Fed. Reg. Notices — Notice

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. U.S. Patent No. 7,205,520: Portable Air Defense Ground Based Launch Detection System, Navy Case No. 84424//U.S. Patent No. 7,230,221: Portable Air Defense Ground Based Launch Detection System, Navy Case No. 97092.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the inventions cited should be directed to Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Code 498400D, 1900 N. Knox Road Stop 6312, China Lake, CA 93555-6106 and must include the Navy Case number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Seltzer, Ph.D., Head, Technology Transfer Office, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Code 498400D, 1900 N. Knox Road Stop 6312, China Lake, CA 93555-6106, telephone 760-939-1074, fax 760-939-1210, e-mail: *michael.seltzer@navy.mil.* (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR 404.7).

Dated June 26, 2006. Dated: June 27, 2007. L.R. Almand, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Administrative Law Division, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13085 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 4, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)title;

(3)summary of the collection;

(4)description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: June 29, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Communications and Outreach *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Outreach Sign-on Form. *Frequency:* Other: one time. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions; Businesses or other for-profit; Federal Government State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 800. Burden Hours: 67. *Abstract:* The database was started in 1994 to provide organizations and others with information about educational issues, programs, and products and is a convenient way to formalize a “listserv” by which to contact those who are interested. Information about the organizations and individuals is collected only through the sign-on form. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov.* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3403. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-13075 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RIN 1820-ZA42 The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces additional requirements and selection criteria for a competition in which the Department will select up to 15 States to participate in a pilot program, the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program). State proposals approved under this program will create opportunities for participating States to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties in order to increase time for instruction and other activities to improve educational and functional results for children with disabilities, while preserving students' civil rights and promoting academic achievement. The Assistant Secretary will use these additional requirements and selection criteria for a single, one-time-only competition for this program. DATES: *Effective Date:* These additional requirements and selection criteria are effective August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4078, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone:

(202)245-7355 or by e-mail: *Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria for the Paperwork Waiver Program in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75161) (December 2005 Notice). On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law Public Law 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, reauthorizing and amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act). This new law reflects the importance of strengthening our Nation's efforts to ensure every child with a disability has available a free appropriate public education

(FAPE)that is

(1)of high quality and

(2)designed to achieve the high standards established in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The Paperwork Waiver Program is one of two demonstration programs authorized under the new law that is designed to address parents', special educators' and States' desire to reduce excessive and repetitious paperwork, administrative burden, and non-instructional teacher time and, at the same time, to increase the resources and time available for classroom instruction and other activities focused on improving educational and functional results of children with disabilities. Paperwork burden in special education affects

(1)the time school staff can devote to instruction or service provision and

(2)retention of staff, particularly special education teachers. In 2002, the Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP)funded a nationally representative study of teachers' perceptions of sources of paperwork burden, the hours devoted to these activities, and possible explanations for variations among teachers in the hours devoted to these tasks. Among the findings related to the Individualized Education Program (IEP), student evaluations, progress reporting, and case management was that teachers whose administrative duties and paperwork exceeded four hours per week were more likely to perceive these responsibilities as interfering with their job of teaching. Moreover, the study found that the mean number of hours reported by teachers to be devoted to these tasks was 6.3 hours per week. However, data from the study also suggested that there was considerable variation in the amount of time special education teachers devoted to paperwork. For example, the average hours spent on administrative duties and paperwork varied significantly by geographic region, with the Northeast having the lowest paperwork burden. Through the Paperwork Waiver Program, established under section 609(a) of the Act, the Secretary may grant waivers of certain statutory and regulatory requirements under part B of the Act to not more than 15 States, including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas (States) based on State proposals to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The Secretary is authorized to grant these waivers for a period of up to four years. Although the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to reduce the paperwork burden associated with the Act, not all statutory and regulatory requirements under part B of the Act may be waived. Specifically, the Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory provisions relating to applicable civil rights requirements or procedural safeguards. Furthermore, waivers may not affect the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE. In short, State proposals must preserve the basic rights of students with disabilities. Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program As outlined in the December 2005 Notice, the Act establishes the following requirements to govern the Paperwork Waiver Program proposals: 1. States applying for approval under this program must submit a proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. 2. A State submitting a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program must include in its proposal a list of any statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to, part B of the Act that the State desires the Secretary to waive, in whole or in part (not including civil rights requirements and procedural safeguards as noted elsewhere in this notice); and a list of any State requirements that the State proposes to waive or change, in whole or in part, to carry out the waiver granted to the State by the Secretary. Waivers may be granted for a period of up to four years. 3. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving any statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to procedural requirements under section 615 of the Act or applicable civil rights requirements. A waiver may not affect the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE (as defined in section 602(9) of the Act). 4. The Secretary will not grant any waiver to a State if the Secretary has determined that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of part B of the Act. 5. The Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as part of this program if the Secretary determines that the State

(a)needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance;

(b)needs intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or

(c)fails to appropriately implement its waiver. Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria While the Act establishes the foregoing requirements, it does not provide for other requirements that are necessary for the implementation of this program. Accordingly, in the December 2005 Notice, we proposed additional Paperwork Waiver Program requirements to address program implementation issues as well as selection criteria that we will use to evaluate State proposals for this program. In this notice, we also establish requirements with which States must comply that will allow the Department to evaluate the effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Under section 609(b) of the Act, the Department is required to report to Congress on the effectiveness of this program. To accomplish this, the Institute of Education Sciences

(IES)will conduct an evaluation using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on the following outcomes:

(a)Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for students with disabilities,

(b)allocation and engagement of instructional time for students with disabilities,

(c)time and resources spent on administrative duties and paperwork requirements by teaching and related services personnel,

(d)quality of special education services and plans incorporated in IEPs,

(e)teacher, parent, and administrator satisfaction,

(f)the promotion of collaboration of IEP team members, and

(g)enhanced long-term educational planning for students. These outcomes will be compared between students who participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and students who are matched on disability, age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of special education, who do not participate in the paperwork waiver program. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this evaluation. They will, at a minimum, assist in developing the evaluation plan, assure that districts participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program will collaborate with the evaluation, provide background information on relevant State policies and practices, supply data relevant to the outcomes from State data sources ( *e.g.* , student achievement and functional performance data, complaint numbers), provide access to current student IEPs (if appropriate and paperwork waiver affects an IEP) during Year 1 of the evaluation (consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA) and the privacy requirements under the Act), complete questionnaires and surveys, and participate in interviews. Data collection and analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its contractor. States can expect to allocate resources for this purpose at a minimum during Year 1 to assist with planning the details of the evaluation, ensuring participation of involved districts, providing access to relevant State records, and completing questionnaires or participating in interviews. Over the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an annual incentive payment (described in the *Additional Requirements* section of this notice) that will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation. The December 2005 Notice included a background statement that described the rationale for the additional requirements and selection criteria we were proposing. This notice of final requirements and selection criteria contains several changes from the December 2005 Notice. We fully explain these changes in the *Analysis of Comments and Changes* section that follows. Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to our invitation in the December 2005 Notice, 22 parties submitted comments on the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria. In addition, we received approximately 1,200 comments that were identical in form and substance and that summarized major recommendations submitted by one of the 22 commenters referenced in the preceding sentence; we do not respond to these 1,200 comments separately. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the additional requirements and selection criteria since publication of the December 2005 Notice follows. We group issues according to subject. We do not address technical or other minor changes, and suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority, or comments that express concerns of a general nature about the Department or other matters that are not directly relevant to the Paperwork Waiver Program. FAPE *Comment:* A few commenters recommended that the final additional requirements and selection criteria identify all of the Federal requirements that a State applying for approval under this program can propose to waive while ensuring that students with disabilities continue to receive FAPE. One commenter recommended that States be required to explain why they are requesting that certain Federal and State requirements be waived and why they feel that such waivers can be accomplished without denying FAPE *Discussion:* The commenters misunderstand the statutory obligation, which is to ensure that the Paperwork Waiver Program does not affect the right of a child to receive a FAPE, not to ensure that children continue to receive a FAPE. In general, States are in a better position to identify Federal and State requirements that, in practice, do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities residing in their State. States can make these determinations by taking into consideration the uniqueness of their State practices and policies, and the compliance history of local school districts within their State. We believe that the right to receive FAPE can be sufficiently protected by requiring that parents provide voluntary informed written consent for any change in policies or procedures under the Paperwork Waiver Program that affects the provision of FAPE to their child, such as changes to the IEP. We do not believe that States should be required to explain why they are requesting that certain Federal and State requirements be waived. The purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties that are directly associated with the requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The national evaluation will assess the extent to which the waivers were successful in reaching these goals. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 1 of the additional requirements by revising paragraph 1(f) and adding a new paragraph 1(g) (paragraph 1(f) and 1(g) now contain language from paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements) to require that local education agencies

