Notices. Appointment of Members

8,324 words·~38 min read·/register/2006/10/24/06-8838

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

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S 71 205 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 18, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food Safety and Inspection Service *Title:* Exportation, Transportation, and Importation of Meat and Poultry Products. *OMB Control Number:* 0583-0094. *Summary of Collection:* The Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS)has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act

(FMIA)(21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(PPIA)(21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq.* ). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. FSIS requires that meat and poultry establishments exporting products to foreign countries complete an export certificate. Meat and poultry products not marked with the mark of inspection and shipped from one official establishment to another for further processing must be transported under FSIS seal to prevent such unmarked product from entering into commerce. To track product shipped under seal, FSIS requires shipping establishments to complete a form that identifies the type, amount, and weight of the product. Foreign countries exporting meat and poultry products to the U.S. must establish eligibility for importation of product into the U.S., and annually certify that their inspection systems are “equivalent to” the U.S. inspection system. Meat and poultry products intended for import into the U.S. must be accompanied by a health certificate, signed by an official of the foreign government, stating that certified foreign establishments have produced the products. FSIS will collect information using three FSIS forms. *Need and Use of the Information:* FSIS will collect information to identify the type, amount, weight, destination, and originating country of the meat and poultry. FSIS will use the information to verify that a meat or poultry product intended for import has been prepared in a plant certified to prepare product for export to the U.S. FSIS will use the information to conduct re-inspection of meat and poultry imported to the U.S. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 6,619. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 661,149. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17735 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Notice of Appointment of Members to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board AGENCY: Research, Education, and Economics, USDA. ACTION: Appointment of Members. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces the appointments made by the Secretary of Agriculture to the 12 vacancies on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. DATES: Appointments by the Secretary of Agriculture are for a 3-year term, effective October 1, 2006, until September 30, 2009 with the exception of Category CC, which is a 2-year term expiring on September 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail: joseph.dunn@usda.gov; Fax:* 202-720-6199; *Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:* National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; Research Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, Room 344A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2255; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Dunn, Executive Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, *Telephone:* 202-720-3684. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 802 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 authorized the creation of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, Economics Advisory Board. The Board is composed of 31 members, each representing a specific category related to agriculture. The Board was first appointed in September 1996 and at the time one-third of the original members were appointed for one, two, and three-year terms, respectively. Due to the staggered appointments, the terms for 12 of the 31 members expired in September 2006. Each member is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to a specific category on the Board, including farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, non-land grant college or university with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. Appointees by vacancy category of the 9 new members and 3 re-appointments are as follows: Category A. “National Farm Organization,” Joseph H. Layton, Owner and Operator, Lazy Day Farms, LLC, Vienna, MD; Category C. “Food and Animal Commodity Producer,” Carol A. Keiser-Long, President, C-BAR Cattle Co. Inc.; and President, C-ARC Enterprises, Inc., Champaign, IL; Category E. “National Animal Commodity,” George P. Watts, President, National Chicken Council, Washington, DC; Category F. “National Crop Commodity,” Charles B. Coley, President, Coley Gin & Fertilizer Company/Managing Partners; Coley Farms, Vienna, GA; Category K. “National Human Health Association,” John Cunningham, Deputy Provost and Professor of Nutrition, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA; Category P. “Hispanic-Serving Institutions,” Ricardo Chavez Rel, Assistant to the Dean, Agricultural Experiment Station, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture & Home Economics, Las Cruces, NM; Category R. “Non Land-Grant College and University with a Historic Commitment to Research in Food and Agricultural Science,” James R. Clark, Dean and Vice Chancellor, College of Agriculture, Science and Engineering, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX; Category T. “Transportation of Food and Agricultural Products to Domestic and Foreign Markets”, James Lugg, Executive Vice-President Fresh Express/President TransFRESH Corporation, Salinas, CA, Category V, “Food and Fiber Processors,” Mary Wagner, Chief Technology Officer, E & J Gallo Winery, Modesto, CA; Category AA. “Private Sector Organization involved in International Development,” William J. Hudson, President & CEO, World Food Logistics Organization, Alexandria, VA; Category CC. “Research Agency of the Federal Government Other than USDA, David Thomassen, Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC; Category DD. “National Social Science Association”, James J. Zuiches, Vice Chancellor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Done at Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2006. Merle Pierson, Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E6-17793 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0154] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and Vegetables 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 the importation of fruits and vegetables. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0154 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-2006-0154, 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-2006-0154. *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 regulations associated with the importation of fruits and vegetables, contact Ms. Donna L. West, Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-8758. 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:* Importation of Fruits and Vegetables. *OMB Number:* 0579-0236. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* As authorized by the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 *et seq.* ) (PPA), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, means of conveyance, or other article if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent a plant pest or noxious weed from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA. The regulations in Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8) authorize a number of fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States, under specified conditions, from certain parts of the world. These fruits and vegetables include, among other commodities, African horned cucumber from Chile; cherimoya, soursop, custard apple, sugar apple, and atemoya from Grenada; coconut fruit with milk and husk from Mexico; pitaya from Mexico; melon and watermelon from certain countries in South America; watermelon, squash, cucumber, oriental melon, and grapes from the Republic of Korea. Before entering the United States, all of these fruits and vegetables are subject to inspection and disinfection at their port of first arrival to ensure that no plant pests are inadvertently brought into the United States. These precautions, along with other requirements, help ensure that these commodities do not introduce exotic plant pests, such as fruit flies, into the United States. The regulations require the use of certain information collection activities, including import permits, phytosanitary certificates, fruit fly monitoring records, and box labeling. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. After approval of the burden associated with this extension notice, OMB will combine it with another information collection, also titled “Importation of Fruits and Vegetables (number 0579-0128),” and the Department will retire number 0579-0236. 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 information collection, 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 information collection 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 0.1320 hours per response. *Respondents:* U.S. importers of fruits and vegetables and plant health officials of exporting countries. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 141. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 5.5319. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 780. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 103 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 18th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-17772 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152] Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that a supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to analyze methyl bromide usage associated with regulatory requirements for importing solid wood packing material into the United States. That document will serve as a supplement to the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS Interagency NEPA Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238;

