Rules and Regulations. Notice and request for comments

5,343 words·~24 min read·/register/2006/05/10/06-4344

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 71 90 Wednesday, May 10, 2006 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance; Office of Food for Peace; Announcement of Food for Peace Public Law 480 Title II Program Policies and Proposal Guidelines

(FY07)Pursuant to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 480, as amended), notice is hereby given that the final Food for Peace Public Law 480 Title II Program Policies and Proposal Guidelines (FY 07) are available to interested parties for general viewing. Individuals who wish to access the current guidelines should visit the Food for Peace Web site at *http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/* , or contact the Office of Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International Development, RRB 7.06-102, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523-7600. Lisa Witte, Acting Chief, Policy and Technical Division, Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-7148 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 4, 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)720-8681. 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. Rural Business-Cooperative Service *Title:* 7 CFR 4287-B, Servicing Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0016. *Summary of Collection:* The Business and Industry (B&I) program was legislated in 1972 under section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (the Act). The purpose of the B&I program, as authorized by the Act, is to improve economic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement and control. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans, which will provide lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the Rural Business Service

(RBS)through Rural Development State and sub-State offices serving each State. RBS will collect information using various forms from the lender and the borrower. This information is vital for making prudent financial decisions. *Need and Use of the Information:* RBS will collect information to monitor the guaranteed loan portfolio to ensure that the lenders are adequately servicing the loans. RBS through its respective Business Programs Divisions in Washington, DC, and its 47 State Offices throughout the United States will be the primary users of the information collected. If the information is not collected, RBS would not be able to make prudent credit decisions nor would the Agency be able to effectively monitor the lender's servicing activities and thus minimize losses under the program. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; State, local or tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 12,530. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 18,041. Rural Business Service-Cooperative Service *Title:* 7 CFR 4279-A, Guaranteed Loanmaking General. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0018. *Summary of Collection:* The Business and Industry (B&I) program was legislated in 1972 under section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended. The purpose of the program is to improve, develop, or finance businesses, industries, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans made by lending institutions, thereby providing lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the RBS through Rural Development State and sub-State offices serving each State. *Need and Use of the Information:* RBS will collect information to determine eligibility and credit worthiness for a lender or borrower. The information is used by Agency loan officers and approval officials to determine lender program eligibility and for program monitoring. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; State, local or tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 1,037. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,494. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-7065 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 4, 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;

(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. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* A Study of Modernization of the Food Stamp Program in Florida. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* Congress has allocated funds for the purpose of evaluating and collecting data on the Food Stamp Program

(FSP)as part of section 17(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended through Public Law 106-171, February 11, 2000. The authorizing legislation states that “the Secretary may, by way of making contracts with or grants to public or private organizations or agencies, undertake research that will help improve the administration and effectiveness of the food stamp program in delivering nutrition-relating benefits.” The Study of Modernization of the Food Stamp Program in Florida has been approved under the FY 2006 research funds authorized by the Congress. The Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS)is funding a case study of ACCESS Florida to assess whether these changes can be transferred to other states, and to examine how these changes might affect clients. The study will look at outcomes associated with ACCESS Florida and document the process of modernizing the FSP in Florida. *Need and Use of the Information:* This case study will identify all the components of ACCESS Florida and investigate the types of impact these changes may have on program access and costs. By collecting detailed information from staff and clients, the case study can explore each change's individual impact. Primary data collection activities will include:

(1)In-person interviews with district and local DCF officials, community partners, and call center staff, along with observations of program operations in three DCF districts;

(2)Telephone interviews with district and local office staff and with community partners in six districts;

(3)Four discussion groups with FSP applicants, participants, and eligible non-participants in each of the three districts where in-person interviews are conducted;

(4)Reviews of administrative data from state and federal sources to identify potential FSP performance impacts. Not conducting this data collection would significantly impede the USDA's ability to understand how ACCESS Florida is affecting participant access, program costs and errors in benefit determination. *Description of Respondents:* State, local, or tribal government; Individual or housholds; Not for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 247. *Frequency of Responses:* Report: other (one collection). *Total Burden Hours:* 332. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-7066 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 4, 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;

