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 · 2006-06-16 · Department of State · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed Rule

22,077 words·~100 min read·/register/2006/06/16/06-5442

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 97 [Public Notice 5443] RIN 1400-AC19 Intercountry Adoption—Issuance of Hague Convention Certificates and Declarations in Convention Adoption Cases AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Proposed Rule. SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) is proposing new regulations to implement the certification and declaration provisions of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (the IAA) with respect to adoption and custody proceedings taking place in the United States.
This proposed regulation would govern the application process for Hague Convention Certificates and Hague Convention Declarations in cases involving emigration of a child from the United States. It would also establish a process for seeking certification, for purposes of Article 23 of the Convention, that an adoption done in the United States following a grant of custody in a Convention country of origin was done in accordance with the Convention. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number State/AR-01/97, by one of the following methods (no duplicates, please): • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Electronically: You may submit electronic comments to *adoptionregs@state.gov.* Attachments must be in Microsoft Word. • Mail: U.S. Department of State, CA/OCS/PRI, Adoption Regulations Docket Room, (SA-29), 2201 C Street, NW,, Washington, DC 20520. • Courier:
U.S. Department of State, CA/OCS/PRI, Adoption Regulations Docket Room, (SA-29), 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20520. (Because access to the Department of State is not readily available to private individuals without Federal Government identification, do not personally deliver comments to the Department.) • Docket: Comments received before the close of the comment period will be available to the public, including information identifying the commenter. The Department will post comments on its public Web site at: *http://travel.state.gov.* They are also available for public inspection by calling Delilia Gibson-Martin at 202-736-9105 for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Anna Mary Coburn at 202-736-9081, or send an e-mail to *adoptionregs@state.gov.* Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may use the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf
(TDD)by contacting the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides a framework for the adoption of children habitually resident in one country party to the Convention by persons habitually resident in another country party to the Convention. It establishes procedures to be followed in such adoption cases and imposes safeguards to protect the best interests of the children concerned. It provides for each country that is a party to the Convention to establish a Central Authority and permits the delegation of certain Central Authority functions to other entities, to the extent permitted by the law of the relevant country. With certain limited exceptions, Article 23 of the Convention requires all Convention parties to recognize adoptions that occur pursuant to the Convention, if the adoption is certified by the country of adoption as having been made in accordance with the Convention. The U.S. implementing legislation for the Convention is the IAA, which establishes the U.S. Department of State as the Central Authority for the United States. For Convention adoptions involving the emigration of a child from the United States (outgoing cases), section 303(c) of the IAA gives the Department responsibility for issuing an official certification that the child has been adopted, or a declaration that custody for the purpose of adoption has been granted, in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. The IAA assigns to State courts with jurisdiction over matters of adoption, or custody for purposes of adoption, the responsibility for receiving and verifying documents required under the Convention, making certain determinations required of the country of origin by the Convention, and determining that the placement is in the best interests of the child. The IAA also addresses the delegation of Central Authority functions to entities other than the Department of State, providing for accreditation, temporary accreditation, approval, and operating under supervision as the principal ways in which a private entity can be authorized to perform tasks assigned to the Central Authority. Separate regulations implement other aspects of the Convention and the IAA, such as the accreditation and approval of adoption service providers to perform adoption services in cases covered by the Convention (22 CFR 96), preservation of Convention records (22 CFR 98), and immigration procedures for Convention adoption cases ( *e.g.* , visa regulations to appear at 22 CFR 42). Further background on the Convention and the IAA is provided in the in the Preamble to the Final Rule on the Accreditation and Approval of Agencies and Persons under the IAA, Section I and II, 71 FR 8064-8066 (February 15, 2006) and the Preamble to the Proposed Rule on the Accreditation of Agencies and Approval of Persons under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, Sections III and IV, 68 FR 54065-54073 (September 15, 2003). II. The Proposed Rule This proposed rule would establish the Department's procedures for application, adjudication, and issuance of Hague Convention Certificates and Hague Convention Declarations in outgoing cases. It also would establish a separate, discretionary, procedure pursuant to which the Department may certify that an incoming case finalized in the United States ( *i.e.* , a case in which custody was granted abroad but the adoption was done by a U.S. court) was done in accordance with the Convention. The Department anticipates that this latter authority will be used rarely, and only if an issue arises concerning recognition of the adoption by a foreign authority pursuant to Article 23 of the Convention. Definitions Section 97.1 sets forth definitions used in this section that are specific to this regulation, and incorporates the definitions set forth in 22 CFR 96.2, the definitional section of the accreditation and approval regulation, for terms defined there. The term *Adoption Court* is defined to mean the State court with jurisdiction over matters of adoption and of custody for purposes of adoption. *U.S. authorized entity* and *foreign authorized entity* are shorthand forms to encompass the entities that may perform the case-specific Central Authority functions that may be delegated to authorized entities. In the United States, public domestic authorities may perform these Central Authority functions. In addition, private entities that have become accredited agencies, temporarily accredited agencies, or approved persons, as well as agencies operating under their supervision and responsibility as supervised providers, in accordance with the accreditation and approval standards at 22 CFR 96, are generally authorized to perform such Central Authority functions. However, the authority of private entities that are not accredited or temporarily accredited is limited when completing a home study or a child background study. The Convention requires that home studies and child background studies be prepared under the responsibility of an accredited body or public domestic authority; correspondingly, the accreditation and approval standards at 22 CFR 96.53 provide for background studies in outgoing cases that are not prepared in the first instance by an accredited agency or temporarily accredited agency to be reviewed and approved by such an agency. Convention countries may choose not to allow private entities to perform Central Authority functions; the definition of *foreign authorized entity* therefore includes the foreign Central Authority itself as well as any foreign accredited bodies or other public or private entities authorized under foreign law to perform the relevant Central Authority function in a Convention adoption case. The Web site of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, *www.hcch.net* , lists the names of entities that each Convention country has so authorized. (Click on “Welcome,” then, in the left hand column, “Conventions,” then the 1993 Convention (No. 33), and then, in the right hand column, “Authorities.”) The terms *Hague Convention Certificate and Hague Convention Declaration* are defined as the documents the Secretary of State (the Secretary) will issue to attest that a child has been adopted or that custody of a child has been granted, respectively, in the United States in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. Consistent with the waiver authority provided in section 502 of the IAA, § 97.4(b) of the proposed regulation authorizes the Secretary to issue either document, appropriately modified, in the absence of compliance with the IAA, in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to a child. Section 97.4(b), unlike the other provisions of the rule, refers to the “Secretary of State” acting “personally.” Accordingly, the authority to issue an appropriately modified Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration may not be delegated. Application for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration in an Outgoing Convention Case Section 97.2(a) of the regulation sets forth the procedural requirements for obtaining a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration in an outgoing case. Applicants must either be a party to the adoption or custody proceedings ( *i.e.