(301)734-6103. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) intends to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS)for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003 (FEIS). The purpose of the SEIS is to reevaluate and refine the estimates of methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS. APHIS published in the **Federal Register** on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3), a final rule amending the regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to adopt an international standard entitled “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade.” The FEIS was prepared with regard to that final rule in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), and its implementing regulations. APHIS will base the SEIS on recently obtained, reliable data regarding how various countries have complied with the final rule and with the International Plant Protection Convention Guidelines (IPPC Guidelines) on which the final rule was based. These data include reports from different countries on whether cargo is routinely fumigated along with wood packaging material (WPM), which would result in more methyl bromide usage, or whether WPM is fumigated separately from cargo, which would result in less methyl bromide usage. We also have new data on the extent to which various countries have chosen to comply with the IPPC Guidelines by heat treating WPM rather than fumigating it. The SEIS will be prepared in accordance with:

(1)NEPA,

(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),

(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and

(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). When APHIS has completed a draft SEIS, a notice announcing its availability and an invitation to comment on it will be published in the **Federal Register** . Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-17773 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0007] Exotic Fruit Fly Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2006-2010 AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a final Exotic Fruit Fly Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and is making it available for review. The final strategic plan has been updated in response to the comments we received on the draft strategic plan. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael B. Stefan, Director, Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1229;

(301)734-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) responds to exotic fruit fly risks with an integrated system that incorporates surveillance activities, fruit fly control programs, and regulatory actions. To outline how APHIS, along with its domestic and global partners, will harmonize these exotic fruit fly safeguarding programs and activities over the next 5 years, we prepared a draft document entitled “Exotic Fruit Fly Strategic Plan FY 2006-2010.” This draft strategic plan focused on the activities funded through APHISs' Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection programs, whose primary mission is to protect the health and value of American agriculture resources threatened by the establishment of exotic fruit fly pests. On February 17, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 8563, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0007) a notice 1 advising the public we had prepared the draft strategic plan and made it available to the public for review and comment. 1 To view the draft strategic plan and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0007, then click on “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. We solicited comments concerning the draft strategic plan for 30 days ending March 20, 2006. We received eight comments by that date, from producers, private citizens, a not-for-profit organization, and representatives of State governments. All of the commenters supported the implementation of the 5-year exotic fruit fly strategic plan; however, some of the commenters also expressed concerns regarding the information provided, and the questions posed, in the appendices to the draft plan. The issues raised by the commenters are discussed below. In Appendix A we offered up for discussion the potential actions we could take in response to the closing of the sterile Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) production facility in Waimanalo, HI. The following options were presented:

