in reviewing and approving a promotional program for raising awareness for risk management and for informing producers of training and informational opportunities in the RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient on the delivery of education to producers and agribusiness leaders in the RMA Region. This will include:
(a)Reviewing and approving in advance all producer and agribusiness leader educational activities;
(b)advising the project leader on technical issues related to crop insurance education and information; and
(c)assisting the project leader in informing crop insurance professionals about educational activity plans and scheduled meetings. • Conduct an evaluation of the performance of the recipient in meeting the deliverables of the project. Applications that do not contain substantial involvement by RMA will be rejected. H. Other Tasks In addition to the specific, required tasks listed above, the applicant may propose additional tasks that would contribute directly to the purpose of this program. For any proposed additional task, the applicant must identify the objective of the task, the specific subtasks required to meet the objective, specific time lines for performing the subtasks, and the specific responsibilities of partners. The applicant must also identify specific ways in which RMA would have substantial involvement in the proposed project task. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include State departments of agriculture, universities, non-profit agricultural organizations, and other public or private organizations with the capacity to lead a local program of crop insurance education for farmers and ranchers within a Targeted State. Individuals are eligible applicants. Although an applicant may be eligible to compete for an award based on its status as an eligible entity, other factors may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal assistance under this program governed by Federal law and regulations ( *e.g.* debarment and suspension; a determination of non-performance on a prior contract, cooperative agreement, grant or partnership; a determination of a violation of applicable ethical standards; a determination of being considered “high risk”). Applications from ineligible or excluded persons will be rejected in their entirety. B. Cost Sharing or Matching. Although RMA prefers cost sharing by the applicant, this program has neither a cost sharing nor a matching requirement. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Contact to Request Application Package Program application materials for the Targeted States Program under this announcement may be downloaded from *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements.* Applicants may also request application materials from: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone:
(202)720-5265, fax:
(202)690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* B. Content and Form of Application Submission A complete and valid application package must include an electronic copy (Microsoft Word format preferred) of the narrative portion (Forms RME 1 and RME-2) of the application package on a compact disc and an original and two copies of the completed and signed application must be submitted in one package at the time of initial submission, which must include the following: 1. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” 2. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-A, “Budget Information—Non-construction Programs.” Federal funding requested (the total of direct and indirect costs) must not exceed the maximum level for the respective Targeted State, as specified in section II, Award Information. 3. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-B, “Assurances, Non-constructive Programs.” 4. Risk Management Education Project Narrative (Form RME-1). Complete all required parts of Form RME-1: Part I—Title Page. Part II—A written narrative of no more than 10 single-sided pages which will provide reviewers with sufficient information to effectively evaluate the merits of the application according to the evaluation criteria listed in this notice. Although a Statement of Work, which is the second evaluation criterion, is to be completed in detail in RME Form-2, applicants may wish to highlight certain unique features of the Statement of Work in Part II for the benefit of the evaluation panel. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed. • No smaller than 12 point font size. • Use an easily readable font face ( *e.g.* , Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman). • 8.5 by 11 inch paper. • One-inch margins on each page. • Printed on only one side of paper. • Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound or stapled in any other way. Part III—A Budget Narrative, describing how the categorical costs listed on SF 424-A are derived. Part IV—(Not required for Targeted States Program). 5. “Statement of Work,” (Form RME-2), which identifies tasks and subtasks in detail, expected completion dates and deliverables, and RMA's substantial involvement role for the proposed project. C. Submission Dates and Times *Applications Deadline:* June 2, 2006, 5 p.m. EDT. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that RMA receives a complete application package by the closing date and time. Incomplete or late application packages will not receive further consideration. D. Funding Restrictions Cooperative agreement funds may not be used to: a. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility including a processing facility; b. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment; c. Repair or maintain privately owned vehicles; d. Pay for the preparation of the cooperative agreement application; e. Fund political activities; f. Alcohol, food, beverage, or entertainment; g. Pay costs incurred prior to receiving a cooperative agreement; h. Fund any activities prohibited in 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019, as applicable. E. Limitation on Use of Project Funds for Salaries and Benefits Total costs for salary and benefits allowed for projects under this announcement will be limited to not more than 60 percent reimbursement of the funds awarded under the cooperative agreement. One goal of the Targeted States Program is to maximize the use of the limited funding available for crop insurance education for Targeted States. In order to accomplish this goal, RMA needs to ensure that the maximum amount of funds practicable is used for directly providing the educational opportunities. Limiting the amount of funding for salaries and benefits will allow the limited amount of funding to reach the maximum number of farmers and ranchers. F. Indirect Cost Rates a. Indirect costs allowed for projects submitted under this announcement will be limited to ten