* , adoptive or prospective adoptive parent(s) or the child) or other applicants will have to demonstrate that the documents will be used to obtain a legal benefit or for purposes of a legal proceeding. The Department has discretion under the rule to determine whether to issue the documents to persons in the latter category, which is intended to encompass persons such as executors and heirs of the parties, who may need documentation for estate purposes. (Legal representatives acting directly on behalf of a parent or the child will be covered by the first category.) The Department believes this approach strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the privacy of participants in the adoption process while permitting discretionary and limited access to others who have a compelling need for the record. Section 97.2(b) sets forth the documentary requirements for submitting an application for a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration in an outgoing case. The requirements include a completed application form and any required fee. Section 97.2(b) also instructs applicants to submit an official copy of the adoption court's order finding that the child is adoptable and that the adoption or proposed adoption is in the child's best interests and granting the adoption or custody for purposes of adoption. These findings, which will be made by State courts in accordance with State law, are fundamental to any adoption. In addition, the proposed regulation instructs applicants to provide an official copy of the adoption court's findings verifying, in substance, that the Convention and IAA requirements set forth in § 97.3 have been met. This can be done either in the final adoption or custody order or in a separate document. The qualifier “in substance” is intended to make clear that the regulation does not govern the precise words the court must use, but rather the substantive finding required. If the adoption court fails to verify compliance with one or more requirements set forth in § 97.3, the applicant may provide authenticated documentation showing compliance with the requirement(s) at issue and explaining why verification by the adoption court cannot be submitted. The Department expects that cases in which alternative proof of Convention compliance is necessary will be few; applicants will be expected to take all reasonable steps to obtain a court order addressing these requirements, which, in some cases, may require seeking a supplemental or amended order from the adoption court. The adoption court is best placed to make these findings, and is specifically charged by the IAA to make nearly all of the findings required. The Department has broad authority under section 303(a)(3) of the IAA to require the submission of any information concerning the case necessary to issue the Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration or otherwise to carry out the duties of the United States Central Authority. Consistent with this, § 97.2(b)(4) indicates that the Department may, in its discretion, request additional documentation and information from the applicant. The Department anticipates using this authority principally when evidence provided pursuant to § 97.2(b)(1)-(3) is inadequate or otherwise raises a suspicion of noncompliance or if information becomes available to the Department independently that raises a question of compliance. Section 97.2(c) establishes the Department's authority to consider applications abandoned when such requested documentation or information is not provided within 120 days. This provision will facilitate the Department's recordkeeping and case-tracking efforts. Requirements Subject to Verification in an Outgoing Convention Case Section 97.3 sets forth the additional requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Department to conclude that an adoption or grant of custody for purposes of adoption has been made in compliance with the Convention and the IAA. These requirements do not replace State laws on adoption or custody. Rather, State law, unless directly inconsistent with the Convention and the IAA, still applies to Convention adoptions and is not preempted. This proposed rule also does not affect the application of other federal laws. Specifically, the Convention, the IAA, and this proposed rule do not affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which applies to cases involving Native American children, or any other applicable federal laws covering adoptions. The proposed rule does, however, add new Federal requirements derived directly from the Convention and the IAA, which must be met before the Department will issue a Hague Convention Certificate or a Hague Convention Declaration. Because State courts are best placed to determine compliance with these requirements in the context of adoption proceedings they adjudicate, and to enhance governmental efficiency, this proposed rule effectively directs the prospective adoptive parent(s) to seek certain findings from the State court in the course of their adoption proceedings. Nearly all the findings involve subjects that the IAA explicitly assigns to the adoption court. The Department has limited the elements set forth in § 97.3 to those required in order to determine Convention and IAA compliance. Paragraph
(a)provides that an accredited agency, temporarily accredited agency, or a public domestic authority must complete or approve a child background study that meets the specific requirements of the Convention. This provision implements section 303(a)(1)(A) of the IAA and Convention Article 16(1). The term U.S. authorized entity is not used in this provision because child background studies prepared by an approved person or a non-accredited supervised provider—each of which is encompassed by “U.S. authorized entity”—or by an exempted provider, must subsequently be approved by an accredited agency, temporarily accredited agency, or public domestic authority in order to accommodate the Convention Article 22(5) requirement that such studies be prepared under the responsibility of the Central Authority, a public authority, or an accredited body and the accreditation standards in 22 CFR 96, which provide for child background studies in outgoing cases that are not prepared by an accredited or temporarily accredited agency to be approved by such an agency. Thus, in summary, to accommodate both the Convention and 22 CFR 96 and for the Department to attest to Hague and IAA compliance in an outgoing case, this regulation requires the child background study to be completed by an accredited agency, temporarily accredited agency, or public domestic authority or else subsequently be approved by such an entity. (Similarly, home studies in such cases must be prepared under the responsibility of a foreign Central Authority, foreign accredited body, or public foreign authority.) Paragraph
(b)provides that a U.S. authorized entity must conclude that the child is adoptable and, without revealing birthparent identities where prohibited by applicable State law, transmit to a foreign authorized entity the documentation on the child set forth in Convention Article 16(2), including a determination that the envisaged placement is in the best interests of the child. This provision also makes clear that the U.S. authorized entity's best interests determination must be made in reference to the home and child background studies and must give due consideration to the child's upbringing and ethnic, religious and cultural background, as required by Convention Article 16. This paragraph also implements subparagraphs
(A)and
(C)of section 303(a)(1) of the IAA. Paragraph
(c)requires, consistent with section 303(a)(1)(B) of the IAA and the Convention's requirement that due consideration be given to domestic placement, that reasonable efforts be made to actively recruit and make a diligent search for a U.S. adoptive family for the child and that a timely U.S. adoptive placement could not be found. This paragraph cross-references § 96.54 of the accreditation and approval regulation, which specifies particular methods of making such a search, including disseminating information about the child in various ways, listing the child on an adoption exchange for 60 days, responding to inquiries, and providing the child's background study to potential U.S. adoptive parents. Section 96.54 also recognizes that there are some circumstances when the procedures it specifies are not appropriate; specifically, § 96.54 excludes from its scope cases in which the prospective adoption is by relatives, or the birth parent(s) have identified specific prospective adoptive parent(s), or in other special circumstances accepted by the adoption court. (For example, an adoption court might determine that such “special circumstances” existed if a public domestic authority followed alternative recruiting and search procedures provided for by State law or if the particular child required a speedier placement than could be found domestically.) Paragraph
(d)provides that a U.S. authorized entity must receive from a foreign authorized entity a home study prepared in accordance with applicable foreign law under the responsibility of a foreign Central Authority, foreign accredited body, or foreign public authority that includes the information required by Convention Articles 5(a) and
(b)and 15 and by section 303(a)(2)(B) of the IAA. As with the child background study, Convention Article 22(5) restricts who may perform this function, and this restriction is reflected in the rule. Paragraph
(e)provides that the Central Authority or other competent authority of the receiving country must declare that the child will be authorized to enter and reside in the receiving country permanently or on the same basis as the adopting parent. This reflects the requirements set forth in Convention Article 5(c) and section 303(a)(2)(C)(i) of the IAA. Under the Convention, this determination must be made by a competent authority; this language, drawn from the IAA, recognizes that in some cases the foreign Central Authority itself may be the authority competent to make this determination. Paragraph
(f)addresses situations in which foreign law requires a foreign Central Authority or other foreign entity to consent to or approve an adoption before it goes forward. Convention Article 17(b) provides that, where required by the law of the receiving country, the country's Central Authority (or a foreign authorized entity other than the Central Authority to whom the relevant Central Authority function has been delegated) must consent to the adoption. Section 303(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the IAA requires submission to the U.S. adoption court of a declaration by the foreign “Central Authority (or other competent authority)” that it consents to the adoption, if such consent is necessary under the laws of the receiving country for the adoption to become final. To harmonize these provisions, paragraph
(f)follows the IAA's approach of reading the Convention term “required” to mean “necessary for the adoption to become final” and recognizing that the consent of a competent authority other than a Central Authority might be required under foreign law for the adoption to become final. Paragraph
(f)thus provides that a foreign authorized entity or competent authority must declare that it consents to the adoption if its consent is necessary under the law of the relevant foreign country for the adoption to become final. Paragraphs