(1)Do not replace the facility;

(2)build a new production facility in Hawaii;

(3)partner with California Department of Food and Agriculture to expand their sterile fruit fly production facility in Hawaii; or

(4)build a multispecies facility in the continental United States or on foreign soil. The commenters all agreed on the need for a multispecies exotic fruit fly facility to provide backup capacity for our sterile fruit fly programs and emergency needs. Additionally, several commenters suggested potential sites for the new facility. APHIS is in agreement with these commenters regarding the need for a backup multispecies sterile fruit fly production facility. We have begun to explore the available options, including the construction of a multispecies exotic fruit fly facility, either within or outside the continental United States, and the privatization of sterile fly production. We will be seeking additional information and suggestions from the public on this subject and expect to publish a request for information in a future issue of the **Federal Register** . In Appendix B, we offered up for discussion a question as to whether or not we should continue to support the current Moscamed Program, a cooperative program of the Guatemalan, Mexican, and U.S. Governments to eradicate Medfly in Mexico and suppress Medfly populations in Guatemala. In the past, reliance on uncertain emergency funds has severely impacted the ability of Moscamed managers to plan and implement an effective program. In order to successfully maintain a Medfly barrier in southern Mexico, and, ultimately eradicate the pest from Central America, funding and management issues must be stabilized. Due to a potential loss of emergency funding ($10 million of Commodity Credit Corporation funds per year), the draft strategic plan suggested four options for altering the current program:

(1)Eradicate Medfly from Guatemala and create a new barrier zone to maintain;

(2)shift the barrier zone to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec;

(3)pull out of the cooperative agreement with Mexico and use all $19 million to fight Medfly in Guatemala; or

(4)pull out of the cooperative Moscamed Program in Mexico and Guatemala, and establish an emergency fund for preventative measures along the U.S.-Mexico border and for emergency outbreaks in the United States. As a result of these suggestions, a majority of the commenters expressed concern that altering the current Moscamed Program would diminish its effectiveness. Though it was not offered as an option, several commenters requested that we continue with the currently implemented Moscamed Program, unchanged. APHIS is in agreement with these commenters with regard to continuing the currently implemented Moscamed Program. Because of the potential loss of emergency funding for the program, we have requested an additional $14 million in appropriated funds for the Moscamed Program in our 2007 Presidential Budget Proposal. A few commenters requested we clarify the strategic plan by including additional specific information in the scientific support section before the draft's finalization. In response to these comments, we have updated the scientific support section of the strategic plan by identifying specific detection and population suppression technologies through which APHIS will seek to reduce the number and severity of exotic fruit fly outbreaks within the United States. We have also included additional risk mitigation information regarding the use of molecular diagnostic techniques and tools that identify foreign sources of fruit fly pest introductions, as well as assurance that risk assessment will be a high priority in quality assurance of the fruit fly program. We are making the final document available to the public for review. You may view the document on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this notice for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov), or you may request copies from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the document when requesting copies. Finally, the document is available for review 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. Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-17777 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Notice of Funds Availability

(NOFA)Inviting Applications for the Implementation of an American Indian Credit Outreach Initiative AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Farm Service Agency

(FSA)soliciting applications for competitive cooperative agreement funds for Fiscal Year

(FY)2007 to initiate a credit outreach initiative targeted to American Indian farmers, ranchers and youth residing primarily on Indian reservations within the contiguous United States. FSA anticipates the availability of $1,166,400 in funding. FSA requests proposals from eligible 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, land-grant institutions and federally-recognized Indian tribal governments interested in a competitively-awarded cooperative agreement to create and implement a mechanism that will provide credit outreach and promotion, pre-loan education, one-on-one loan application preparation assistance and other related services as proposed by the successful applicant that are specific to FSA's Agricultural Credit Programs. The successful applicant must provide evidence that it has the capability to put in place a data tracking system that thoroughly records all credit outreach-specific related activities and has the ability to provide detailed statistical information on an ad hoc basis. This database must also be functional on a real-time basis as well as being available online through the Internet. This request for proposals is made prior to passage of a final appropriations bill to allow applicants sufficient time to submit proposals, give the Agency maximum time to process applications, and permit continuity of this program. If actual funding differs from that anticipated ($1,166,400) based on historical funding levels, then the Agency will publish a separate Notice of Funds Availability. DATES: Applications should be completed and submitted as soon as possible, and must be received by the Agency no later than November 24, 2006. Late applications will not be accepted and will be returned to the applicant. Applicants must ensure that the service they use to deliver their applications can do so by the deadline. Due to recent security concerns, packages sent to the Agency by mail have been delayed several days or even weeks. ADDRESSES: Submit proposals and other required materials to Mike Hill, Acting Director, Outreach Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, STOP 0511, Suite 508 Portals Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0511. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Hill at