(LEAs)obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents to waive any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs, and requiring that the LEA must inform the parent in writing of any differences between the requirements of the Act related to the provision of FAPE (including changes related to IEPs), the parent's right to revoke consent, and the LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE when the parent does not provide informed written consent, or revokes that consent. Additionally, the LEA must inform the parents that if the parents revoke consent to a waiver of paperwork requirements regarding IEPs that the LEA must conduct, within 30 calendar days of such revocation, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended revising the final additional requirements and selection criteria to require States to identify effective mechanisms for reporting and resolving adverse events, such as the denial of FAPE. These commenters also urged the Department to add a requirement that would prevent districts or schools from participating in the program if they have a demonstrated history of not complying with the Act or have experienced a disproportionate number of complaints to the State educational agency

(SEA)or participated in a disproportionate number of dispute resolution processes. *Discussion:* We generally agree with the commenters and will add a new requirement that State applicants describe how they will collect, report on and respond to evidence of adverse consequences. The State is obligated to ensure that children with disabilities who participate in the program continue to receive services in accordance with the Act and implementing regulations, modified only to the extent consistent with the State's approved application. States therefore should take into consideration the compliance history of LEAs within the State as part of their process for selecting LEAs to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and monitor implementation of the program and take corrective action, if needed. *Changes:* Paragraph 1(c) of the additional requirements has been revised to require the State to provide an assurance that the State will collect and report to the Department and the evaluator all State complaints related to the denial of FAPE to any student with a disability, and how the State responded to this information, including the outcome of that response such as providing technical assistance to the LEA to improve implementation, or suspending or terminating the authority of an LEA to implement the Paperwork Waiver Program due to unresolved compliance problems. In addition, paragraph 1(h)(ii) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(f)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to require the State to describe to the evaluator the circumstances under which district participation may be terminated. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the final additional requirements specify that the authority to implement the Paperwork Waiver Program will be terminated for any State that is found to be in noncompliance with the Act. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenter's concern is addressed by the language in section 609(a)(4) of the Act. As explained in paragraph 5 of the *Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program* section in this notice, the Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as part of this program if the Secretary determines that the State

(a)needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance;

(b)needs intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or

(c)fails to appropriately implement its waiver. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters agreed that a State should not be permitted to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program if the State meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act, and recommended that the additional requirements and selection criteria also limit participation in the Paperwork Waiver Program to States in which the majority of the State's schools meet Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP)under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 6301 *et seq.* (ESEA). One commenter recommended that the Department contact the Chief State School Officers and Special Education Directors of States that are eligible to submit a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program to inform them of their eligibility. *Discussion:* Section 609 of the Act does not limit participation in the Paperwork Waiver Program to States that have met the requirements of the ESEA. Given that Congress did not limit eligibility in this manner, the Department does not believe it is appropriate to limit eligibility to States in which the majority of their schools meet AYP under the ESEA. The Secretary believes that the additional requirements and selection criteria provide clear guidance as to eligibility criteria for this program, and that separate notification of eligibility to States is not necessary. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* As part of our internal review of the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria, we determined that it was appropriate to revise paragraph 1 of the additional requirements to better align it with the language of the Act as specified in paragraph 1 of the *Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program* section of this notice. Specifically, section 609(a)(1) of the Act specifies that the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties that are directly associated with the requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. *Changes:* We have revised the introductory language in paragraph 1 of the additional requirements to clarify that a State applying for approval under this program must submit a proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. Civil Rights/Procedural Safeguards *Comment:* Many commenters recommended clarifying that States are prohibited from proposing any waiver of procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act, and that the civil rights requirements that may not be waived are not limited to provisions set forth in section 615 of the Act. *Discussion:* The Secretary agrees that additional clarification is needed because the civil rights requirements that may not be waived under this program are not limited to the civil rights requirements in section 615 of the Act. Accordingly, we have revised the wording of paragraph 3 in the *Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program* section of this notice to clarify that States may not propose to waive any procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act, and may not propose to waive any applicable civil rights requirements. No changes are necessary to the final additional requirements or selection criteria in response to these comments. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended including the Act in the list of statutes in the definition of *applicable civil rights requirements* in paragraph 2 of the proposed additional requirements. In addition, one commenter recommended that the list include the U.S. Constitution, and that States should be required to add a detailed explanation of what steps they will take to ensure that children's civil rights are not violated or waived. *Discussion:* Consistent with section 609 of the Act, the additional requirements and selection criteria prohibit waiving any statutory or regulatory requirements related to *applicable civil rights* requirements. Paragraph 2 of the additional requirements defines the term applicable civil rights as all civil rights requirements in: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and their implementing regulations. We have not included the Act in the list of statutes in this definition because section 609 of the Act clearly allows States that are participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program to waive some requirements of the Act. Including the Act in this list would preclude States from waiving any Federal requirements in order to reduce the paperwork burden associated with requirements of part B of the Act and would be inconsistent with the explicit purposes of section 609 of the Act. We do not include the U.S. Constitution in the list of applicable civil rights statutes because, as a matter of law, the Act could not be interpreted to allow for the waiver of any of the protections provided under the U.S. Constitution. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the results of the national evaluation on the Paperwork Waiver Program could form the basis for waiving requirements of the Act in subsequent reauthorizations, which would erode civil rights protections and FAPE for children with disabilities. *Discussion:* The Act provides for the Paperwork Waiver Program and directs the Secretary to report to Congress on the effectiveness of waivers granted under the program. The national evaluation will yield the information necessary for the Department to carry out this responsibility. We cannot address what future reauthorizations of the Act will require or provide. *Changes:* None. Public Input/Parental Notification and Consent *Comment:* Many commenters recommended requiring that any State that submits a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program must establish a committee comprised of school district personnel, and at least three parents (each representing a different disability group) to provide input on the State's proposal, including defining the terms “excessive paperwork” and “non-instructional time burdens.” In addition, many commenters recommended requiring that the State's application:

(a)Include a summary of the public input;

(b)indicate what input the State incorporated into its proposal and who or what organization provided the suggestion; and

(c)identify which stakeholders agreed and which stakeholders disagreed with each Federal and State requirement that the State proposed to waive under its proposed paperwork waiver program. Many commenters recommended requiring States to use a variety of mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder input, including public meetings held at convenient times and places and inviting written public comments. Similarly, two commenters observed that public input must be transparent, and involve the greatest number of stakeholders, particularly teachers, administrators, related services providers, students, and parents. Several commenters urged the Secretary to require that (in addition to obtaining input from school and district personnel, and parents) States obtain input from representatives of parent training and information centers and community parent resource centers and parents. In addition, one commenter recommended that the Secretary should require States to

(a)obtain input from family members and advocates for children with disabilities,

(b)require the State to summarize the input that it received and the type of stakeholder who submitted the input, and

(c)describe how each specific proposal to waive a Federal statutory or regulatory requirement, or State requirement, would improve educational and functional results for children by reducing paperwork. One commenter recommended that the final additional requirements and selection criteria define the kinds of paperwork that may be waived that are excessive and impose non-instructional time burdens on school personnel, and the Secretary should not allow any waiver of notices to families, reports of evaluation results, IEPs, or performance reports to parents. The commenter also recommended that