(10)percent of the total direct cost of the cooperative agreement. b. RMA will withhold all indirect cost rate funds for an award to an applicant requesting indirect costs if the applicant has not negotiated an indirect cost rate with its cognizant Federal agency. c. If an applicant is in the process of negotiating an indirect cost rate with its cognizant Federal agency, RMA will withhold all indirect cost rate funds from that applicant until the indirect cost rate has been established. d. If an applicant's indirect cost rate has expired or will expire prior to award announcements, a clear statement on renegotiation efforts must be included in the application. e. It is incumbent on all applicants to have a current indirect cost rate or begin negotiations to establish an indirect cost rate prior to the submission deadline. Because it may take several months to obtain an indirect cost rate, applicants needing an indirect cost rate are encouraged to start work on establishing these rates well in advance of submitting an application. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)is responsible for assigning cognizant Federal agencies. f. Applicants may be asked to provide a copy of their indirect cost rate negotiated with their cognizant agency. G. Other Submission Requirements *Mailed submissions:* Applications submitted through express, overnight mail or another delivery service will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received in the mailroom at the address stated below for express, overnight mail or another delivery service on or before the deadline. Applicants are cautioned that express, overnight mail or other delivery services do not always deliver as agreed. Applicants should take this into account because failure of such delivery services will not extend the deadline. Mailed applications will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline in the mailroom at the address stated below for mailed applications. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance, to ensure that applications are received on or before the deadline time and date. Applicants using the U.S. Postal Service should allow for the extra time for delivery due to the additional security measures that mail delivered to government offices in the Washington DC area requires. Address when using private delivery services or when hand delivering: Attention: Risk Management Education Program, USDA/RMA/RME, Room 5720, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Address when using U.S. Postal Services: Attention: Risk Management Education Program, USDA/RMA/RME/Stop 0808, Room 5720, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0808. H. Electronic Submissions Applications transmitted electronically via Grants.gov will be accepted prior to the application date or time deadline. The application package can be accessed via Grants.gov, go to *http://www.grants.gov* , click on “Find Grant Opportunities,” click on “Search Grant Opportunities,” and enter the CFDA number (beginning of the RFA) to search by CFDA number. From the search results, select the item that correlates to the title of this RFA. If you do not have electronic access to the RFA or have trouble downloading material and you would like a hardcopy, you may contact Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone:
(202)720-5265, fax:
(202)690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov* . I. Acknowledgement of Applications Receipt of applications will be acknowledged by e-mail, whenever possible. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses in their applications. If an e-mail address is not indicated on an application, receipt will be acknowledged by letter. There will be no notification of incomplete, unqualified or unfunded applications until the awards have been made. When received by RMA, applications will be assigned an identification number. This number will be communicated to applicants in the acknowledgement of receipt of applications. An application's identification number should be referenced in all correspondence regarding the application. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgement within 15 days of the submission deadline, the applicant should notify RMA's point of contact indicated in Section VII, Agency Contact. V. Application Review Information A. Criteria Applications submitted under the Targeted States program will be evaluated within each Targeted State according to the following criteria: Project Benefits—Maximum 35 Points The applicant must demonstrate that the project benefits to farmers and ranchers warrant the funding requested. Applicants will be scored according to the extent they can:
(a)Reasonably estimate the total number of producers reached through the various educational activities described in the Statement of Work;
(b)justify such estimates with clear specifics;
(c)identify the actions producers will likely be able to take as a result of the activities described in the Statement of Work; and
(d)identify the specific measures for evaluating results that will be employed in the project. Reviewers' scoring will be based on the scope and reasonableness of the applicant's estimates of producers reached through the project, clear descriptions of specific expected project benefits, and well-designed methods for measuring the project's results and effectiveness. Statement of Work—Maximum 25 Points The applicant must produce a clear and specific Statement of Work for the project. For each of the tasks contained in the Description of Agreement Award (refer to Section II Award Information), the applicant must identify and describe specific subtasks, responsible entities, expected completion dates, RMA substantial involvement, and deliverables that will further the purpose of this program. Applicants will obtain a higher score to the extent that the Statement of Work is specific, measurable, reasonable, has specific deadlines for the completion of subtasks, relates directly to the required activities and the program purpose described in this announcement. Applicants are required to submit this Statement of Work on Form RME-2. Partnering—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must demonstrate experience and capacity to partner with and gain the support of grower organizations, agribusiness professionals, and agricultural leaders to carry out a local program of education and information in a designated Targeted State. Applicants will receive higher scores to the extent that they can document and demonstrate:
(a)That partnership commitments are in place for the express purpose of delivering the program in this announcement;
(b)that a broad group of farmers and ranchers will be reached within the Targeted State; and
(c)that a substantial effort has been made to partner with organizations that can meet the needs of producers. Project Management—Maximum 15 Points The applicant must demonstrate an ability to implement sound and effective project management practices. Higher scores will be awarded to applicants that can demonstrate organizational skills, leadership, and experience in delivering services or programs that assist agricultural producers in the respective Targeted State. Applicants that will employ, or have access to, personnel who have experience in directing local educational programs that benefit agricultural producers in the respective Targeted State will receive higher rankings. Past Performance—Maximum 10 Points If the applicant has been a recipient of other Federal or other government grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts, the applicant must provide information relating to their past performance in reporting on outputs and outcomes under past or current federal assistance agreements. The applicant must also detail that they have consistently complied with financial and program reporting and auditing requirements. RMA reserves the right to add up to 10 points and subtract 5 points to applications due to past performance. Applicants with very good past performance will receive a score from 6-10 points. Applicants with acceptable past performance will receive a score from 1-5 points. Applicants with unacceptable past performance will receive a score of minus 5 points for this evaluation factor. Applicants without relevant past performance information will receive a neutral score of the mean number of points of all applicants with past performance. Under this cooperative partnership agreement, RMA will subjectively rate the recipient on project performance as indicated in Section II, G. The applicant must list all current public or private support to which personnel identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for persons involved is included in the budget. An application that duplicates or overlaps substantially with an application already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. The projects proposed for funding should be included in the pending section. Budget Appropriateness and Efficiency—Maximum 15 Points Applicants must provide a detailed budget summary that clearly explains and justifies costs associated with the project. Applicants will receive higher scores to the extent that they can demonstrate a fair and reasonable use of funds appropriate for the project and a budget that contains the estimated cost of reaching each individual producer. The applicant must provide information factors such as: • The allowability and necessity for individual cost categories; • The reasonableness of amounts estimated for necessary costs; • The basis used for allocating indirect or overhead costs; • The appropriateness of allocating particular overhead costs to the proposed project as direct costs; and • The percent of time devoted to the project for all key project personnel identified in the application. Salaries of project personnel should be requested in proportion to the percent of time that they would devote to the project—Note: cannot exceed 60% of the total project budget. Applicants must list all current public or private support to which personnel identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for persons involved is included in the budget. Only items or services that are necessary for the successful completion of the project will be funded as permitted under the Act. B. Review and Selection Process Applications will be evaluated using a two-part process. First, each application will be screened by RMA personnel to ensure that it meets the requirements in this announcement. Applications that do not meet the requirements of this announcement or are incomplete will not receive further consideration. Applications that meet announcement requirements will be sorted into the Targeted State in which the applicant proposes to conduct the project and will be presented to a review panel for consideration. Second, the review panel will meet to consider and discuss the merits of each application. The panel will consist of not less than three independent reviewers. Reviewers will be drawn from USDA, other Federal agencies, and others representing public and private organizations, as needed. After considering the merits of all applications within a Targeted State, panel members will score each application according to the criteria and point values listed above. The panel will then rank each application against others within the Targeted State according to the scores received. A lottery will be used to resolve any instances of a tie score that might have a bearing on funding recommendations. If such a lottery is required, the names of all tied applicants will be entered into a drawing. The first tied applicant drawn will have priority over other tied applicants for funding consideration. The review panel will report the results of the evaluation to the Manager of FCIC. The panel's report will include the recommended applicants to receive cooperative agreements for each Targeted State. Funding will not be provided for an application receiving a score less than 60. An organization, or group of organizations in partnership, may apply for funding under other FCIC or RMA programs, in addition to the program described in this announcement. However, if the Manager of FCIC determines that an application recommended for funding is sufficiently similar to a project that has been funded or has been recommended to be funded under another RMA or FCIC program, then the Manager may elect to not fund that application in whole or in part. The Manager of FCIC will make the final determination on those applications that will be awarded funding. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices Following approval by the awarding official of RMA of the applications to be selected for funding, project leaders whose applications have been selected for funding will be notified. Within the limit of funds available for such a purpose, the awarding official of RMA shall enter into cooperative agreements with those applicants. The agreements provide the amount of Federal funds for use in the project period, the terms and conditions of the award, and the time period for the project. The effective date of the agreement shall be on the date the agreement is executed by both parties and it shall remain in effect for up to one year or through September 30, 2007, whichever is later. After a cooperative agreement has been signed, RMA will extend to award recipients, in writing, the authority to draw down funds for the purpose of conducting the activities listed in the agreement. All funds provided to the applicant by FCIC must be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are obligated in accordance with the approved agreement and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicability of Federal cost principles. No commitment of Federal assistance beyond the project period is made or implied for any award resulting from this notice. Notification of denial of funding will be sent to applicants after final funding decisions have been made. Reasons for denial of funding can include, but are not limited to, incomplete applications, applications with evaluation scores below 60, or applications with evaluation scores that are lower than those of other applications in a Targeted State. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements 1. Requirement To Use Program Logo Applicants awarded cooperative agreements will be required to use a program logo and design provided by RMA for all instructional and promotional materials. 2. Requirement to Provide Project Information to an RMA-selected Contractor Applicants awarded cooperative agreements may be required to assist RMA in evaluating the effectiveness of its educational programs by providing documentation of educational activities and related information to any contractor selected by RMA for program evaluation purposes. 3. Private Crop Insurance Organizations and Potential Conflicts of Interest Private organizations that are involved in the sale of Federal crop insurance, or that have financial ties to such organizations, are eligible to apply for funding under this announcement. However, such entities will not be allowed to receive funding to conduct activities that would otherwise be required under a Standard Reinsurance Agreement or any other agreement in effect between FCIC and the entity. Also, such entities will not be allowed to receive funding to conduct activities that could be perceived by producers as promoting one company's services or products over another's. If applying for funding, such organizations are encouraged to be sensitive to potential conflicts of interest and to describe in their application the specific actions they will take to avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest. 4. Access to Panel Review Information Upon written request from the applicant, scores from the evaluation panel, not including the identity of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant after the review and awards process has been completed. 5. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards The names of applicants, the names of individuals identified in the applications, the content of applications, and the panel evaluations of applications will all be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of review panel members will remain confidential throughout the entire review process and will not be released to applicants. At the end of the fiscal year, names of panel members will be made available. However, panelists will not be identified with the review of any particular application. When an application results in a cooperative agreement, that agreement becomes a part of the official record of RMA transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to be considered confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within an application, including the basis for such designation. The original copy of an application that does not result in an award will be retained by RMA for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Copies of applications not receiving awards will be released only with the express written consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to award. 6. Audit Requirements Applicants awarded cooperative agreements are subject to audit. 7. Prohibitions and Requirements With Regard to Lobbying Section 1352 of Public Law 101-121, enacted on October 23, 1989, imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans. It provides exemptions for Indian Tribes and tribal organizations. Current and prospective recipients, and any subcontractors, are prohibited from using Federal funds, other than profits from a Federal contract, for lobbying Congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. In addition, for each award action in excess of $100,000 ($150,000 for loans) the law requires recipients and any subcontractors:
(1)To certify that they have neither used nor will use any appropriated funds for payment of lobbyists;
(2)to disclose the name, address, payment details, and purpose of any agreements with lobbyists whom recipients of their subcontractors will pay with profits or other non-appropriated funds on or after December 22, 1989; and