(202)690-1299, or at *mike.hill@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Objective This solicitation is issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2204b(b)(4) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements to improve the coordination and effectiveness of Federal programs affecting rural areas. The principal objective of this cooperative agreement is to initiate a national outreach program that enables American Indian farmers, ranchers, and youth primarily located on Indian reservations in the contiguous United States to understand and have access to the various FSA Agriculture Credit Programs. All proposed approaches must have, within three months upon acceptance of award:

(1)A data tracking system that thoroughly records all credit outreach specific activities and has the ability to provide detailed statistical information on an ad hoc basis, that must also be functional on a real-time basis as well as being available online through the Internet, and

(2)the applicant must demonstrate its ability to learn to deliver these credit outreach services utilizing the FSA online Farm Business Plan software program. Proposals should demonstrate innovative and unique ways of ensuring that American Indians:

(1)Will be provided a targeted promotional campaign about,

(2)have ready access to,

(3)are educated about and

(4)can obtain one-on-one assistance specific to the various FSA Agricultural Credit Programs. Applicants must also demonstrate and provide evidence of their ability to record and track program-specific data which can be accessed on a real-time basis and be available online through the Internet. Background Today, American Indians own and control approximately 56 million acres of agricultural lands held in trust by the United States Government and administered, for the most part, by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)of the Department of the Interior. Land-based agricultural enterprises are considered the primary source of revenue for most tribes, due in large part to their severe isolation from any urban type industrial development activities. Thus, protecting this resource is an important function of the elected tribal officials charged with operating business activities that take place within reservations. In the late 1800's the United States Government recognized the significant needs of agriculture, the agricultural community, and the impacts they had on the American economy and the world as a whole. With this in mind, the government created the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)to insure a safe, reliable, and cheap supply of food for this country and ultimately the world. The USDA provides farmers and ranchers technical, financial, and educational resources. Until 1987, American Indian agricultural producers on reservations had been less able to benefit from USDA services. Since 1987, changes, such as Farm Bills with Indian-specific language, have begun to close some of the gaps in American Indians' lack of access to USDA's programs and services. As positive as these changes were, they did not fully address an implementation plan or the funds to implement sorely needed agribusiness education and direct services to American Indian Reservation farmers and ranchers as a group. On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the “Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002” (2002-Farm Bill). Again, American Indian Reservation farmers and ranchers are faced with the challenge of understanding and accessing the programs and services afforded through this new law. With this in mind, American Indian agribusinesses, as well as individual Indians, have consistently reported that the primary need in Indian agriculture was access to the capital required to own and operate their own farm or ranch. Therefore, FSA has undertaken this initiative to create and implement a mechanism that will provide credit outreach and other related services related to FSA's Agricultural Credit Programs as a way to resolve some of the credit needs of Indian agriculture. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposals requested by this notice do not involve a collection of information as defined by section 1320.3(c) of 5 CFR part 1320, because it will not involve the collection of information from 10 or more persons. I. Definitions The following definitions are applicable to this Notice of Funds Availability

(NOFA)Inviting Applications for the Implementation of an American Indian Credit Outreach Program. *Agency or FSA.* The United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency or its successor agency. *Farm land.* Land used for commercial agriculture crops, poultry and livestock enterprises, or aquaculture. *Federally-Recognized Indian Tribal Government.* The governing body or a governmental agency of any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community (including any Native village as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) certified by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for the special programs and services provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. *Land Grant Institutions.*

(1)A 1994 institution (as defined in section 2 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601)), or an 1890 institution.

(2)An Indian tribal community college or an Alaska Native cooperative college.