(a)the State ensure that the State Parent Training and Information Center and Special Education Advisory Council support the State's application for each proposed waiver;

(b)institutions of higher education work in collaboration with the State in developing its application; and

(c)the State have a plan for on-going implementation review that requires data collection and the submission of interim reports to the Secretary. One commenter recommended clarifying that any proposed State plans must comply with section 612(a)(19) of the Act requiring public participation. One commenter recommended that the Department should clearly articulate the impact that negative public input will have on the selection criteria of a State's application, if any. *Discussion:* It is not appropriate or possible for the Department to prejudge the possible impact of stakeholder input on the peer reviewers' recommendations. Likewise, we believe that States should have some flexibility in designing their process for obtaining public input. We have revised paragraph 1(a) of the additional requirements to require States to include in their proposals a description of how they involved multiple stakeholders in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver and any specific proposals for changing those requirements to reduce paperwork, and a description of how they provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver consistent with the requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act. Paragraph 1(b) of the additional requirements requires the proposal to include a summary of the public comments received upon implementing paragraph 1(a) and a description of how those comments were addressed in the proposal. Accordingly, each State's application will be judged on the extent to which the State involved multiple stakeholders and provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 1(a) of the additional requirements to clarify that a State must include in its proposal a description of how the State

(a)involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children with disabilities, special education and regular education teachers, related services providers, and school and district administrators, in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver and any specific proposals for changing those requirements to reduce paperwork, and

(b)provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver. In addition, we have added a new paragraph 1(b) to the additional requirements to require the State to provide a summary of public comments and how public comments were addressed in the proposal. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that States be required to provide a detailed description of how they plan to provide training on the paperwork waivers for administrators, teachers, related services providers, education support professionals, and parents. The commenters expressed concern that children with disabilities would be denied FAPE absent sufficient training of parents and education personnel on Federal and State requirements that are waived by the State. *Discussion:* The Secretary agrees with the commenters that it is essential that parents, teachers, administrators, related services providers, and education support professionals understand what Federal and State requirements are waived by the State as part of the Paperwork Waiver Program in order to ensure proper implementation. *Changes:* We have revised the additional requirements by adding a new paragraph 1(d) to require applying States to provide as part of their proposals a description of the procedures they will employ to ensure that diverse stakeholders understand the proposed elements of the State's submission for the Paperwork Waiver Program. With the addition of this new paragraph 1(d), we have redesignated paragraphs 1(d) through

(f)of the proposed additional requirements as paragraphs 1(e) through (g). Paragraphs 1(e) through

(g)reflect additional changes as discussed in this preamble. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended clarifying that the parents of children with disabilities should receive written notice, in addition to verbal notice, of any waiver of Federal requirements permitted under the Paperwork Waiver Program. If the State proposes to waive IEP requirements, the commenters recommended requiring that States receive informed written consent from the parents before an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act is developed for a child with a disability. The commenters also recommended that parents should receive written notice of any State requirements that will be waived under the program, the anticipated effects of these waivers, and the protections that have been put into place to ensure that no child with a disability is denied FAPE. The commenters stressed that sending parents a list of references to Federal and State requirements that will be waived is insufficient to ensure that they are properly informed. The commenters recommended requiring that notice to parents of any waived requirements be fully explained, written in an easily understandable manner and in the parent's native language, with an explanation of the effect of such waivers and the protections that have been put in place to ensure the provision of FAPE in the least restrictive environment, and the protection of the child's civil rights and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act. Three commenters recommended eliminating the parental notification requirement altogether. One commenter recommended requiring that the Paperwork Waiver Program include effective mechanisms for reporting to the Department adverse effects of the program, such as denial of FAPE. *Discussion:* Section 609(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires the State to identify any statutory or regulatory requirements related to part B of the Act that would be waived, and section 609(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act requires the State to identify any State requirements that would be waived. Although not specifically required under section 609 of the Act, paragraph 1(e) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(d) of the proposed additional requirements), which requires States to ensure that parents are given notice of any statutory, regulatory, or State requirements that will be waived as part of the Paperwork Waiver Program, is consistent with the parental notice requirements in section 615 of the Act. We agree with the commenters that the notice containing the requirements that are being waived should be presented to parents in writing and in a manner that is understandable to parents consistent with section 615 of the Act. We have incorporated, in paragraphs 1(f) and 1(g) of the additional requirements, parent consent requirements to ensure that waivers will not result in the denial of a child's right to FAPE. We agree that States should disseminate information about how they will ensure a child's right to FAPE, and otherwise protect the child's civil rights and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act to participating LEAs that, in turn, should provide the information to parents. Accordingly, we have added language to paragraph 1(e) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(d) in the proposed additional requirements) to clarify that the parental notice on what Federal and State requirements are being waived include a description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure that the child's right to FAPE is preserved and that the child's civil rights and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act are protected, and that such notice should be in writing in easily understandable language and in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so. In addition, we agree with the commenters that participating LEAs must obtain informed written consent from parents before an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act is developed for a child with a disability. Paragraph 1(g) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements) requires States to ensure that, in requesting voluntary informed written consent from parents, the LEA must inform the parent in writing of

(i)any differences between the paperwork requirements of the Act related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs,

(ii)the parent's right to revoke consent to waive any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE at any time,

(iii)the LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE if the parent does not provide voluntary written informed consent or revokes consent, and

(iv)the LEA's responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act within 30 calendar days if the parent revokes consent to waiving paperwork requirements related to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs. We do not agree with commenters that the notice must include an explanation of the effects of such waivers. Section 609 of the Act does not require the State to include in such a notice specific anticipated effects of the waiver program. Moreover, we believe that the possible benefits of including this information in the notices are outweighed by the burden. In short, we believe that children are sufficiently protected by the fact that States must ensure that the waiver program does not affect the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE. *Changes:* We have re-designated paragraph 1(d) of the proposed additional requirements as paragraph 1(e) and revised paragraph 1(e) of the final additional requirements to require States to provide assurances that each parent of a child with a disability in participating LEAs will be given written notice (in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any statutory, regulatory, or State requirements that will be waived and notice of the procedures that State will employ under paragraph 1(c) (which requires that States ensure the right to FAPE and protection of due process protections under section 615 of the Act, and applicable civil rights requirements). In addition, we have re-designated paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements as paragraph 1(f) and revised paragraph 1(f) of the additional requirements to require that in applying for a waiver of any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs, applicants must assure that they will require any participating LEA to obtain voluntary informed written consent from the parents. We also have added language to paragraph 1(g) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements) to clarify that States must ensure that in requesting voluntary informed written consent from parents, the LEA must inform the parent in writing (and in the parent's native language, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of

(i)any differences between the paperwork requirements of the Act related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs,

(ii)the parent's right to revoke consent to waive any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE at any time,

(iii)the LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE if the parent does not provide voluntary written informed consent or revokes consent, and