(RUS)to provide loans and loan guarantees to fund the cost of construction, improvement, or acquisition for facilities and equipment for the provision of broadband service in eligible rural communities in the States and territories of the United States. Title VI of the RE Act requires that loans are granted only to borrowers who demonstrated that they will be able to repay in full within the time agreed. RUS has established certain standards and specification for materials, equipment and construction to assure that standards are maintained; loans are not adversely affected, and loans are used for intended purposes. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS has developed specific forms for borrowers to use when entering into contracts for goods or services. The information collected is used to implement certain provisions of loan documents about the borrower's purchase of materials and equipment and the construction of its broadband system and is provided on an as needed basis or when the individual borrower undertakes certain projects. The standardization of the forms has resulted in substantial savings to borrowers by reducing preparation of the documentation and the costly review by the government. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 255. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 3,147. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-7067 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2005-0085] Content of Bilateral Workplans AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice is intended to provide background information about, and solicit public comments on, the use of bilateral workplans by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Plant Protection and Quarantine program. Bilateral workplans are agreements between Plant Protection and Quarantine, officials of the national plant protection organizations of foreign governments, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities that specify in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2005-0085 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2005-0085, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2005-0085. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket 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. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Narcy G. Klag, Program Director, International Standards, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-6799. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for protecting the health of U.S. agriculture. As part of this responsibility, APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine

(PPQ)program, the national plant protection organization

(NPPO)of the United States, regulates the importation, exportation, and interstate movement of plants, plant products, biological control organisms, noxious weeds, and articles that could harbor plant pests or noxious weeds to prevent the introduction into or the dissemination within the United States of plant pests or noxious weeds. This notice is intended to provide background about, and solicit public comments on, PPQ's use of bilateral workplans. A bilateral workplan is an agreement between PPQ, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Bilateral workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Bilateral workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The content of bilateral workplans is described in detail later in this document. Need for Bilateral Workplans PPQ enters into bilateral workplans to implement both U.S. import and export programs. There is no universal rule for when a bilateral workplan is needed. A workplan may be requested by PPQ, by a foreign cooperator, or by U.S. importers or exporters. Typically, when importing a commodity that involves specific inspections, treatments, or mitigations to be conducted or applied in a foreign country, a bilateral workplan is executed between the importing and exporting countries. A bilateral workplan is usually not required when an import is authorized entry into the United States subject only to general requirements, such as inspection and/or treatment upon arrival in the United States. Bilateral workplans for U.S. exports may be required as a condition of importation or at the request of the importing country to facilitate the entry of the commodity. Negotiations with a foreign country or other region regarding the content of bilateral workplans generally cannot take place until the importing country has determined what risk mitigation measures must be applied to the import in question. These determinations are based on the best available science, experience, and other evidence, including the findings of a pest risk analysis or analyses and inspection and observation of imports that have occurred in the past. Negotiations regarding the content of bilateral workplans take place between PPQ and the NPPO of the importing/exporting country. Each bilateral workplan is unique to the commodity being imported or exported and its country or region of origin. Although one bilateral workplan may be substantially the same as another, or even identical, bilateral workplans cannot be transferred from one commodity to another or from one country or region to another; agreement must be reached separately for each commodity, country, or region. Bilateral workplans are valid for the period of time specified in the workplan, which is typically 1 to 2 calendar years. Basis for Use of Bilateral Workplans in International Trade Agreements Bilateral workplans are used by importing and exporting countries to clarify and assign responsibilities and to establish and formalize phytosanitary import/export program operations. The United States is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Created by the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO is the international institutional framework for governing trade relations among its members in all matters for which a final agreement has been reached, including non-tariff barriers, natural resource products, agriculture, dispute settlement, and other topics. Among other things, the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) obligates members to base any phytosanitary measures they may require on an assessment of risk as appropriate to the circumstances and to make those requirements transparent. In the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, Congress approved U.S. membership in the WTO. This Act also amended title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531, *et seq.* ) to require the President to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of various international standard-setting organizations. “International standard” is defined in 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, guideline, or recommendation:

(1)Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission regarding food safety;

(2)developed under the auspices of the Office International des Epizooties regarding animal health and zoonoses;

(3)developed under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention

(IPPC)in cooperation with the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) regarding plant health; or