(3)A Hispanic-serving institution (as defined in section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103)). *Non-Profit Organization.* Any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that:

(1)Is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest;

(2)Is not organized primarily for profit; and

(3)Must be an organization that is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as being certified as 501(3)(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. II. Recipient Eligibility Requirements Applicants must either be a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, a federally-recognized Indian tribe, or a land grant institution as defined in the Definitions section of this NOFA. Cooperative agreement funds cannot be used to support the organization's general operations. Applications without sufficient information to determine their eligibility will not be considered. III. Proposal Preparation A proposal must contain an original and two copies of the following: 1. *Form SF-424* , “Application for Federal Assistance.” 2. *Form SF-424A* , “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” 3. *Form SF-424B* , “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” 4. *Table of Contents* —For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents immediately following the required Federal forms. The Table of Contents should include page numbers for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately following the Table of Contents. 5. *Proposal Summary* —A summary of the Project Proposal, not to exceed one page, that includes the title of the project, a description of the project (including goals and tasks to be accomplished), the names of the individuals responsible for conducting and completing the tasks, and the expected time frame for completing all tasks (which should not exceed twelve months). 6. *Eligibility* —A detailed discussion, not to exceed two pages, describing how the applicant meets the definition of land grant institution, non-profit organization, or Federally-recognized Indian tribal government, as outlined in the “Recipient Eligibility Requirements” section of this NOFA. In addition, the applicant must describe all other collaborative organizations that may be involved in the project. 7. *Proposal Narrative* —The narrative portion of the project proposal must be in a font such as Times New Roman, 12 pt. or comparable font, and must include the following:

(i)*Project Title* —The title of the proposed project must be brief, not to exceed 100 characters, yet represent the major thrust of the project.

(ii)*Information Sheet* —A separate one page information sheet which lists each of the evaluation criteria listed in this NOFA under the “Evaluation Criteria and Weights” subsection followed by the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation contained in the proposal which address or support that criteria.

(iii)*Goals and Objectives of the Project* —A clear statement of the ultimate goals and objectives of the project must be presented.

(iv)*Evaluation Criteria* —Each of the evaluation criteria listed in the “Evaluation Criteria and Weights” subsection of this NOFA must be addressed specifically and individually by category. These criteria should be in narrative form with any specific supporting documentation attached as addenda and should be placed directly following the proposal narrative. If other materials including financial statements will be used to support any evaluation criteria it should also be placed directly following the proposal narrative. The applicant must also propose and delineate significant agency participation in the project. IV. Amount of Award The amount of funds available for FY 2007 is approximately $1,166,400. V. Number of Awards Only one cooperative agreement will be awarded. VI. Eligible Cooperative Agreement Fund Uses Cooperative agreement funds may be used to cover allowable costs incurred by the recipient and approved by the Agency. Allowable costs will be governed by 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019, as applicable, and applicable Office of Management and Budget Circulars. VII. Ineligible Fund Uses Cooperative agreement funds cannot be used to:

(1)Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility (including a processing facility);

(2)Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including mobile and other processing equipment;

(3)Pay for the preparation of the grant application;

(4)Pay expenses not directly related to the funded venture;

(5)Fund political or lobbying activities;

(6)Pay costs incurred prior to receiving this Cooperative Agreement;

(7)Fund any activity prohibited by 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019, as applicable; and

(8)Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility. VIII. Methods for Evaluating and Ranking Applications A National Office panel of career FSA and/or USDA Agency employees will review applications for eligibility, completeness, and responsiveness to this NOFA. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will be returned to the applicant and not evaluated further. If the submission deadline has not expired and time permits, ineligible applications may be returned to the applicants for possible revision. IX. Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Review The proposal will be evaluated using the following criteria. Failure to address any one of the criteria will disqualify the application. All proposals must be in compliance with this NOFA and applicable statutes.

(1)*Proposal Review* —Prior to technical examination, a preliminary review will be made by FSA Outreach Staff for responsiveness to this solicitation. Proposals that do not fall within the solicitation guidelines or are otherwise ineligible will be eliminated from competition. All responsive proposals will be reviewed by a panel of reviewers using the evaluation criteria stated below. The selected FSA and/or USDA Agency employee reviewers will be chosen to provide maximum expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of proposals. Evaluated proposals will be ranked by the FSA Outreach Staff based on the evaluation criteria and weights listed below. Final approval of those proposals will be made by the Administrator of FSA, subject to the availability of funds.

(2)*Evaluation Criteria and Weight* —All responsive proposals will be reviewed based on the following criteria:

(i)Proposer's Commitment and Resources (15 points)—The standard evaluates the degree to which the organization is committed to the project, and the experience, qualifications, competency, and availability of personnel and resources to direct and carry out the project. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate its ability to be able to deliver these credit outreach services utilizing the new FSA online Farm Business Plan software program upon acceptance of any financial award.