(iv)the LEA's responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act within 30 calendar days if the parent revokes consent to waiving paperwork requirements related to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs. *Comment* : One commenter recommended deleting the additional requirement that States allow parents to revoke consent to an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act as part of the Paperwork Waiver Program proposal. One commenter recommended deleting all parental consent requirements regarding the development of an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act as part of the Paperwork Waiver Program. One commenter recommended that the final additional requirements clarify that parental consent is voluntary to ensure that parents are not pressured or coerced into agreeing to an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act. *Discussion:* We disagree with the commenter that LEAs should not be required to receive parental consent before an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act is developed. We also disagree with the commenter that parents should be prohibited from withdrawing their consent. We believe these provisions are essential to ensuring that States participating in the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program ensure the right to FAPE for all participating students. We intended the reference to “informed consent” of parents in paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements to mean consent that is both informed and provided by the parents voluntarily. “Consent” in this context has the same meaning as given the term in 34 CFR 300.9. However, we agree with the commenter that additional clarification is needed to ensure that parental consent is voluntary. *Changes:* As noted elsewhere in this section, we have re-designated paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements as paragraph 1(f) of the additional requirements. We also have revised that paragraph by inserting the term “voluntary” before the word “informed” and inserting the term “written” before the word “consent.” *Comment:* One commenter recommended that States be required to inform parents that refusing to consent to an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act will not affect the delivery of special education and related services to their child. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenter that additional clarification is needed regarding situations where a parent refuses to provide consent for an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act. If a parent does not provide consent for an LEA to develop an IEP that does not meet the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act, the LEA is responsible for implementing the child's current IEP that meets all of the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 1(g) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(e) of the proposed additional requirements) to make clear that the information provided to parents must explain that if the parent does not provide consent, or revokes consent, the LEA is responsible for meeting all paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended prohibiting States from proposing to waive any requirements related to IEPs, Individualized Family Services Plans (IFSPs), Procedural Safeguards Notices or Prior Written Notices as part of their applications for the Paperwork Waiver Program. The commenters also recommended that the Secretary terminate a State's waiver granted as part of this program if the Secretary determines that the State has violated any requirements related to IEPs, IFSPs, Procedural Safeguards Notices or Prior Written Notices. Many commenters recommended that the proposed additional requirements for this program be revised to prohibit applicants from using the Paperwork Waiver Program as a vehicle for implementing multi-year IEPs that do not comply with the terms of the Department's Multi-Year IEP Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program). Many commenters recommended that the Department prohibit States from participating in both the Paperwork Waiver Program and the Multi-Year IEP Program. Many commenters recommended adding a requirement that any State permitted to participate in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program may not implement both programs in the same district or school. *Discussion:* Section 609 of the Act does not authorize the Secretary to allow States to propose waiving any requirements of IFSPs under part C of the Act. Section 609 of the Act authorizes the Secretary only to grant waivers of statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to, part B of the Act. In addition, sections 609 and 614(d)(5) of the Act do not preclude a State from proposing to waive requirements related to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs, nor does the Act preclude a State from proposing to incorporate elements of the Multi-Year IEP Program in its application for the Paperwork Waiver Program. We decline to make the requested changes because we believe that there are sufficient protections in the requirements for the Paperwork Waiver Program to protect a child's right to FAPE as well as to ensure that civil rights and procedural safeguard requirements are not waived. The Act allows States to apply for the Multi-Year IEP Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program. However, we agree with the commenters that a State that receives awards for the Paperwork Waiver Program and the Multi-Year IEP Program should not be permitted to execute both programs in the same school district. We believe that this type of prohibition would allow for a more precise evaluation of each program. *Changes:* A note has been added at the end of the *Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* section to clarify that receipt of an award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does not preclude an applicant from applying for and receiving an award for the Department's Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State that receives an award for both programs may not execute both programs within the same LEA. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended requiring States to work with the national evaluator to convene Statewide meetings at a time and place convenient for parents and family members so that they can publicly express whether there is family satisfaction with the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Discussion:* We strongly support parental involvement in the education of children, and believe that the involvement of parents and other stakeholders in the development and evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program is ensured through requirements established in this notice. In addition, parent satisfaction will be evaluated under the outcomes that are measured as part of the national evaluation. The evaluation contractor, working under the direction of IES and in consultation with a technical workgroup and participating States, may choose to convene Statewide public meetings as part of its research methodology to collect data on parent satisfaction. However, we see no compelling reason to require the evaluation contractor to convene Statewide meetings at this time. The details of the national evaluation will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study, including how parent satisfaction will be evaluated. *Changes:* None. National Evaluation *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Based on an internal review of the description of the national evaluation in the *Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* section of this notice, we have determined that it is appropriate to clarify for applicants and other stakeholders that academic measures are among those student outcomes to be assessed as part of the national evaluation. *Changes:* In the *Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* section of this notice, we have added the phrase “including academic achievement” to the outcomes to be measured by the national evaluation. Paragraph

(a)of the outcomes to be measured now reads: “Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for students with disabilities.” *Comment:* Many commenters requested a definition of “quasi-experimental design” and an explanation of how it compares with a “rigorous research design.” One commenter recommended that the evaluation include a variety of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-benefit analyses). One commenter noted the absence of a research question within the proposed additional requirements for the national evaluation conducted by IES and asked for clarification as to why a research question was not specified. *Discussion:* A quasi-experimental research design is similar to experimental research design but it lacks one key ingredient—random assignment. In conducting the national evaluation, it may not be possible for IES to match LEAs within States according to demographic characteristics, programmatic features, and other factors in order to apply an empirical research design that randomly assigns LEAs to experimental and control groups. For example, some States may have only one large urban school district, and a comparable control group within the State cannot be established. Similarly, it may not be possible to match participating States according to demographic characteristics in order to establish experimental and control groups. For example, because this is a competitive program, only eligible States that apply for and are awarded authority to waive Federal and State requirements will participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. As such, it is not possible to randomly assign States to experimental and control groups. For this reason, IES will conduct an evaluation using a rigorous quasi-experimental design (i.e., a research design that does not include random assignment of participating States and LEAs to experimental and control groups). The design will, however, allow for the collection of data on the following outcomes:

(a)Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for students with disabilities,

(b)allocation and engagement of instructional time for students with disabilities,

(c)time and resources spent on administrative duties and paperwork requirements by teaching and related services personnel,