(4)established by or developed under any other international organization agreed to by the member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement or the member countries of the WTO. The IPPC is a multilateral convention intended to secure effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds and to promote appropriate measures for their control. The IPPC operates under the authority of the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)of the United Nations, and the members of the Secretariat of the IPPC are appointed by the FAO. The IPPC is implemented by NPPOs in cooperation with regional plant protection organizations, the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, and the Secretariat of the IPPC. The IPPC is administered at the national level by plant quarantine officials, whose primary objective is to safeguard plant resources from injurious pests and noxious weeds. NAPPO, a regional plant protection organization created in 1976 under the IPPC, coordinates the efforts among the NPPOs of Canada, the United States, and Mexico to protect their plant resources from the entry, establishment, and spread of harmful plant pests and noxious weeds, while facilitating intra- and inter-regional trade. NAPPO established guidelines for bilateral workplans in October 2003. Copies of the guidelines, titled “Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 19, Guidelines for Bilateral Workplans” (October 19, 2003), may be obtained on the Internet at *http://www.nappo.org/Standards/NEW/RSPM19-e.pdf,* or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . PPQ has developed guidelines for the content of bilateral workplans, which are listed and discussed in detail below. These guidelines are harmonized with the NAPPO guidelines and the principles of the SPS Agreement. It is not necessary to include every item listed in the guidelines in every bilateral workplan. Only items designated by an asterisk must be included. However, all the items listed below must be considered for inclusion and must be made part of a final bilateral workplan if they apply to the particular situation being addressed by that workplan. Each included item should be dealt with in a separate section of the workplan. Guidelines for Bilateral Workplans * 1. Title Each workplan must have a title. The title should accurately and succinctly describe the subject of the workplan, for example: Operational Workplan for [commodity] from [country]. In some cases, the title may describe requirements for two-way trade between the United States and another country. * 2. Pests of Concern Each workplan must include a list of pests or noxious weeds of concern. The list must specify the regulated pests or noxious weeds for the importing country for the commodity covered by the workplan. * 3. Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms All significant terms used in the workplan must be defined in order to prevent confusion and disagreements later when the workplan is in effect. As much as possible, the workplan should define terms the same way they are defined in the FAO Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