(ii)Feasibility and Policy Consistency (20 points)—The standard evaluates the degree to which the proposal clearly describes its objectives and evidences a high level of feasibility. This criterion relates to the adequacy, soundness of the proposed approach to the solution of the problem and evaluates the plan of operation, timetable, evaluation and dissemination plans.

(iii)A detailed description of the anticipated number of underserved American Indian farmers, ranchers, and youth served and collaborative partnerships, if any (20 points)—This standard evaluates the degree to which the proposal reflects partnerships and collaborative initiatives with other agencies or organizations to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the program. Additionally, the areas and number of underserved American Indian farmers, ranchers and youth who would benefit from the services offered will be evaluated.

(iv)Socially Disadvantaged American Indian Applicants—Outreach (10 points)—This standard evaluates the degree to which the proposal contains detailed programs to reach persons identified as socially disadvantaged American Indian farmers, ranchers and youth. The proposal will be evaluated for its potential for encouraging and assisting socially disadvantaged American Indian farmers, ranchers, and youth to utilize the various FSA agriculture credit programs. Elements considered include impact, continuation plans, innovation, and expected products and results.

(v)Innovative Strategies (25 points)—This standard evaluates the degree to which the proposal reflects innovative strategies for reaching the population targeted in the proposal and achieving the project objectives. Elements also evaluated include:

(1)Evidence that the applicant has the ability to put in place a data tracking system that can thoroughly record all credit outreach specific related activities and the ability to provide detailed statistical information on an ad hoc basis, with additional evidence supporting its ability to function on a real-time basis as well its ability to be available online through the Internet, and

(2)originality, practicality, and creativity in proposing ways to develop and test innovative solutions to existing or anticipated credit issues or problems of socially disadvantaged American Indian farmers, ranchers and youth. The proposal will be reviewed for its responsiveness to the need to provide socially disadvantaged American Indian farmers, ranchers, and youth with promotion, relevant information, and direct assistance in applying for and receiving FSA agriculture credit, and other essential information to enhance participation in agricultural programs and conducting a successful farming or ranching operation.

(vi)Overall Quality of the Proposal (5 points)—This standard evaluates the degree to which the proposal complies with this NOFA and is of high quality. Elements considered include adherence to instructions, accuracy and completeness of forms, clarity and organization of ideas, thoroughness and sufficiency of detail in the budget narrative, specificity of allocations between targeted areas if the proposal addresses more than one area, and completeness of vitae for all key personnel associated with the project.

(vii)Accuracy of Proposed Budget and Justification (5 points)—This standard evaluates the accuracy of the proposed budget and the accompanying budget justification and should sufficiently provide the reviewer with a detailed description of each budget category that includes categorical subtotals as well as an attached budget justification that clearly defines and explains each and every proposed budget line item. 3. *Selection Proces* s—When the reviewers have completed their individual evaluations, the panel reviewers based on the individual reviews, will make recommendations to the Administrator that one responsive proposal be approved for support from available funds. Prior to award, the Administrator reserves the right to negotiate with an applicant whose project is recommended for funding regarding project revisions ( *e.g.* , change in scope of work or the Agency's significant involvement), funding level, or period of support. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time before a final funding decision is made. X. Program Administration

(1)*Cooperative Agreement Awards:* Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the Administrator shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the successful applicant. The date specified by the Administrator as the effective date of the award shall not be later than 12 months after the project is approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by law.

(2)*When to Submit an Application.* The deadline for receipt of all applications is November 24, 2006. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline. XI. Cooperator Requirements Cooperators will be required to do the following:

(1)Sign required Federal grant-making forms including Form AD-1047, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions; Form AD-1048, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions; Form AD-1049, Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants); and Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights).

(2)Use Standard Form 270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement to request payments.

(3)Submit a Standard Form 269, Financial Status Report and list expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories on a semi-annual basis. A semi-annual financial report is due within 45 days after the first 6-month project period and an annual financial report is due within 60 days after the second 6-month project period.

(4)Submit quarterly performance reports which compare accomplishments to the objectives; if established objectives are not met, discuss problems, delays, or other problems that may affect completion of the project; establish objectives for the next reporting period; and discuss compliance with any special conditions on the use of awarded funds.

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

(6)Submit a final project performance report.