(g)and (h), respectively, set forth the requirements of Convention Article 4(c), relating to the counseling and consent of guardians of a child, and Article 4(d), relating to the counseling and consent, where required, of the child. State law will continue to govern related issues, such as who must consent to the adoption and the particular requirements of proper legal form for consent, unless State law is in conflict with the Convention or the IAA, in which case the Convention or IAA provision would govern. Notably, consent of the birth mother, where required, may be given only after the birth of the child. State law allowing birth mother consent to be given before the birth of the child would be in direct conflict with the Convention and thus preempted. The Department welcomes comments from State, local, and tribal authorities on this point. Paragraph
(i)sets forth several duties of a U.S. authorized entity. A U.S. authorized entity must ensure that prospective adoptive parents agree to the adoption, as required by Convention Article 17(a). A U.S. authorized entity and a foreign authorized entity must both agree that the adoption may proceed, as required by Convention Article 17(c). (Applicants for a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration will be asked to provide this information for use on the certificate/declaration, as required by Article 23.) A U.S. authorized entity also must take all appropriate measures to ensure that transfer of the child takes place in secure and appropriate circumstances and, if possible, in the company of the adoptive or prospective adoptive parent(s), and arrange to obtain permission for the child to leave the United States, as required by Convention Articles 19(2) and 18, respectively. Finally, a U.S. authorized entity must arrange to keep a foreign authorized entity informed about the adoption process and the measures taken to complete it, as well as about the progress of a placement if a probationary period is required; to return the home study and child background study to the authorities that forwarded them if the transfer of the child does not take place, and to be consulted in the event that a new placement or alternative long-term care for the child is needed, as required by Convention Articles 19(3), 20, and 21. These requirements are phrased in terms of the U.S. authorized entity “arranging” or “taking all appropriate measures” for them to occur because at the time of the adoption, the duties inherently will not yet have been performed. While section 303(b)(1)(B) of the IAA contemplates judicial review of compliance with Convention Articles 18 through 21, realistically the court will only be able to ensure that appropriate arrangements for future compliance are in place. Paragraph
(j)implements the “no contact” rule of Article 29 of the Convention, which is designed to reduce the opportunities for coercion, bribery, and child buying in the consent process. The Convention provides there can be no contact between the prospective adoptive parent(s) and the birthparent(s), or other persons caring for the child, until the appropriate authorities of the *receiving country* have determined the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suitable to adopt and the appropriate authorities of the *country of origin* have determined that the child is adoptable and that, after due consideration to domestic placement, intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests, and have ensured that all necessary guardian counseling and consent has occurred. This prohibition on prior contact applies unless the adoption takes place within a family or the contact is in compliance with conditions established by the appropriate authority of the country of origin. Such conditions may be established either by State law or by a public domestic authority acting within its jurisdiction. When conditions have not been established, such contacts may not occur because the Convention intends that such contacts be either barred or subject to regulation. (Note that this prohibition does not apply to contact by prospective adoptive parent(s) directly with the child.) The Department is particularly interested in receiving comments from State, local, and tribal authorities as to whether appropriate and sufficient conditions on contact between prospective adoptive parent(s) and birthparent(s) or other persons caring for the child are currently in place. Paragraph
(k)implements paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of Convention Article 32, which prohibit improper financial or other gain in relation to adoption activities and permit only costs and expenses (including reasonable professional fees) to be charged or paid. Other requirements of the Convention need not be specifically verified by the court, either because they are not part of the process for an individual adoption case, or because existing law will address them adequately. For example, Convention Article 32(c) provides that directors, administrators and employees of adoption-related entities may not receive unreasonably high remuneration. The accreditation and approval regulations address unreasonable remuneration of private bodies (22 CFR 96.34(d)) and we have no reason to believe that the remuneration of public employees would be considered “unreasonably high.” Issuance of a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration in an Outgoing Convention Case Section 97.4(a) provides that the Department shall issue a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration if the Department, in its discretion, is satisfied that the adoption or grant of custody was made in compliance with the Convention and IAA. Thus, even if an applicant provides all information required by § 97.2, it is within the Department's discretion to deny the application if the Department is not satisfied that the Convention and IAA were complied with. This provision is consistent with section 303(c) of the IAA, which provides that the Secretary shall issue such a document upon “verification as necessary” of the information required to establish Convention and IAA compliance. Section 97.4(b) implements the Secretary's authority pursuant to section 502(b) of the IAA, which permits the Secretary, personally, to the extent consistent with the Convention, to waive requirements of the IAA otherwise applicable or any regulations promulgated thereunder in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to a child. This regulation therefore permits the Secretary personally to authorize issuance of an appropriately modified Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration attesting to Convention compliance in appropriate circumstances even if applicable IAA requirements have not been met. The Department anticipates that this exceptional, and discretionary, authority will only be exercised in extremely rare circumstances and only where foreign recognition of a Convention-compliant adoption is appropriate. As noted previously, this authority may not be delegated. Certification of Hague Convention Compliance in an Incoming Convention Case Where Adoption Occurs in the United States Section 97.5 is meant to address those cases in which custody for the purposes of adoption was granted to U.S. prospective adoptive parents by a competent authority in the child's country of origin, but the adoption occurs in the United States. In such cases, at the time a child receives an IR-4 visa, prospective adoptive parents will receive, pursuant to section 301(a) of the IAA and visa regulations that will be published in 22 CFR 42, a certificate indicating that legal custody has been granted for purposes of emigration and adoption, pursuant to the Convention and the IAA. Section 301(c) of the IAA requires such a certificate in order for a State court to finalize the adoption in the United States. The certification envisioned by Convention Article 23, however, is a certification by the country of *adoption* that the *adoption* was made in accordance with the Convention. It is therefore conceivable that the custody certificate issued by the consular officer, coupled with the State court order, would be inadequate to obtain recognition of the adoption outside the United States pursuant to Convention Article 23. In such a case, U.S. certification of Convention compliance following the U.S. adoption may be required. This second certification is not required, however, for the adoption to be recognized in the United States or for the child to be documented as a U.S. citizen. (Section 97.5(a) is not intended to address cases in which adoption is granted in the foreign country, an IR-3 visa is issued, and parent(s) later choose to re-adopt in the United States even though such a re-adoption is not required for recognition or citizenship purposes.) Section 97.5(b) sets forth the documentation that must be submitted to the Department in order to seek such a certification. It includes a copy of the certificate issued by a consular officer pursuant to applicable visa regulations certifying that legal custody for the purposes of emigration and adoption was granted in the Convention country pursuant to the Convention and the IAA, an official copy of the adoption court order granting the adoption, a signed statement explaining the need for such a certification, and any additional information or documentation the Department may request in its discretion. The proposed regulation requires a statement of need because the Department anticipates that this certification will only be required in very few cases. A State court's adoption order should be recognized within the United States; thus, it is only if the adoptive family leaves the United States that recognition could potentially be an issue, and even then we have no specific information to indicate that U.S. adoption orders are not normally recognized abroad. Section 97.5(c) mirrors § 97.2(c), authorizing the Department to consider such a request abandoned if documentation and information is not provided within 120 days of a request. Section 97.5(d) gives the Department authority to issue the requested certification if satisfied that the adoption was made in compliance with the Convention. The Secretary also has authority to decline issuance for any reason, including that the requestor did not establish a valid need for the certification. Although any person may request such a certification, requestors who are not parties to the adoption must, in addition to the requirements of § 97.5(b), demonstrate that issuance of such a certification would be to obtain a legal benefit or for purposes of a legal proceeding. Regulatory Review A. Administrative Procedures Act This rule, through which the Department provides for implementation of the Convention, which focuses on issuance of documents to facilitate cross-border recognition of adoptions done under the Convention, involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. Nonetheless, the Department is publishing this proposed rule and inviting public comment. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and Executive Order 13272, Section 3(b), the Department of State has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities and has determined and hereby certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-121. The rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48; 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement, including cost-benefit and other analyses, before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. Section 4 of UFMA, 2 U.S.C. 1503, excludes regulations necessary for implementation of treaty obligations. This proposed regulation falls within this exclusion because it would implement the Convention. In any event, this rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Moreover, because this rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, section 203 of the UFMA, 2 U.S.C. 1533, does not require preparation of a small government agency plan in connection with it. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism A rule has federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 if it has 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 regulation will not have such effects, and therefore does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under section 6 of Executive Order 13132. The Convention and the IAA do, however, address issues that previously had been regulated primarily at the State level, as discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule on accreditation and approval of agencies and persons, appearing at 68 Fed. Reg. 54064, 54069-54070. In recognition of this fact, section 503(a) of the IAA contains a specific provision limiting preemption of State law to those State law provisions inconsistent with the Convention or the IAA, and only to the extent of the inconsistency. These regulations do not create new federalism implications beyond those created by the IAA and the Convention, and the Department has been careful in these regulations to defer to State authorities whenever possible consistent with Convention and IAA mandates. As with the regulations on accreditation and approval, the Department welcomes comments from State and local agencies and tribal governments on the proposed regulations. We also envision significant outreach and consultation with appropriate State authorities in the ultimate implementation of any regulation on this topic. F. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review This rule, through which the Department provides for implementation of the Convention, which focuses on issuance of documents to facilitate cross-border recognition of adoptions done under the Convention, pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States; therefore, pursuant to section 3(d)(2) of the Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule is not subject to the review procedures set forth in Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. Nonetheless, the Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has provided it to OMB for comment. G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed this proposed regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. The Department has made every reasonable effort to ensure compliance with the requirements in Executive Order 12988. H. The Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 42 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , agencies are generally required to submit to OMB for review and approval information collection requirements imposed on “persons” as defined in the PRA. Section 503(c) of the IAA, however, exempts from the PRA any information collection “for purposes of sections 104, 202(b)(4), and 303(d)” of the IAA “or for use as a Convention record as defined” in the IAA. Convention record is defined in section 3(11) of the IAA to mean “any item, collection, or grouping of information contained in an electronic or physical document, an electronic collection of data, a photograph, an audio or video tape, or any other information storage medium of any type whatever that contains information about a specific past, current, or prospective Convention adoption (regardless of whether the adoption was made final) that has been preserved in accordance with section 401(a) by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General.” Information collections imposed on persons pursuant to this rule would relate directly to specific Convention adoptions (whether final or not), insofar as collections would be used by the Department in its determination of whether a Convention adoption, or a grant of custody for purposes of a Convention adoption, has been conducted in accordance with the Convention and the IAA. Upon receipt, these information collections would be subject to the preservation requirements set forth in 22 CFR 98 to implement section 401(a) of the IAA. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that the PRA would not apply to information collected from the public under this rule, for the purpose of determining entitlement to a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration, or a certification of Convention compliance pursuant to § 97.5, because such documents would be collected for use as Convention records. The Department intends, nonetheless, to consider carefully how to minimize the burden on the public of information collections contained in this rule as such collections, in particular the required application form, are developed. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 97 Adoption and foster care, International agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the Department proposes to add new part 97 to title 22 of the CFR, chapter I, subchapter J, to read as follows: PART 97—ISSUANCE OF HAGUE CONVENTION CERTIFICATES AND DECLARATIONS IN CONVENTION ADOPTION CASES Sec. 97.1 Definitions. 97.2 Application for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration in an Outgoing Convention Case. 97.3 Requirements Subject to Verification in an Outgoing Convention Case. 97.4 Issuance of a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration in an Outgoing Convention Case. 97.5 Certification of Hague Convention Compliance in an Incoming Convention Case where Final Adoption Occurs in the United States. 97.6-97.7 [Reserved]. Authority: Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at The Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105-51 (1998); 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901-14954. § 97.1 Definitions. As used in this part:
(a)*Adoption Court* means the State court with jurisdiction over the adoption or the grant of custody for purpose of adoption.
(b)*U.S. Authorized Entity* means a public domestic authority or an agency or person that is accredited or temporarily accredited or approved by an accrediting entity pursuant to 22 CFR 96, or a supervised provider acting under the supervision and responsibility of an accredited agency or temporarily accredited agency or approved person.
(c)*Foreign Authorized Entity* means a foreign Central Authority or an accredited body or entity other than the Central Authority authorized by the relevant foreign country to perform Central Authority functions in a Convention adoption case.
(d)*Hague Adoption Certificate* means a certificate issued by the Secretary certifying that a child has been adopted in the United States in accordance with the Convention and, except as provided in § 97.4(b), the IAA.
(e)*Hague Custody Declaration* means a declaration issued by the Secretary declaring that custody of a child for purposes of adoption has been granted in the United States in accordance with the Convention and, except as provided in § 97.4(b), the IAA.
(f)Terms defined in 22 CFR 96.2 have the meaning given to them therein. § 97.2 Application for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration in an Outgoing Convention Case.
(a)Any party to an outgoing Convention adoption or custody proceeding may apply to the Secretary for a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration. Any other interested person may also make such application, but such application will not be processed unless such applicant demonstrates that a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration is needed to obtain a legal benefit or for purposes of a legal proceeding, as determined by the Secretary in the Secretary's discretion.
(b)Applicants for a Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration shall submit to the Secretary:
(1)A completed application form in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, with any required fee;
(2)An official copy of the order of the adoption court finding that the child is adoptable and that the adoption or proposed adoption is in the child's best interests and granting the adoption or custody for purposes of adoption;
(3)An official copy of the adoption court's findings (either in the order granting the adoption or custody for purposes of adoption or separately) verifying, in substance, that each of the requirements of § 97.3 has been complied with or, if the adoption court has not verified compliance with a particular requirement in § 97.3, authenticated documentation showing that such requirement nevertheless has been met and a written explanation of why the adoption court's verification of compliance with the requirement cannot be submitted; and
(4)Such additional documentation and information as the Secretary may request at the Secretary's discretion.
(c)If the applicant fails to submit all of the documentation and information required pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section within 120 days of the Secretary's request, the Secretary may consider the application abandoned. § 97.3 Requirements Subject to Verification in an Outgoing Convention Case.
(a)*Preparation of Child Background Study.* An accredited agency, temporarily accredited agency, or public domestic authority must complete or approve a child background study that includes information about the child's identity, adoptability, background, social environment, family history, medical history (including that of the child's family), and any special needs of the child.
(b)*Transmission of Child Data* . A U.S. authorized entity must conclude that the child is adoptable and, without revealing the identity of the birth mother or the birth father if these identities may not be disclosed under applicable State law, transmit to a foreign authorized entity the background study, proof that the necessary consents have been obtained, and the reason for its determination that the proposed placement is in the child's best interests, based on the home study and child background study and giving due consideration to the child's upbringing and his or her ethnic, religious, and cultural background.