(ISPM)Publication No. 5, 1 and the NAPPO Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. 2 Any deviations and differences from those terms should be made clear and explained in the workplan. 1 ISPMs may be viewed on the World Wide Web at *https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp;* click on the “Standards” link. 2 See *http://www.nappo.org/Standards/REVIEW/RSPM5-e.pdf.* * 4. Participants All participants in the importing and exporting country must be clearly identified in the workplan. Participants may include: • Public authorities who will apply phytosanitary measures, including phytosanitary certification; • Parties who will be involved with any aspect of trade in the commodity, including packinghouses, storage facilities, transportation companies, etc.; and • Non-public parties who will participate in applying phytosanitary measures or related activities. * 5. Responsibilities of the Participants The workplan must specify each participant's responsibilities, including financial obligations, that contribute to meeting the goals of the workplan. * 6. Relevant Authority All legislation, regulations, directives, and policies that are relevant to the workplan must be specifically identified. Provisions of ISPMs and Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures that are relevant to the workplan must be specifically identified and followed wherever possible. * 7. Implementation of Phytosanitary Measures Phytosanitary measures should ensure that the exported commodity is free of regulated pests specified by the importing country and meets the entry requirements of the importing country. How the phytosanitary measures in the workplan will be implemented must be described in detail. There are many possible phytosanitary measures. Measures identified in bilateral workplans may include pre-harvest measures, post-harvest measures, and safeguarding. 7.1 Pre-Harvest Measures Pre-harvest measures are taken at the production site or surrounding areas, before a crop is harvested. Pre-harvest measures may include selection of plants for planting, surveys, inspections, treatments, tests, and other phytosanitary measures. A description of all required pre-harvest measures and how they are to be implemented must be included in the workplan. If any required pre-harvest measures relate to pest-free places or production sites, they must meet the requirements of the appropriate ISPM. The appropriate standards are usually ISPM No. 4, “Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas” and/or ISPM No. 10, “Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites.” If any pre-harvest measures involve sampling and testing, the appropriate procedures must be specified in the workplan. 7.2 Post-Harvest Measures Post-harvest measures are measures taken after a crop is harvested, but prior to shipment. Post-harvest measures may include inspections, treatments, tests, and other phytosanitary measures. Inspections can be visual and/or samples can be taken and diagnostically analyzed when appropriate. Regardless of the measures chosen, if post-harvest measures are included in the workplan, they must be explained in detail. For example, if sampling is required for inspection, the sampling methodology and sample size must be specified in the workplan. 7.3 Safeguarding If safeguarding is required, the workplan must specify the type of safeguarding required and when it must be applied. Safeguarding measures may include, but are not limited to, special packaging, storage requirements, sealing, and limited ports of entry. 8. Point of Entry If entry into the importing country is limited to specific points of entry, whether for biological or operational reasons, they must be listed in the workplan. 9. Documentation and Labeling for Phytosanitary Purposes If any specific documentation and/or labeling is required for phytosanitary purposes, the requirements must be specified, in detail, in the workplan. Documentation and labeling for phytosanitary purposes includes phytosanitary certificates (with or without additional declarations), labels of all types, and other specified documents. If a phytosanitary certificate is required, the workplan must specify that issuance of the certificate must comply with ISPM No. 12, “Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates.” If an additional declaration is necessary, the required language must be specified in the workplan. If any label is necessary, the requirements must be explained in detail in the workplan. For example, any required sizes, colors, content, or layout must be explained. 10. Auditing The NPPO of the importing country may undertake audits of the procedures and the certification of phytosanitary measures applied in the exporting country. The process for requesting access and the frequency and characteristics of the audit should be specified. Auditing can take place in either the exporting country or at ports of entry in the importing country. 11. Review If it is anticipated that the workplan will be reviewed periodically, this should be specified in the workplan. The timing and/or frequency of reviews should be specified if possible. *12. Unanticipated Situations/Disagreements Unanticipated situations and disagreements can arise during the course of operating import/export programs. The workplan must include, at a minimum, a communication plan to address these problems. *13. Effective Dates The exact date the workplan becomes effective must be included. If the workplan will be effective for a limited time, that information must also be included, with specific dates if possible. *14. Noncompliance and Resulting Actions 14.1 Examples of Noncompliance There are many types of noncompliance. Examples include detection of quarantine pests, presence of regulated nonquarantine pests above specified tolerances, inadequate or missing documentation, misapplication of required phytosanitary measures, and failure to comply with the workplan in any particulars. The workplan must categorize occurrences that could result in noncompliance with regard to how severely they impact the confidence of the signatories to the workplan that the requirements of the workplan are being appropriately implemented and followed. The workplan must also state the specific occurrences that are included in each of the categories. For example, a workplan might include critical, major, and minor categories for occurrences that could result in noncompliance. That workplan would also provide lists of the occurrences that would constitute a critical violation of the workplan, the occurrences that would constitute a major violation, and the occurrences that would constitute a minor violation. *14.2 Actions Taken for Noncompliance The workplan must specify actions to be taken for noncompliance with phytosanitary requirements contained in the workplan. Actions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the noncompliance. The strongest action—terminating the workplan or excluding a participant—should be reserved for the most serious noncompliance. Possible actions include terminating the workplan, suspending or excluding a participant, suspending the workplan, and other appropriate actions. Actions taken for noncompliance must be specified and fully explained in the workplan, so that all participants are aware of the consequences for noncompliance. *14.3 Notification of noncompliance The workplan must include procedures for notifying participants of any noncompliance and the proposed action to be taken as a result. Timelines for notification and for responses may be specified in the workplan, and must comply with ISPM No. 13, “Guidelines for the notification of noncompliance and emergency action.” *14.4 Suspension and Reinstatement The workplan must include requirements for reinstating a participant who has been suspended for noncompliance and requirements for reinstating a workplan that has been suspended. The requirements must be specified and fully explained in the workplan. 15. Additional Documentation Examples of additional documents, such as treatment certificates and inspection reports, should be attached to the workplan as appendices if they are necessary. We are inviting public comment on the guidelines provided above, as well as comments or queries on any other aspect of APHIS' use of bilateral workplans. Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-7114 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting, Northwest Forest Plan AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC), Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), has scheduled an advisory meeting on June 1, 2006. The advisory meeting will begin at approximately 8 a.m. and end at 12 noon at the Red Lion Hotel, in the Juan de Fuca Conference room, 221 N. Lincoln Street, Port Angeles, Washington 98362, 877-333-2733. The purpose of the meeting is to review topics related to key findings and trends from the April 19-20, 2005 *Science and the Northwest Forest Plan, Knowledge Gained Over a Decade* conference hosted by the USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and to collect advice regarding the implementation improvement strategies being drafted. The meeting is open to the public and fully accessible for people with disabilities. A 10-minute time slot is reserved for public comments at 8:30 a.m. Interpreters are available upon request at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Written comments may be submitted for the meeting record. Interested persons are encouraged to attend. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Kath Collier, Management Analyst, Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First Avenue, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208 (telephone: 503-808-2165). Dated: April 19, 2006. Anne Badgley, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. E6-7101 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)will meet at the USDA Service Center in Redding, California, May 30 and 31, 2006. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss proposed projects under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. DATES: May 30 and 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the USDA Service Center, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael R. Odle at

(530)226-2494 or *modle@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings are open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee. Dated: May 4, 2006. Michael R. Odle, Public Affairs Officer. [FR Doc. 06-4344 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 3

Traces to 3 documents

U.S. Code

4 references not yet in our index