(d)quality of special education services and plans incorporated in IEPs,

(e)teacher, parent, and administrator satisfaction,

(f)the promotion of collaboration of IEP team members, and

(g)enhanced long-term educational planning for students. These outcomes will be compared between students who participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program, and students who are matched on disability, age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of special education, and who do not participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. Given that limitations may preclude random assignment of States and LEAs to experimental and control groups, the findings from the national evaluation may largely be “descriptive” in nature rather than drawing “causal” inferences that can be reached from experimental research design, which we believe is what the commenters were referring to as “rigorous research design.” That is, descriptive research has the goal of describing what, how, or why something is happening, whereas experimental research has the goal of determining whether something causes an effect. Therefore, specific research questions commonly associated with experimental research design cannot be generated a priori because independent and dependent variables associated with experimental research design cannot readily be established due to the variability of demographic characteristics between and within States that preclude random assignment of States and LEAs to experimental and control groups. The specifics of the national evaluation design will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study and might include a variety of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost benefit analyses). *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters recommended requiring States to prohibit participation of some LEAs within the State in order to create separate experimental and control groups. *Discussion:* As discussed elsewhere in this section, it may not be possible to match LEAs within States according to demographic characteristics in order to establish experimental and control groups. The specifics of the national evaluation design will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study, and decisions regarding the extent to which experimental research design can be employed will be decided at that time. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended clarifying that all States that participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program must participate in the national evaluation conducted by IES. The commenters also recommended adding a new requirement that participating States conduct a State evaluation of the project to ensure accountability to participating children and families and that the State must provide more detailed State specific data than would be required for the national evaluation. In addition, the commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the applicant has devoted sufficient resources to conduct a State evaluation of its project and the training of administrators, educators, and parents to ensure proper implementation of the proposed project. *Discussion:* IES will conduct the national evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Paragraph 1(h) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements) makes clear that participating States must cooperate fully in this national evaluation. Section 609 of the Act does not require a State evaluation under the Paperwork Waiver Program and we do not think it is appropriate to require States to conduct a State evaluation. However, nothing in the Act or the final additional requirements and selection criteria prevents States from including a proposal to conduct a Statewide assessment of their project as part of their application, if determined appropriate by the State. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Two commenters recommended deleting all requirements related to a State's participation in the national evaluation. The commenters expressed concern that such participation would add unnecessary costs and paperwork for States and local school districts and could discourage many States from applying for the Paperwork Waiver Program. One commenter stated that it was unreasonable to expect States to allocate resources for the project to assist with planning the details of the evaluation and ensuring the participation of the involved school districts, and that it was unlikely that the research would yield reliable and valid experimental outcomes. One commenter noted that the State lacked the authority to enforce the cooperation of school districts to participate in the national evaluation. *Discussion:* IES will ensure that the national evaluation yields results that are reliable and valid. Under section 609 of the Act, the Department is responsible for reporting to Congress on the effectiveness of the waiver program. In order to accurately evaluate program effectiveness, the national evaluation is necessary, and it is appropriate for States that are granted waivers under the program, and participating LEAs, to participate in that evaluation. A State that does not provide an assurance that it will fully cooperate with the national evaluator will be deemed ineligible to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. Moreover, the State is responsible for ensuring that participating LEAs cooperate in the national evaluation conducted by IES. If a State is unable to provide an assurance that its participating LEAs will cooperate in the national evaluation, then the State will be deemed ineligible to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. Similarly, an LEA that does not provide an assurance to the applying State that it will fully cooperate with the national evaluator is ineligible to participate in the program. In addition, we believe that participation in the national evaluation will not add unnecessary costs and paperwork or be overly burdensome for States and local school districts. Moreover, over the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an annual incentive payment (described in the *Additional Requirements* section of this notice) that will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter noted that the privacy rights of individuals under the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act must be protected in making individual student's IEPs accessible as part of the national evaluation. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph 1(h)(i) of the additional requirements to clarify that States must ensure, consistent with the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act, that the evaluator will have access to original and all subsequent new versions of the associated documents for each child involved in the evaluation, including IEPs (if applicable). We also have revised the description of the role that States will play in the national evaluation in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to ensure that the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act are protected. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 1(h)(i) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(f)(i) of the proposed additional requirements) by adding the words “consistent with the privacy requirements of the Act and The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” to the sentence requiring States to ensure that the evaluator will have access to the original and all subsequent new versions of the associated documents for each child involved in the evaluation. *Comment:* Two commenters recommended revising paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements by deleting the phrase “if selected.” *Discussion:* Paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements (which has been re-designated as paragraph 1(h) of the additional requirements) requires States to provide assurances that they will cooperate fully, if selected, in a national evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. The phrase “if selected” was intended to clarify that the requirement only applies to States that are selected to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program; however, we agree with the commenters that the phrase is confusing. Accordingly, we have re-worded this paragraph to read, “Assurances that the State will cooperate fully in a national evaluation of this program, if selected to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program.” *Changes:* As noted elsewhere, we have re-designated paragraph 1(f) of the proposed additional requirements as paragraph 1(h). We also have revised that paragraph to clarify that assurances are required from States selected to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended including representatives of national parent organizations in the design of the national evaluation. The commenters stated that it is essential that stakeholders have confidence that the evaluation procedures will yield valid, reliable, and comprehensive data. *Discussion:* IES will identify and select individuals with the necessary technical expertise to serve as members of the technical workgroup, which will advise IES on the development of a rigorous research design for conducting the national evaluation. These individuals may include representatives of national parent organizations. We decline at this time to add any other specific parties to those involved in determining the specifics of the evaluation design. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Two commenters recommended eliminating the requirement for a State to designate a coordinator for the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Discussion:* We believe that it is necessary and reasonable to ensure effective implementation and evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program to require States to designate a coordinator who will monitor the State's implementation of the program and work with the national evaluator. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended adding a new requirement that would preclude a State from authorizing school districts to begin implementing waivers until the beginning of the first school year after the specifics of the study design for the national evaluation and the State's evaluation have been determined. The commenters noted that more time was needed to work with the national evaluator on the specifics of the national study design before LEAs begin implementing the program. One commenter recommended allowing States to establish their own implementation schedule in their proposals, and that the Department should encourage States to do so in an expeditious manner to meet the congressional expectation that the Department issue an “effectiveness report” to the Congress by the end of 2006. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed because the evaluation design will be determined prior to implementation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Accordingly, LEAs may not begin implementing waivers until after the specifics of the study design for the national evaluation and the State's evaluation have been determined and all the background information for the national evaluation has been provided to IES. We believe that States should have some flexibility in the timing of their implementation and, while a State may propose to delay implementation of the Paperwork Waiver Program as part of its application, it must fully cooperate with the national evaluator in developing the specifics of the national study design. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Department commence the national evaluation process as soon as the final evaluation design has been completed, and that the evaluator begin collecting background information from the States at this time. *Discussion:* We do not agree with the commenters that it is necessary at this time to require the national evaluation process to commence as soon as the final study design has been completed, nor do we believe that the evaluator should be required to begin collecting background information from the States at this time. Rather, specifics of the design (including matters of when data collection will commence) will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the Department contract with an independent agency to develop a research design that would produce reliable information about the effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program and meet the requirements of the Department's “What Works Clearinghouse.” *Discussion:* Data collection and analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its independent contractor. The Department's “What Works Clearinghouse”