(c)*Reasonable Efforts to Find Domestic Placement* . Reasonable efforts consistent with 22 CFR 96.54 must be made to actively recruit and make a diligent search for prospective adoptive parent(s) to adopt the child in the United States and a timely adoptive placement in the United States not found.
(d)*Preparation and Transmission of Home Study* . A U.S. authorized entity must receive from a foreign authorized entity a home study on the prospective adoptive parent(s) prepared in accordance with the laws of the receiving country, under the responsibility of a foreign Central Authority, foreign accredited body, or public foreign authority, that includes:
(1)Information on the prospective adoptive parent(s)' identity, eligibility, and suitability to adopt, background, family and medical history, social environment, reasons for adoption, ability to undertake an intercountry adoption, and the characteristics of the children for whom they would be qualified to care;
(2)Confirmation that a competent authority has determined that the prospective adoptive parent(s) are eligible and suited to adopt and has ensured that the prospective adoptive parent(s) have been counseled as necessary; and
(3)The results of a criminal background check.
(e)*Authorization to Enter* . The Central Authority or other competent authority of the receiving country must declare that the child will be authorized to enter and reside in the receiving country permanently or on the same basis as the adopting parent(s).
(f)*Consent by Foreign Authorized Entity* . A foreign authorized entity or competent authority must declare that it consents to the adoption, if its consent is necessary under the law of the relevant foreign country for the adoption to become final.
(g)*Guardian Counseling and Consent* . Each person, institution, and authority other than the child whose consent is necessary for the adoption must be counseled as necessary and duly informed of the effects of the consent (including whether or not an adoption will terminate the legal relationship between the child and his or her family of origin); must freely give consent expressed or evidenced in writing in the required legal form without any inducement by compensation of any kind; and consent must not have been subsequently withdrawn. If the consent of the mother is required, it may be given only after the birth of the child.
(h)*Child Counseling and Consent* . As appropriate in light of the child's age and maturity, the child must be counseled and informed of the effects of the adoption and the child's views must be considered. If the child's consent is required, the child must also be counseled and informed of the effects of granting consent, and must freely give consent expressed or evidenced in writing in the required legal form without any inducement by compensation of any kind.
(i)*Authorized Entity Duties* . A U.S. authorized entity must:
(1)Ensure that the prospective adoptive parent(s) agree to the adoption;
(2)Agree, together with a foreign authorized entity, that the adoption may proceed;
(3)Take all appropriate measures to ensure that the transfer of the child takes place in secure and appropriate circumstances and, if possible, in the company of the adoptive parent(s) or the prospective adoptive parent(s), and arrange to obtain permission for the child to leave the United States; and
(4)Arrange to keep a foreign authorized entity informed about the adoption process and the measures taken to complete it, as well as about the progress of the placement if a probationary period is required; to return the home study and the child background study to the authorities that forwarded them if the transfer of the child does not take place; and to be consulted in the event a new placement or alternative long-term care for the child is required.
(j)*Contacts.* Unless the child is being adopted by a relative, there may be no contact between the prospective adoptive parent(s) and the child's birthparent(s) or any other person who has care of the child prior to the competent authority's determination that the prospective adoptive parent(s) are eligible and suited to adopt and the adoption court's determinations that the child is adoptable, that the requirements in paragraphs
(c)and
(g)of this section have been met, and that an intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests, *provided that* this prohibition on contacts shall not apply if the relevant State or public domestic authority has established conditions under which such contact may occur and any such contact occurred in accordance with such conditions.
(k)*Improper financial gain* . No one may derive improper financial or other gain from an activity related to the adoption, and only costs and expenses (including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption) may be charged or paid. § 97.4 Issuance of a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration in an Outgoing Convention Case.
(a)The Secretary shall issue a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration if the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, is satisfied that the adoption or grant of custody was made in compliance with the Convention and the IAA.
(b)If compliance with the Convention can be certified but it is not possible to certify compliance with the IAA, the Secretary personally may authorize issuance of an appropriately modified Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration, in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to the child. § 97.5 Certification of Hague Convention Compliance in an Incoming Convention Case where Adoption Occurs in the United States.
(a)Any person may request the Secretary to certify that an incoming Convention adoption finalized in the United States was done in accordance with the Convention.
(b)Persons seeking such a certification must submit the following documentation:
(1)A copy of a Hague Convention Certificate issued by a consular officer pursuant to applicable visa regulations certifying that legal custody of the child has been granted to the U.S. citizen parent for purposes of adoption;
(2)An official copy of the adoption court's order granting the final adoption;
(3)A signed statement explaining the need for such a certification; and
(4)Such additional documentation and information as the Secretary may request at the Secretary's discretion.
(c)If a person seeking the certification described in paragraph
(a)of this section fails to submit all the documentation and information required pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section within 120 days of the Secretary's request, the Department may consider the request abandoned.
(d)The Secretary may issue the certification if the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, is satisfied that the adoption was made in compliance with the Convention. The Secretary may decline to issue a certification, including to a party to the adoption, in the Secretary's discretion. A certification will not be issued to a non-party requestor unless the requestor demonstrates that the certification is needed to obtain a legal benefit or for purposes of a legal proceeding, as determined by the Secretary in the Secretary's discretion. §§ 97.6-97.7 [Reserved]. Dated: June 9, 2006. Maura A. Harty, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-9507 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0379; FRL-8184-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to remove the limited status of its approval of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision that requires all major sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT). EPA is proposing to convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT regulations to full approval because EPA has approved or is currently conducting rulemaking to approve all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania for the affected sources. In prior final rules, EPA has previously fully approved Pennsylvania's VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT regulations for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley areas. EPA is now proposing to convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT regulations as they apply in the remainder of the Commonwealth to full approval because EPA has approved or is currently conducting rulemaking to approve all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania for the affected sources in the remainder of the Commonwealth. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either
(1)the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the remainder of the State, outside of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas; or
(2)for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA- R03-OAR-2006-0379 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: *morris.makeba@epa.gov* . C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0379, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0379. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* . providing 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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.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 *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 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 electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,
(215)814-2034, or by e-mail at *wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.* I. Background Pursuant to sections 182(b) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> sources. SIP revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are all sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline
(CTG)document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of 1-hour ozone attainment; all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and all other major non-CTG sources. Section 182(f) provides that the planning requirements applicable to major stationary sources of VOCs in other provisions in part D, subpart 2 (including section 182) apply to major stationary sources of NO <sup>X</sup> . The Pennsylvania SIP already includes approved RACT regulations for sources and source categories of VOCs covered by the CTGs as required by section 182(b)(2)(A) and (B). Regulations requiring RACT for all major sources of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> were to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions by November 1992 and compliance required by May of 1995. On February 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP, consisting of 25 PA Code Chapters 129.91 through 129.95, to require major sources of NO <sup>X</sup> and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT (non-CTG RACT rules). The February 4, 1994 submittal was amended on May 3, 1994 to correct and clarify certain presumptive NO <sup>X</sup> RACT requirements under Chapter 129.93. As described in more detail, below, EPA granted conditional limited approval of the Commonwealth's VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT regulations on March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), and removed the conditional aspect of the approval on May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the ozone transport region (OTR). The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania. The major source size generally is determined by the classification of the area in which the source is located. However, for areas located in the OTR, the major source size for stationary sources of VOCs is 50 tons per year