(7)Sign an agency approved cooperative agreement. XII. Other Federal Statutes and Regulations That Apply In addition to the requirements provided in this notice, other Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to our cooperative agreement awarded. These include, but are not limited to:

(1)7 CFR part 15, subpart A, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture-Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

(2)7 CFR part 3015, Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations;

(3)7 CFR parts 3016, Uniform Administrative Regulations for Grants and Cooperative Agreements & State and Local Governments.

(4)7 CFR part 3017, Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants);

(5)7 CFR part 3018-New Restrictions on Lobbying;

(6)7 CFR part 3019-Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and

(7)7 CFR part 3052-Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Signed in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2006. Glen L. Keppy, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Cooperative Agreement—American Indian Outreach Initiative This Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) dated ________, between ____________ (Cooperator), and the United States of America, acting through the Farm Service Agency of the Department of Agriculture (the Agency, or Grantor), for $__________ in cooperative agreement funds under the program, delineates the agreement of the parties. *Now, therefore* , in consideration of the cooperative agreement; The parties agree that:

(1)All the terms and provisions of the Notice entitled “Notice of Funds Availability

(NOFA)Inviting Applications for the Implementation of an American Indian Credit Outreach Initiative,” published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2006 [ENTER FR PAGE NUMBER] and the application submitted by the Grantee for this Agreement, including any attachments or amendments, are incorporated and included as part of this Agreement. Any changes to these documents or this agreement must be approved in writing by the Agency.

(2)As a condition of the Agreement, the Cooperator certifies that it is in compliance with and will comply in the course of the Agreement with all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and other generally applicable requirements, including those contained in 7 CFR 3015.205(b), which are incorporated into this agreement by reference, and such other statutory provisions as are specifically contained herein. The Grantee will comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Executive Order 12250.

(3)The provisions of 7 CFR part 3015, Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations and 7 CFR part 3019, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations, as applicable are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. *Further* , the Cooperator agrees that it will:

(1)Not use cooperative agreement funds to plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility (including a processing facility); or to purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment.

(2)Use funds only for the purpose and activities specified in the proposal approved by the Agency including the approved budget. Any uses not provided for in the approved budget must be approved in writing by the Agency in advance of obligation by the Agency.

(3)Submit a Standard Form 269, Financial Status Report and list expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories on a semi-annual basis. Reports are due by April 30 and October 30 after the grant is awarded.

(4)Provide periodic reports as required by the Agency. A financial status report and a project performance report will be required on a semi-annual basis. The financial status report must show how grant funds have been used to date and project the funds needed and their purposes for the next quarter. A final report may serve as the last semi-annual report. Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met and projected goals by time periods are being accomplished. The project performance reports shall include the following: a. A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives for that period. b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable. c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will affect attainment of overall program objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accomplished by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation. d. Objectives and timetables established for the next reporting period. e. The final report will also address the following:

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

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

(iii)If an innovative approach was used successfully, the cooperator should describe their program in detail so that other organizations might consider replication in their areas.

(5)Provide Financial Management Systems which will include: a. Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for cooperative agreement supported activities. Those records shall contain information pertaining to grant and cooperative agreement awards and authorizations, obligations, un-obligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income. b. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. Cooperator shall adequately safeguard all such assets and shall ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. c. Accounting records supported by source documentation.

(6)Retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing, except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photocopies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Agency and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee which are pertinent to the specific cooperative agreement program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.

(7)Not encumber, transfer, or dispose of the equipment or any part thereof, acquired wholly or in part with Agency funds without the written consent of the Agency.

(8)Not duplicate other program purposes for which monies have been received, are committed, or are applied to from other sources (public or private). The Agency agrees to make funds available to the Cooperator under this Agreement in an amount not to exceed the amount indicated above. The funds will be reimbursed or advanced based on submission to the Agency by the Cooperator of a complete Standard Form 270. Authorized and executed this day by: (Cooperator) (Title) United States of America Farm Service Agency By:

(Name)(Title) [FR Doc. E6-17736 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting to discuss 2006 projects and to listen to speakers. The meeting is being held pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393). The meeting is open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held on October 24, 2006, 6:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Office, 1801 N. 1st Street, Hamilton, Montana. Send written comments to Dan Ritter, District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by facsimile

(406)777-7423, or electronically to *dritter@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone:

(406)777-5461. Dated: October 17, 2006. Barry Paulson, Deputy Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-8838 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

U.S. Code