(WWC)collects, screens, and identifies existing studies of effectiveness of educational interventions (programs, products, practices, and policies). The evaluation will be based on a strong quasi-experimental design that will yield valid and reliable results consistent with the WWC evidence standards for quasi-experimental studies and will meet the needs of the Secretary for reporting to Congress under section 426 of the Department of Education Organization Act and section 609(b) of the Act. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the national evaluation include collection of data on “family member” satisfaction. *Discussion:* We generally agree with the commenters that the national evaluation should collect data on the satisfaction of family members of children participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program. Section 609(b) of the Act requires the Department to report to Congress on the effectiveness of the waiver program and to provide specific recommendations for broader implementation of such waivers related to five outcomes, including ensuring satisfaction of family members. In this context, the Department interprets the term “family members” to mean “parents” and intends to collect data on parent satisfaction with the program. While the perspectives of family members, including siblings, grandparents, and other relatives can be important in making educational decisions for a child with a disability, we believe that the parents of a child with a disability are in the best position to represent the interests of their child. Moreover, while the Act provides a definition of “parent,” it does not provide a definition of “family member.” Parents may, at their discretion, convey the interests and perspectives of other family members in the operation of the project on behalf of their children. Accordingly, we have included language in the background statement for the additional requirements and selection criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to clarify that, as part of the national evaluation, IES will collect data on the extent to which program activities result in parent satisfaction. We have not made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria in response to these comments. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the national evaluation not include collection of data on “teacher” and “administrator” satisfaction. *Discussion:* Section 609 of the Act does not require the collection of data on teacher and administrator satisfaction as part of the national evaluation. However, because multiple stakeholders, including teachers and administrators, will be involved in the development and implementation of the Paperwork Waiver Program, the Secretary believes that the national evaluation should include collection of data on teacher and administrator satisfaction. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that IES collect data on whether the Paperwork Waiver Program will promote collaboration of IEP team members and how long-term educational planning will be enhanced for students through the program. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters. Section 609(b) of the Act requires the Department to report on the effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program and provide specific recommendations for broader implementation of such waivers related to five outcomes, including (but not limited to) promoting collaboration between IEP team members, and enhancing longer-term educational planning, in its annual report to Congress. Accordingly, we have included language in the background statement for the additional requirements and selection criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to clarify that, as part of the national evaluation, IES will collect data on the extent to which program activities promote collaboration among IEP team members and enhance long-range educational planning. We have not made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria in response to these comments. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter requested that we clarify the language in paragraph 1(h)(i) of the additional requirements (paragraph 1(f)(i) of the proposed additional requirements) regarding an evaluator having access to the most recent IEP created before participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program because this language implies that no initially identified child could participate in the pilot project if elements of the IEP are waived. *Discussion:* Initially identified children are eligible to participate in this program. We agree that additional clarification is needed because an initially identified child would not have a previous IEP, and therefore having access to the most recent IEP would not be applicable. *Changes:* Paragraph 1(h)(i) (paragraph 1(f)(i) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to clarify that the evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created (if a previous IEP was created) before participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Comment:* One commenter recommended re-ordering the requirements with which States must comply that will allow the Department to evaluate the effectiveness of the program to parallel the requirements of section 609(b) of the Act. The same commenter also recommended limiting data collection on the effectiveness of the program related to student outcomes to educational and functional results that are “in accordance with each student's IEP.” *Discussion:* Section 609(a)(1) of the Act specifies that the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to provide an opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties that are directly associated with the requirements of the Act in order to increase the time and resources available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. We believe that the ordering of evaluation outcomes is sufficiently clear, and re-ordering is not necessary. In addition, we believe that potential improvements in the educational and functional results for children with disabilities as a result of this program should not be limited to IEP goals. For example, the national evaluation could include examination of student assessment data or other indices of student progress beyond what is included in students' IEPs. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters recommended eliminating some or all data collection requirements as part of the national evaluation to reduce burden and costs on States participating in the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Discussion:* Section 609(b) of the Act requires the Department to report on the effectiveness of the Paperwork Waiver Program and provide specific recommendations for broader implementation of such waivers related to five outcomes. However, data collection and analysis will not be the responsibility of States. Rather, data collection and analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its contractor. States can expect to allocate resources, at a minimum during Year 1, to assist with planning the details of the evaluation, ensuring participation of involved districts, providing access to relevant State records, and completing questionnaires or participating in interviews. Over the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an annual incentive payment (described in the *Additional Requirements* section of this notice) that will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended increasing the annual incentive payment provided to States to support program-related activities, and recommended requiring that the national evaluator provide funds to participating school districts based on the number of participating students in the evaluation. *Discussion:* Paragraph 3 of the proposed additional requirements provided that each State receiving approval to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program would be awarded an annual incentive payment of $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with the project officer and the evaluator. In addition, paragraph 3 of the proposed additional requirements indicated that each participating State would receive an additional incentive payment of $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State, and that incentive payments may also be provided to participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Because the total available funds for each award will depend on the number of awards made, we are unable to specify an exact amount over the initially proposed incentive payment amounts. However, the Secretary agrees with the commenters that more funds should be made available if possible and, therefore, the final additional requirements have been revised to clarify that participating States will receive at least $10,000 to support program-related evaluation activities, and at least $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 3 of the final additional requirements to clarify that each State receiving approval to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to support program-related evaluation activities, and not less than $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State, to offset the cost of participating districts, or to do both. We also have added language to this paragraph to clarify that the total available funds for each award will depend on the number of awards made. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Department indicate when the results of the national evaluation will be available and how they will be disseminated. *Discussion:* We believe that it is not appropriate to set a timeline for disseminating the results of the national evaluation until the specifics of the national evaluation are confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. Consistent with section 609(b) of the Act, the Secretary will include in the annual report to Congress pursuant to section 426 of the Department of Education Organization Act information related to the effectiveness of waivers including any specific recommendations for broad implementation. It is the expectation of the Department that the annual report will be based, at least in part, on the results of the national evaluation. *Changes:* None. Selection Criteria *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Upon further consideration of the proposed selection criteria, the Department has made the decision to use selection criteria already established in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210 for the review of this program. The proposed selection criteria included many of the measures that would be evaluated as part of the national evaluation of this program. Upon further consideration, we determined that it would be inappropriate to include these measures in the selection criteria. We believe that use of the EDGAR selection criteria will enable the Department to sufficiently evaluate State applications for this program. *Changes:* Throughout the selection criteria, we have replaced or modified proposed selection criteria to better align with selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. Specifically, we have deleted or modified proposed selection criteria 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 3(b) and 3(c) and added language from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. *Comment:* One commenter recommended eliminating proposed selection criterion 1(a) (i.e., that the proposed project demonstrate the extent to which it will develop or demonstrate promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies). *Discussion:* We decline to make the requested change because we believe that selection criterion 1(a) is an important criterion for evaluating the innovativeness of each State application for the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended requiring the Secretary to evaluate, separately, the significance of the proposed project in terms of how likely it would lead to reduced paperwork burden, increase instructional time, and improve academic achievement. The commenters also recommended that the Secretary consider the likelihood that the proposed project will ensure parent satisfaction. One commenter stated that section 609(b) of the Act anticipates “positive outcomes” for students and that the expected outcomes for the program should relate directly to the individual's annual IEP goals (educational and functional outcomes) as opposed to being limited to academic achievement. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns about the likelihood that the project will lead to reduced paperwork, increased instructional time, improved academic achievement, and will ensure parents' satisfaction are sufficiently addressed by the national evaluation. Similarly, we believe that the comment on measuring outcomes related to the IEP is already addressed by the national evaluation. Readers are referred to the *Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* section, which lists the measures on which IES will collect data for purposes of the national evaluation. These measures include data on the educational and functional results of students with disabilities, the quality of the services and plans within the IEP, allocation and engagement of instructional time for students with disabilities, time and resources spent on administrative duties and paperwork requirements by teaching and related services personnel, and parent satisfaction, among other things. We strongly support parental involvement in all aspects of education, but believe that parental involvement in the development and evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program is more appropriately ensured through other additional requirements included in this notice (e.g., paragraphs 1(a) and