(tpy)unless the area's 1-hour ozone classification prescribes a lower major source threshold. The RACT regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NO <sup>X</sup> sources. For other major NO <sup>X</sup> sources, and all major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to RACT pursuant to a source category regulation under the Pennsylvania SIP), the regulations contain a “generic” RACT provision. A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories, but instead allows for case-by-case RACT determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by-case RACT determinations that are then to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of a Pennsylvania SIP revision that established and required all major sources of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> to implement RACT. This approval was granted on the condition that Pennsylvania must, by no later than April 22, 1999 certify that
(1)it had submitted case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently know to PADEP, or
(2)demonstrate that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represented a *de minimis* level of emissions as defined in the rulemaking document. On April 22, 1999, the PADEP submitted a letter certifying that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789) conditional limited approval of its VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT regulation by submitting case-by-case VOC/NO <sup>X</sup> RACT determinations as SIP revisions. EPA concurred that Pennsylvania's April 22, 1999 certification satisfied the condition imposed in its conditional limited approval published on March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), and published a direct final rulemaking (May 3, 2001, 66 FR 22123) removing the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's SIP revision that required all major sources of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> to implement RACT. That final rule became effective on June 18, 2001. The regulation retained a limited approval status on the basis that it strengthened the Pennsylvania SIP. Conversion from limited to full approval would occur when EPA had approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations as SIP revisions. On October 16, 2001 (66 FR 52533), EPA published a final rulemaking for the Commonwealth removing the limited status of its approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that required all major sources of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> to implement RACT as it applied in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area (Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties), because EPA had approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP for affected major sources of NO <sup>X</sup> and/or VOC sources located in the area. EPA converted its limited approval of Pennsylvania's RACT regulation to full approval as it applied to that area. That rulemaking became effective on November 15, 2001. On October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54698), EPA published a final rulemaking for the Commonwealth removing the limited status of its approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that required all major sources of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> to implement RACT as it applied in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties) because EPA had approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP for affected major sources of NO <sup>X</sup> and/or VOC sources located in the area. EPA converted its limited approval of Pennsylvania's RACT regulation to full approval as it applied to that area. That rulemaking became effective on November 29, 2001. II. EPA's Proposed Action As EPA stated in its May 3, 2001 final rule (66 FR 22123), conversion of Pennsylvania's VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> regulation from limited to full approval would occur when EPA had approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has previously removed the limited status of its approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revisions that requires all major sources of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> to implement RACT as it applies in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas because EPA has approved all of the case-by-case RACT determinations for these areas. In this action EPA is proposing to convert its limited approval of Pennsylvania's RACT regulation to full approval as it applies in the remainder of the Commonwealth because EPA has approved or is currently conducting rulemaking to approve all remaining case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either
(1)the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the remainder of the State, outside of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas; or
(2)for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a *de minimis* level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 13789). EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This proposed rule, regarding Pennsylvania's VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT regulations as they apply in the remainder of the Commonwealth, does not impose an information collection under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: June 7, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-9461 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 213 RIN 0750-AF42 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Aviation Into-Plane Reimbursement Card (DFARS Case 2006-D017) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text pertaining to DoD fuel card programs. The proposed rule addresses use of the Aviation Into-plane Reimbursement card for purchases of aviation fuel and oil. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before August 15, 2006, to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D017, using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *dfars@osd.mil.* Include DFARS Case 2006-D017 in the subject line of the message. • Fax:
(703)602-0350. • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Robin Schulze, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robin Schulze,
(703)602-0326. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DoD uses the Aviation Into-plane Reimbursement
(AIR)card for purchases of aviation fuel and oil at commercial airport facilities. The AIR card is a centrally-billed, Government commercial purchase card that is an alternative to use of the Standard Form 44, Purchase Order-Invoice-Voucher. This proposed rule amends DFARS 213.306 to address use of the AIR card. In addition, the proposed rule amends DFARS 213.301 to clarify that DoD has multiple fuel card programs. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the AIR card is an alternative to use of the Standard Form 44, Purchase Order-Invoice-Voucher, designed primarily for on-the-spot, over-the-counter purchases while away from the purchasing office or at isolated activities. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D017. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 213 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 213 as follows: PART 213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 213 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 213.301 [Amended] 2. Section 213.301 is amended in paragraph (4), in the second sentence, by removing “program” and adding in its place “programs”. 3. Section 213.306 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(A) to read as follows: 213.306 SF 44, Purchase Order-Invoice-Voucher. (a)(1) * * *
(A)Aviation fuel and oil. The Aviation Into-plane Reimbursement
(AIR)card may be used instead of an SF 44 for aviation fuel and oil ( *see http://www.desc.dla.mil* ); [FR Doc. E6-9488 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 233 RIN 0750-AE01 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Protests, Disputes, and Appeals (DFARS Case 2003-D010) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text addressing procedures for processing of contractor claims submitted under DoD contracts. This proposed rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before August 15, 2006, to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2003-D010, using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *dfars@osd.mil* . Include DFARS Case 2003-D010 in the subject line of the message. • Fax:
(703)602-0350. • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Debra Overstreet, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debra Overstreet,
(703)602-0310. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at *http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/transformation/index.htm.* This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed rule— • Deletes unnecessary text at DFARS 233.204 regarding research of a contractor's history of filing claims during a contracting officer's review of a current claim; and • Deletes an obsolete cross-reference at DFARS 233.210. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the proposed rule deletes unnecessary DFARS text, but makes no significant change to DoD policy regarding consideration of claims submitted by contractors. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D010. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 233 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 233 as follows: PART 233—PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 233 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 233.204 and 233.210 [Removed] 2. Sections 233.204 and 233.210 are removed. [FR Doc. E6-9491 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 572 [Docket Number NHTSA-2006-23796] Denial of Petition Regarding the Hybrid III 50th Percentile Adult Male Test Dummy AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition submitted by Denton ATD, Inc. (Denton) on October 8, 2004. The petition requested NHTSA to provide additional specifications for the head assembly. NHTSA has fully reviewed Denton's petition and has concluded that the recommended changes are neither needed nor would serve to improve occupant protection. This document discusses the issues raised by Denton in its petition, provides analysis of the petition, and presents the conclusion reached by the agency. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Sean Doyle, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards. Telephone:
(202)366-1740. Facsimile:
(202)493-2739. For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel. Telephone:
(202)366-2992. Facsimile:
(202)366-3820. Both officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Issues Raised in the Petition Denton, a manufacturer of crash test dummies, petitioned NHTSA to amend the specifications of CFR Section 49, Part 572, Subpart E Hybrid III 50th Percentile Midsize Adult Male (HIII-50th) Crash Test Dummy and “provide additional specifications for the head and cap skin 78051-228 and -229, the skull and skull cap 18051-77X and -220 and additional drawing information for head assembly drawing 78051-61X.” Specifically, Denton petitioned for
(1)The inclusion of component weight specifications for the individual flesh components of the head assembly (head skin and cap skin),
(2)providing head skin thickness dimensions and tolerances, and
(3)availability of patterns for the head skin, cap skin and skull cap. Denton also requested that sheet 2 of drawing number 78051-61X be provided in the HIII-50th drawing package. Denton argued that the current HIII-50th drawing package is incomplete and the “lack of clear specifications is causing sales restrictions for Denton ATD.” Denton believes that the inclusion of these additional specifications to the current drawing package would “maintain the definition of reproducibility.” Denton considers these additional specifications helpful in preventing other dummy manufacturers from producing head skins with different dimensions. Denton states that “for the car manufacturers, these differences could possibly produce different crash test results and for the dummy manufacturer, this limits possible sales competition due to the interchangeability issue.” Analysis of Petition Denton recommended including component weight specifications for the head skin and cap skin in the HIII-50th drawing package. The weight of the head skin is already contained within the head assembly weight specification in the head assembly drawing 78051-338. The agency believes it is unnecessary to further specify the head assembly weight by requiring inclusion of individual head skin and cap skin weights. NHTSA believes that the currently specified weight tolerance and Center of Gravity