(3)to file quarterly up-dates about the use of lobbyists if material changes occur in their use. The law establishes civil penalties for non-compliance. A copy of the certification and disclosure forms must be submitted with the application and are available at the address and telephone number listed in Section VII. Agency Contact. 8. Applicable OMB Circulars All cooperative agreements funded as a result of this notice will be subject to the requirements contained in all applicable OMB circulars. 9. Requirement to Assure Compliance with Federal Civil Rights Laws Project leaders of all cooperative agreements funded as a result of this notice are required to know and abide by Federal civil rights laws and to assure USDA and RMA that the recipient is in compliance with and will continue to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et. seq.), 7 CFR part 15, and USDA regulations promulgated thereunder, 7 CFR 1901.202. RMA requires that recipients submit Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights), assuring RMA of this compliance prior to the beginning of the project period. 10. Requirement to Participate in a Post Award Conference RMA requires that project leaders attend a post award conference to become fully aware of cooperative agreement requirements and for delineating the roles of RMA personnel and the procedures that will be followed in administering the agreement and will afford an opportunity for the orderly transition of agreement duties and obligations if different personnel are to assume post-award responsibility. In their applications, applicants should budget for possible travel costs associated with attending this conference. C. Reporting Requirements Award recipients will be required to submit quarterly progress reports, quarterly financial reports (OMB Standard Form 269), and quarterly Activity Logs (Form RME-3) throughout the project period, as well as a final program and financial report not later than 90 days after the end of the project period. Recipients will be required to submit prior to the award: • A completed and signed Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights). • A completed and signed OMB Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” • A completed and signed AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.” • A completed and signed AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace.” • A completed and signed Faith-Based Survey on EEO. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact: Lon Burke, USDA-RMA-RME, phone: 202-720-5265, fax: 202-690-3605, e-mail: *RMA.Risk-Ed@rma.usda.gov.* You may also obtain information regarding this announcement from the RMA Web site at: *http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/agreements/.* VIII. Other Information A. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of over 70 million businesses worldwide. The Office of Management and Budget published a notice of final policy issuance in the Federal Register June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38402) that requires a DUNS number in every application (i.e., hard copy and electronic) for a grant or cooperative agreement on or after October 1, 2003. Therefore, potential applicants should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps needed to obtain one. For information about how to obtain a DUNS number, go to *http://www.grants.gov.* Please note that the registration may take up to 14 business days to complete. B. Required Registration With the Central Contract Registry for Submission of Proposals The Central Contract Registry
(CCR)is a database that serves as the primary Government repository for contractor information required for the conduct of business with the Government. This database will also be used as a central location for maintaining organizational information for organizations seeking and receiving grants from the Government. Such organizations must register in the CCR prior to the submission of applications. A DUNS number is needed for CCR registration. For information about how to register in the CCR, visit “Get Started” at the Web site, *http://www.grants.gov.* Allow a minimum of 5 business days to complete the CCR registration. C. Related Programs Funding availability for this program may be announced at approximately the same time as funding availability for similar but separate programs—CFDA No. 10.455 (Community Outreach and Assistance Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.456 (Risk Management Research Partnerships), CFDA No. 10.457 (Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education), and CFDA No. 10.459 (Commodity Partnerships Small Sessions Program). These programs have some similarities, but also key differences. The differences stem from important features of each program's authorizing legislation and different RMA objectives. Prospective applicants should carefully examine and compare the notices for each program. Signed in Washington, DC on April 26, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-6668 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Mendocino Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Mendocino County Resource Advisory Committee will meet May 19, 2006
(RAC)in Willits, California. Agenda items to be covered include:
(1)Approval of minute,
(2)Handout discussion
(3)Public Comment,
(4)Financial Report
(5)Subcommittees
(6)Matters before the group/discussion—items of interest
(7)Discussion/approval of projects
(8)Next agenda and meeting date. DATES: The meeting will be held on May 19, 2006, from 9 a.m. until 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino County Museum, located at 400 E. Commercial St., Willits, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberta Hurt, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Covelo Ranger District, 78150 Covelo Road, Covelo CA 95428.
(707)983-8503; e-mail *rhurt@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff by May 15, 2006. Public comment will have the opportunity to address the committee at the meeting. Dated: April 25, 2006. Blaine Baker, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 06-4151 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
19 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 180.920
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 47 CFR 15
  • 47 CFR 1.415
  • 47 CFR 15.401
  • 47 CFR 73
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 33 USC 1251-1376
  • 42 USC 4321-4347
  • Pub. L. 101-121
  • 7 CFR 15
  • 7 CFR 1901.202
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 272
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
Cite40 CFR 180
Cite40 CFR 2
Cite40 CFR 180.920
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.