(d)of the additional requirements) and will be addressed by the outcomes measured as part of the national evaluation conducted by IES (e.g., parent satisfaction) and selection criterion 3(c). *Changes:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Since publishing the December 2005 notice, we have decided to use certain selection criteria from those found in EDGAR in 34 CFR 75.210 for the review of this program. Proposed selection criterion 1(b), “The likelihood that the proposed project will result in improvements in the IEP process, especially long-term planning for children with disabilities, without compromising the provision of FAPE, satisfaction of parents, and educational outcomes for children with disabilities” has been deleted. Upon internal review of the proposed selection criteria, we have determined that this criterion is inappropriate because it would require panel reviewers to speculate on the impact proposals would have on the variables to be measured by the national evaluation (i.e., long-term planning for children with disabilities, satisfaction of parents and educational outcomes for children with disabilities). If the relationship between certain paperwork waivers and outcome variables were known, then there would be no need for the evaluation. We have replaced proposed selection criterion 1(b) with the following EDGAR criterion, which is from 34 CFR 75.210(b)(2)(iii): “The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues or effective strategies.” This criterion will allow panel reviewers to evaluate the proposal's significance relative to how articulately or persuasively the State can connect current problems or issues with the paperwork requested for waiver. This type of evaluation and subsequent scoring of an application is commonly done in proposal review by standing panel members. *Changes:* Proposed selection criterion 1(b) has been deleted and replaced with the selection criterion from section 75.210(b)(2)(iii) of EDGAR. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenter that the importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the project, particularly improvements in teaching and student achievement, is an important criterion in assessing the significance of a proposed project. We also agree that it is important to evaluate the effects a proposed project will have on instructional time that could lead to improvements in educational and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. *Changes:* Selection criteria 1 has been amended by adding new selection criterion 1(c), which allows the Secretary to evaluate the importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended amending the selection criteria to ensure that the emphasis on paperwork reduction in a State's proposal includes a focus on improved student outcomes and does not come at the expense of FAPE for children with disabilities. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters that the program's emphasis on paperwork reduction should include a focus on improved student outcomes and should not come at the expense of a student's right to a FAPE. Accordingly, we have added selection criterion 1(c) and replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection criterion to enable the Secretary to focus on student outcomes or needs. The changes made in the additional requirements (discussed elsewhere in this notice) provide adequate protection to students' right to a FAPE. *Changes:* We have added selection criterion 1(c) to enable the Secretary to evaluate the importance or magnitude of the outcomes likely to be attained by the project. We also have replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection criterion to enable the Secretary to assess the extent to which the proposed project will address the needs of the target population or other identified needs. *Comment:* One commenter recommended striking selection criterion 2(c) as it seemed vague and duplicative of selection criterion 3(c). *Discussion:* We agree that proposed selection criterion 2(c) is duplicative of selection criterion 3(c). *Changes:* We have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c) (i.e., the extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement, including parental involvement). *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that we consider the quality of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project activities and results. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters. The design and procedures for documenting proposed activities and results of the Paperwork Waiver Program must be of high quality for evaluation purposes. *Changes:* We have added a new selection criterion 2(c) (as noted elsewhere, we have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c)) to enable the Secretary to consider the quality of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project activities and results. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the proposed project was designed to involve broad parental input. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed by selection criterion 3(c), which ensures that States involve multiple stakeholders, including parents, in the implementation of their projects. Moreover, we believe that paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f) of the additional requirements ensure involvement by parents in this program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of children with disabilities. *Discussion:* We agree that it is important to consider the extent to which the design of a project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of children with disabilities. As discussed elsewhere, we have replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection criterion to emphasize how well the project will address the needs of the target population as a basis for application review. *Changes:* We have replaced proposed selection criterion 2(b) with an EDGAR selection criterion to enable the Secretary to consider the extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended including the selection criterion found in section 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR, which requires the Secretary to consider the extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field. *Discussion:* We decline to include the selection criterion from section 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR in the selection criteria for this program because that selection criterion applies to professional development grants and is not appropriate for the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed under the management plan selection criterion in paragraph 3(a) (i.e., that the Secretary consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project). *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended amending the selection criteria to allow States to modify and revise their original statutory, regulatory, and administrative waiver requests during the course of the pilot project. *Discussion:* We are committed to ensuring the objectivity and integrity of IES's national evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. For this reason, we do not support allowing States to pursue changes to waiver activities proposed in their initial applications as this would significantly interfere with the reliability of the outcome data gathered as part of the evaluation component for this program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended amending the selection criteria to require States to address their commitment to cooperate in the national evaluation in their applications, but to clarify that they are not required to document the extent to which they devoted sufficient resources to conduct data collection and analysis as part of the evaluation of the waiver program. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters that documentation of the extent to which applicants have devoted sufficient resources to the data collection and analysis of the evaluation is not necessary. The applicant's commitment to the evaluation is assessed through additional requirement 1(h). However, the specific change requested by the commenter is unnecessary since, following further internal review of the selection criteria, we have deleted proposed selection criterion 3(b) in favor of including only EDGAR selection criteria. *Changes:* Selection criterion 3(b) (i.e., the extent to which the applicant has devoted sufficient resources to the evaluation of the proposed project) has been deleted. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the Secretary consider how the applicant will ensure that the perspectives of children with disabilities are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project. One commenter recommended revising the selection criteria to ensure that the perspectives of family members and advocates for children with disabilities are considered. *Discussion:* We believe it is important to involve children with disabilities in their educational programming. We therefore agree with the commenter that it is appropriate to ensure that the perspectives of children with disabilities are brought to bear in the operation of the project. We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed by selection criterion 3(c), which authorizes the Secretary to consider how an applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives, including those of “recipients or beneficiaries of services,” are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project. Children with disabilities are “recipients or beneficiaries of services” provided under this program. We do not agree with the commenter regarding the need to involve family members and child advocates, other than the child's parents or legal guardian. While the perspectives of siblings, grandparents, other relatives, and outside advocates can be important in making educational decisions for a child with a disability, we believe that the parents of a child with a disability are in the best position to represent the interests of their child. Parents may, at their discretion, convey the interests and perspectives of other family members and outside advocates in the operation of the project on behalf of their children. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State provide for examining the effectiveness of the project implementation strategies and provide guidance for quality assurance. *Discussion:* We believe that the concerns of the commenters are addressed in the *Quality of the project design* selection criterion (selection criterion 2). Selection criterion 2 states that we will consider

(a)the extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(b)the extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs; and

(c)the quality of the proposed project's procedures for documenting project activities and results. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment toward achieving intended outcomes. *Discussion:* We believe that the concerns of the commenters are addressed in selection criteria 2(a) and 3(a). Selection criterion 2(a) provides that the Secretary will consider the extent to which the goals, objectives and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. Selection criterion 3(a) provides that we will consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State include multiple methods for collecting data on parent satisfaction from a broad representative sample throughout the State with respect to the waivers and the usefulness of the information and training they receive. *Discussion:* We believe that the evaluation of these projects is the responsibility of the national evaluation to be designed and conducted by IES in collaboration with the States. There is no requirement for the States to complete an impact evaluation of their projects independent of the national evaluation. *Changes:* None. Other Issues *Comment:* One commenter recommended requiring that the design and development activities of the proposed project be completed during the course of the project period. The commenter noted that the proposed requirements for the program require States to begin to develop their model prior to the submission of the application, and that the period of the project performance would be devoted to implementation and evaluation of the program. *Discussion:* Prior to submitting its application, a State must involve multiple stakeholders and convene public meetings to gather input on the Federal and State requirements that the State proposes to waive to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The State also must provide a summary of public comments and how the public comments were addressed in its application. Because a State must meet these minimum requirements for its application to be deemed eligible for review, it follows that the focus of the project period must be on the implementation and evaluation of the program, rather than program design and development activities. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the background for the additional requirements and selection criteria include information from the “Project Forum Proceedings on Special Education Paperwork”, 1 and the “Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE)”, 2 particularly related to information regarding the geographical variation in the amount of time special education teachers devote to paperwork. 1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Project Forum, Project Forum Proceedings Document, “Policy Forum: Special Education Paperwork.” 2002. 2 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), Final Report of the Paperwork Substudy. 2003. *Discussion:* The background for the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria included information from the SPeNSE study, although the study was not directly cited. That said, the Secretary agrees with the commenters that it is important to include in the background statement for the additional requirements and selection criteria information from the SPeNSE study that shows the geographical variation in the amount of time special education teachers devote to paperwork. The Secretary does not believe it is appropriate to include information from the Project Forum Proceedings on Special Education Paperwork because it was not intended to be a scientific study of the time that educators spend completing special education paperwork. Accordingly, we have included information from the SPeNSE study in the background statement for the additional requirements and selection criteria in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. We have not made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria in response to these comments. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended clarifying that the Department will not allow any State that fails to sufficiently address all requirements under section 609 of the Act in its application to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Discussion:* We will ensure that only applications that meet the requirements of section 609 of the Act are deemed eligible for approval under the program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended defining the term “parent” to have the meaning of the term as defined in section 602(23) of the Act. *Discussion:* We intend the term “parent” to have the meaning given the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR 300.30). However, we agree that additional clarification is needed and will add a note reflecting this change. *Changes:* We have revised the final additional requirements and selection criteria to include a note defining the term “parent” consistent with the definition of that term under section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR 300.30). *Comment:* One commenter recommended that States be required to use the model IEP, procedural safeguards notice, and prior written notice forms developed by the Department. *Discussion:* As part of the 2004 amendments to the Act, the Congress required the Department to publish and widely disseminate model forms that are consistent with the requirements of part B of the Act and are “sufficient to meet those requirements.” Specifically, the Act requires the Department to develop forms for the IEP; the notice of procedural safeguards; and the prior written notice. Consistent with the Act, the Department developed the three forms to assist SEAs and LEAs in understanding the content that part B of the Act requires for each of these three types of forms. The content of each of these forms is based upon the requirements set forth in the final regulations implementing part B of the Act. Although States must ensure that school districts include all of the content that part B of the Act requires for each of the documents that they provide to parents, States are not required to use the format or specific language reflected in these forms. States may choose to include additional content in their forms, so long as the additional content is consistent with all requirements under part B of the Act. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that States should indicate in their applications whether they will need technical assistance from the Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP)or some other entity. *Discussion:* States may choose to indicate in their applications whether they will need technical assistance from OSEP in the implementation of the program. States that are awarded authority to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program may contact OSEP for assistance. OSEP funds a number of national technical assistance centers and regional resource centers that can provide technical assistance to States in the operation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. *Changes:* None. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. We will invite applications through a separate notice in the **Federal Register** . Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria Additional Requirements The Secretary establishes the following additional requirements for the Paperwork Waiver Program.