(CG)location for the head assembly provide sufficient manufacturing flexibility to produce the HIII-50th head assembly to specified requirements. Denton also recommended providing head skin thickness dimensions and tolerances. It stated that these were specified in drawing 78051-61 before it was replaced with 78051-61X. Denton claims that drawing 78051-61X consists of 3 sheets, however, sheet 2 is not currently available in the drawing package, and that this sheet includes head skin thickness dimensions. The agency concurs that drawing 78051-61X consists of 3 sheets and that sheet 2 includes the head skin thickness dimensions and tolerances that Denton is referring to in their petition. However, Denton is incorrect in their claim that sheet 2 of drawing 78051-61X is not currently available in NHTSA's drawing package. The National Archive and Record Administration's Office of the **Federal Register** 1 archives agency drawing packages for public reference, and drawing 78051-61X in its entirety (sheets 1, 2, and 3) is located there. Denton did not specify the source of the drawing package that they claim was missing sheet 2 of drawing 78051-61X, although it appears it did not come from the agency's official drawing package. Nevertheless, to ensure that Denton has the proper drawing, the agency has included a copy of sheet 2 of drawing 78051-61x from the agency's official drawing package in the docket with this response. 1 Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, Suite 700; Washington, DC, 20408. Denton's last recommendation was to provide complete patterns for the head and cap skin (drawings 78051-228 and -229), and the skull and skull cap (drawings 78051-77X and -220). The incorporation of the head assembly into the agency regulation at 49 CFR Part 572 affirms that the head assembly drawings and other requirements provide sufficient detail to give reliable results under similar test conditions and reflect adequately the protective performance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment with respect to human occupants. Consequently, the agency believes that providing additional information on patterns or molds for these components, or providing additional instructions on how to manufacture and prepare the parts would not serve to improve the HIII-50th dummy's performance or improve occupant safety. Furthermore, every head assembly should undergo certification tests before being used in a test. These certification tests are established to indicate that the head assembly conforms to impact performance specifications prior to a test. The agency considers meeting the response specifications in certification tests, in conjunction with compliance to the drawing specifications, sufficient to ensure reliable responses in test results. Accordingly, the agency views slight dimensional or weight differences in head skins, which conform to the NHTSA's head assembly drawing and performance specifications, acceptable for agency testing. Moreover, the agency has been using heads and head skins from different dummy manufacturers for many years and has had no problems with dummy heads being unable to meet the performance specifications. The agency reviewed Denton's petition and found no data establishing how the additional requested specifications would result in improvements in dummy response in tests leading to better assessment of occupant safety. Furthermore, the agency has found no evidence that a lack of alleged detail in the head and cap skin, and the skull and skull cap specifications, results in dummies not meeting the agency's performance specifications. The agency concludes that the recommended changes are neither needed nor would serve to improve occupant protection. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is denying Denton's petition for Rulemaking on 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E, Hybrid III 50th Percentile Midsize Adult Male Crash Test Dummy. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8 Issued on: June 12, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-9453 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 71 116 Friday, June 16, 2006 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Board for International Food and Agricultural Development; One Hundred and Forty-Eighth Meeting; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the one hundred and forty-eighth meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on July 6, 2006 in the ground floor meeting room of the National Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), at 1307 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The BIFAD will hear briefings on USAID agricultural programming from its regional bureaus, a sampling of U.S. University led agricultural and natural resources management development programs, the status of the Collaborative Research Support Program
(CRSP)portfolio, guidelines and procurement, and other items of current interest. The meeting is free and open to the public. Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact John Rifenbark, the Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. Write him in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2.11-004, Washington DC 20523-2110 or telephone him at
(202)712-0163 or fax
(202)216-3010. John T. Rifenbark, USAID Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture & Trade, U.S. Agency for International Development. [FR Doc. E6-9425 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0060] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Certification Program for Imported Articles of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. To Prevent Introduction of Potato Brown Rot AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for a certification program for imported articles of *Pelargonium* spp. and *Solanum* spp. to prevent the introduction of potato brown rot. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” 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-2006-0060 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-2006-0060, 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-2006-0060. *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: For information on an information collection associated with importation regulations to prevent the introduction of potato brown rot, contact Mr. William Thomas, Executive Director, Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20732-1231;
(301)734-8295. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Certification Program for Imported Articles of *Pelargonium* spp. and *Solanum* spp. to Prevent Introduction of Potato Brown Rot. *OMB Number:* 0579-0221. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation of plants, plant products, plant pests, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart-Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant products,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings for propagation. The regulations include a certification program for articles of *Pelargonium* spp. and *Solanum* spp. imported from countries where the bacterium *Ralstonia solanacearum* race 3 biovar 2 is known to occur. The requirements of the certification program were designed to ensure that *Ralstonia solanacearum* race 3 biovar 2 will not be introduced into the United States through the importation of articles of *Pelargonium* spp. and *Solanum* spp. This bacterial strain causes potato brown rot, which causes potatoes to rot through, making them unusable and seriously affecting potato yields. The certification program requires the collection of information through phytosanitary certificates (foreign), trust funds, and compliance agreements. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. *Respondents:* Growers, State plant regulatory officials. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 27. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 37.851851. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 1,022. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 1,022 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-9468 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0088] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Veterinary Services; Customer Service Survey AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: New information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection activity that will be used to evaluate service delivery at Veterinary Services area offices and import/export facilities. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” 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-2006-0088 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-2006-0088, 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-2006-0088. *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: For information on an information collection to evaluate service delivery at Veterinary Services
(VS)area offices and import/export facilities, contact Dr. Robert E. Harris, Jr., Assistant Area Veterinarian in Charge, VS, APHIS, 7022 NW 10th Place, Gainesville, FL 32605;
(352)333-3120. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Veterinary Services; Customer Service Survey. *OMB Number:* 0579-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates, and provides services related to, the importation, interstate movement, and exportation of animals, animal products, and other articles to prevent the spread of pests and diseases of livestock. Veterinary Services
(VS)is the program unit that carries out these activities to protect animal health. In an effort to evaluate service delivery in its area offices and import/export facilities, VS plans to conduct a customer service survey. The survey would be in the form of a short questionnaire that VS would present to individuals who use its services. Completion of the questionnaire would be voluntary, and responses would not identify the individual respondent. Respondents would be asked to identify the type of customer they are ( *e.g.* , pet importer/exporter, farm animal importer/exporter, accredited veterinarian, etc.), and then to rate the services received in terms of courtesy, timeliness, helpfulness, etc., as well as rate the overall experience. The questionnaire would also allow respondents to provide comments. The information collected would be used to identify areas in which VS can improve service delivery and more efficiently meet the needs and expectations of customers. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.083 hours per response. *Respondents:* Members of the public who receive services from VS area offices and import/export facilities. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 5,000. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 5,000. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 415 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-9469 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Funding Opportunity; Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education (Commodity Partnership Program) *Announcement Type:* Availability of Funds and Request for Application for Competitive Cooperative Partnership Agreements—Initial. *CFDA Number:* 10.457. *Dates:* Application are due 5 p.m. EDT, July 17, 2006. Executive Summary The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), operating through the Risk Management Agency (RMA), announces the availability of approximately $500,000 for Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education (the Commodity Partnerships program). Since the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 authorized the use of partnerships to provide risk management education, RMA has annually offered partnerships to provide education to producers of crops currently no insured under Federal crop insurance, specialty crops, and underserved commodities, including livestock and forage (priority commodities). Even though these partnerships have been very successful, there is a segment of producers that have not been reached with these education programs—refugees and low income individuals who produce, or who are undertaking to establish a business producing, priority commodities (target producers). The purpose of this cooperative partnership agreement program is to deliver risk management training and information to these producers. A maximum of ten partnership agreements will be funded. The maximum award for any of the ten cooperative partnership agreements will be $50,000. 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. Definition of Target Audience E. Project Goal F. 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 Natural 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 552(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. Since the inception of the partnership program in 2000, RMA has offered millions of dollars in partnerships and has provided risk management tools and education to a large variety of producers of priority commodities. However, through all the partnerships that have been awarded over the years few if any have been directed at the target producers. The need for outreach to this segment of the population has been recognized by both the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), who executed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)on December 16, 2004, for the purpose of coordinating policies and activities designed to improve the economic conditions of target producers engaged in farming and rural entrepreneurship. Assessments of the needs of target producers have identified these issues and needs;
(1)Improving access to and utilization of conventional marketing and distribution channels by increasing understanding of packer contracts, quality standards, price fluctuations, and crop financing;
(2)Establishing niche markets, including specialty branding, organic certification, and increased access to Farmers Markets;
(3)Improving access to land, equipment and financing and educating producers about lease agreements and financing options;
(4)Need for technical assistance and training, particularly in chemical use, recordkeeping, and season extension;
(5)Uneven support and involvement of government and community based agencies such as county agricultural commissioners, and extension services, faith based groups, and civic organizations;
(6)Language and culture: both the need for service providers to understand the language and culture of the refugees, and the need for the refugees to learn the language and culture of America, and particularly the methods of accessing government and community based services. Therefore, RMA is looking for proposals to address these issues and needs for target producers. 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 commerical 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. Definition of Target Audience This program is directed at those refugees and other low income individuals who produce, or who are undertaking to establish a business producing, priority commodities (target producers). For purposes of this program, target producers are defined as: • *Refugee.* As established by DHHS, includes refugees, asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants, certain Americans from Vietnam (including some citizens), and victims of a severe form of trafficking. An individual that has fled another country and has come to the United States for refuge, especially from invasion, oppression, or persecution. Although some of these individuals become eligible for legal permanent residence one year after their arrival in the U.S., they continue to meet the definition of “refugee” for purpose of social service benefits until they become U.S. citizens. • *Low Income Individuals.* Persons whose family incomes are at or below 200 percent of the poverty guidelines established by DHHS. E. Project Goal The goal of this program is to ensure that target producers will be better able to use financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, and other existing and emerging risk management tools. F. 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 $500,000 is available in fiscal year 2006 to fund up to ten cooperative partnership agreements. The maximum award will be $50,000. Applicants should apply for funding under that RMA Region where the educational activities will be directed. 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 30 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 Office 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 target 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 Regional must submit a separate application for each RMA Region. This requirements is not intended to preclude target producers from areas that border a designated RMA Region from participating in that region's educational activities. It is also not a intended to prevent applicants from proposing the use of certain informational methods, such as print or broadcast news outlets, that may reach and target producers engaged in farming and ranching in other RMA Regions. *D. Maximum Award:* Any application that requests Federal funding of more than $50,000 for a project in any of the individual RMA Regions 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:* *Recipients 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 appropriate informational dissemination techniques that are designed to:
(a)Raise awareness for the availability of the risk management education program;
(b)inform target producers of the availability of risk management tools; and
(c)inform target producers and agribusiness leaders in the designated RMA Region of information and training opportunities provided by the USDA and DHHS. • Deliver, using culturally appropriate methods, risk management training and informational opportunities to target producers in the designated RMA Region. This will include organizing and delivering educational activities using instructional materials developed for target producers. Activities should be directed primarily to target producers, but may include those agribusiness professionals that have frequent opportunities to advise target 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:* FCIS, 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 target 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 target producers of training and informational opportunities in the RMA Region. • Collaborate with the recipient on the delivery of education to target 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;
(c)assisting the project leader in informing crop insurance professionals about educational activity plans and scheduled meetings and;
(d)networking with other agencies/services within USDA and the DHHS. • 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 target producers 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: Eric Edgington, USDA-RMA-IS, phone
(202)690-2539, fax
(202)690-2095, e-mail: *Eric.Edgington@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 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 $50,000. 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:* July 17, 2006. 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. All remaining funds must be used for the educational materials, promotion, rental of a meeting place, etc. 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 negotiation 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 consider this 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 Refugee Program, USDA/RMA/IS, Room 6715, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Address when using U.S. Postal Services: Attention: Risk Management Refugee Program, USDA/RMA/IS/Stop 0805, Room 6715, South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0805. 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 Eric Edgington, USDA-RMA-IS, phone
(202)690-2539, fax
(202)690-2095, e-mail: *Eric.Edgington@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 target producers warrant the funding requested. Projects that relate solely to target producers will be eligible for the most points. Projects for which target producers are estimated to receive less than 75 percent will be rejected. Applicants will be scored according to the extent they can:
(a)Reasonably estimate and describe the total number of target producers reached through the various educational activities described in the Statement of Work;
(b)justify such estimates with clear specifics;
(c)identify the actions target 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 target 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 20 Points The applicant must demonstrate experience and capacity to partner with other USDA and DHHS agencies and services, 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 multiple groups of target producers 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 target producers. Project Management—Maximum 10 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 target 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 target 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 target producers. 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 he RMA Region according to the scores received. A random drawing will be held to resolve any instances of a tie score that might have a hearing on funding recommendations. If such a drawing 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 target 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 RCIC 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 cooperative partnership agreement has been signed, RMA will extend to award recipients, in writing, the authority to draw down funds for 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 target 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 us 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 entries 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 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 Since all awards under the request for application shall not exceed $50,000, the reporting requirements in section 319(b) of Public Law 101-121, enacted on October 23, 1989, are not applicable. 8. Applicable OMB Circulars All cooperative 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 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 there under, 7 C.F.R. 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 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: Eric Edgington, USDA-RMA-IS, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Stop 0805, Room 6715, Washington, DC 20250-0805, phone
(202)690-2539, fax
(202)690-2095, e-mail: *Eric.Edgington@rma.usda.gov.* You may also obtain information regarding this announcement from the RMA Web site at: *http://www.ma.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 June 12, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. 06-5442 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
U.S. Code
21 references not yet in our index
  • 22 CFR 97
  • 22 CFR 96
  • 22 CFR 98
  • 22 CFR 42
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 109 Stat. 48
  • 68 FR 54064
  • 42 USC 14901-14954
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 48 CFR 213
  • 41 USC 421
  • 48 CFR 233
  • 49 CFR 572
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 49 CFR 501.8
  • 7 CFR 319
  • Pub. L. 101-121
  • 7 CFR 15
  • 7 CFR 1901.202
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed Rule
C.F.R.§ 96.2
C.F.R.§ 96.53
C.F.R.§ 96.34
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 804
U.S.C.§ 1532
U.S.C.§ 1503
U.S.C.§ 1533
Cite22 CFR 97
Cite22 CFR 96
Cite22 CFR 98
Cites 47 · 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.