(1)A State applying for approval under this program must submit a proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. A State submitting a proposal under the Paperwork Waiver Program must include the following material in its proposal:

(a)A description of how the State met the public participation requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act, including how the State

(1)involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children with disabilities, special education and regular education teachers, related services providers, and school and district administrators, in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver and any specific proposals for changing those requirements to reduce paperwork, and

(2)provided an opportunity for public comment in selecting the requirements proposed for the waiver.

(b)A summary of public comments received in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of these additional requirements and how the public comments were addressed in the proposal.

(c)A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure that, if the waiver is granted, it will not result in a denial of the right to FAPE to any child with a disability, a waiver of any applicable civil rights requirements, or a waiver of any procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act. This description also must include an assurance that the State will collect and report to the Department, as part of the State's annual performance report submission to the Secretary in accordance with section 616(b)(2)(c)(ii)(II) of the Act, and to the national evaluator, all State complaints related to the denial of FAPE to any student with a disability and how the State responded to this information, including the outcome of that response such as providing technical assistance to the LEA to improve implementation, or suspending or terminating the authority of an LEA to waive paperwork requirements due to unresolved compliance problems.

(d)A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure that diverse stakeholders (including parents, teachers, administrators, related services providers, and other stakeholders, as appropriate) understand the proposed elements of the State's submission for the Paperwork Waiver Program.

(e)Assurances that each parent of a child with a disability in participating LEAs will be given written notice (in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any statutory, regulatory, or State requirements that will be waived and notice of the procedures that State will employ under paragraph 1(c) in easily understandable language.

(f)Assurances that the State will require any participating LEA to obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents for a waiver of any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs.

(g)Assurances that the State will require any participating LEA to inform parents in writing (and in the native language of the parents, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of

(i)any differences between the paperwork requirements of the Act related to the provision of FAPE, such as changes related to IEPs,

(ii)the parent's right to revoke consent to waive any paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE at any time,

(iii)the LEA's responsibility to meet all paperwork requirements related to the provision of FAPE if the parent does not provide voluntary written informed consent or revokes consent, and

(iv)the LEA's responsibility to conduct an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act within 30 calendar days if the parent revokes consent to waiving paperwork requirements related to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs.

(h)Assurances that the State will cooperate fully in a national evaluation of this program, if selected to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program. Cooperation includes devoting a minimum of 4 months between the award and the implementation of the State's waiver to conduct joint planning with the evaluator. It also includes participation by the State educational agency

(SEA)in the following evaluation activities:

(i)Ensuring that, for each item in the list of statutory, regulatory, or State requirements submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 in the *Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program* section of this notice, and consistent with the privacy requirements of the Act and The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the evaluator will have access to the original and all subsequent new versions of the associated documents for each child involved in the evaluation, together with a general description of the process for completing each of the documents. For example, if elements of the IEP process are waived, the evaluator shall have access to the most recent IEP created under previous guidelines for each participating child (if a previous IEP was created), as well as all of the new IEPs created under the waiver, along with a description of the process for completing both types of IEPs.

(ii)Recruiting districts or schools to participate in the evaluation (as established in the evaluation design) and ensuring their continued cooperation with the evaluation. Providing a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and have agreed to implement the proposed Paperwork Waiver Program, along with a description of the circumstances under which district participation may be terminated, allow data collection to occur, and cooperate fully with the evaluation. For each participating school or district, providing basic demographic information such as student enrollment, district wealth and ethnicity breakdowns, the number of children with disabilities by category, and the number or type of personnel, as requested by the evaluator.

(iii)Serving in an advisory capacity to assist the evaluator in identifying valid and reliable data sources and improving the design of data collection instruments and methods.

(iv)Providing to the evaluator an inventory of existing State-level data relevant to the evaluation questions or consistent with the identified data sources. Supplying requested State-level data in accordance with the timeline specified in the evaluation design.

(v)Providing assistance to the evaluator with the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed consent, for parent interviews and responses to surveys and questionnaires, if necessary to the final design of the evaluation.

(vi)Designating a coordinator for the project who will monitor the implementation of the project and work with the evaluator. This coordinator also will serve as the primary point of contact for the OSEP project officer.

(2)For purposes of the statutory requirement prohibiting the Secretary from waiving any statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to, but not limited to, applicable civil rights, the term “applicable civil rights requirements,” as used in this notice, includes all civil rights requirements in:

(a)Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;

(b)Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

(c)Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;

(d)Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and

(e)Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and their implementing regulations. The term does not include other requirements under the Act.

(3)Each State receiving approval to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with the project officer and the evaluator. Each participating State will receive an additional incentive payment of not less than $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State. Incentive payments may also be provided to participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Total available funds will depend on the number of awards made. Note: Receipt of an award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does not preclude an applicant from applying for and receiving an award for the Department's Multi-Year IEP Program. However, a State that receives an award for both programs may not execute both programs within the same local school district. Note: The term “parent” as used in these requirements and selection criteria for the Paperwork Waiver Program has the same meaning given the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B of the Act. Selection Criteria The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate State proposals submitted under this program. These particular criteria were selected because they address the statutory requirements and program requirements and permit applicants to propose a distinctive approach to addressing these requirements. Note: We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published in the **Federal Register** inviting States to submit applications for this program. 1. *Significance* . The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

(b)The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues or effective strategies.

(c)The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement. 2. *Quality of the project design* . The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

(b)The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.

(c)The quality of the proposed project's procedures for documenting project activities and results. 3. *Quality of the management plan* . The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

(b)How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate. Executive Order 12866 This notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. Although there may be costs associated with participating in this pilot, the Department will provide incentive payments to States to help offset these costs. In addition, we expect that States will weigh these costs against the benefits of being able to participate in the pilot and will only opt to participate in this pilot if the potential benefits exceed the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.326P Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program) Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1408. Dated: June 29, 2007. Jennifer Sheehy, Director of Policy and Planning for *Special Education and Rehabilitative Services* . [FR Doc. E7-13145 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RIN 1820-ZA41 The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces additional requirements and selection criteria for a competition in which the Department will select up to 15 States to participate in a pilot program, the Multi-Year Individualized Education Program

(IEP)Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program). State proposals approved under this program will create opportunities for participating local educational agencies

(LEAs)to improve long-term planning for children with disabilities through the development and use of comprehensive multi-year IEPs. Additionally, the additional requirements and selection criteria focus on an identified national need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with IEPs while preserving students' civil rights and promoting academic achievement. The Assistant Secretary will use these additional requirements and selection criteria for a single one-time only competition. DATES: *Effective Date:* These additional requirements and selection criteria are effective August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Gonzalez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4088, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone:

(202)245-7355 or by e-mail: *Patricia.Gonzalez@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria for the Multi-Year IEP Program in the **Federal Register** on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75158) (December 2005 Notice). The purpose of the Multi-Year IEP Program established under section 614(d)(5) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Act), is to provide an opportunity for States (including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and the outlying areas) to allow parents and LEAs the opportunity for long-term planning by offering the option of developing a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed three years, that is designed to coincide with the natural transition points for the child. Under section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act, the term “natural transition points” means those periods that are close in time to the transition of a child with a disability from preschool to elementary grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high school grades, from middle or junior high school grades to secondary school grades, and from secondary school grades to post-secondary activities, but in no case a period longer than three years (for the full text of section 614(d)(5) of the Act, go to: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/index.html)* . Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program As outlined in the December 2005 Notice, the Act establishes the following requirements that States must follow in developing and implementing their Multi-Year IEP Program proposals: 1. A State applying for approval under this program must propose to conduct demonstrations using a comprehensive multi-year IEP (not to exceed three years) that coincides with natural transition points for each participating child. 2. Except as specifically provided for under this program, all of the Act's requirements regarding provision of a free appropriate public education

(FAPE)to children with disabilities (including requirements related to the content, development, review, and revision of the IEP under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act) apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program. 3. A State submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program must include the following material in its proposal:

(a)Assurances that if an LEA offers parents the option of a multi-year IEP, development of the multi-year IEP is voluntary.

(b)Assurances that the LEA will obtain informed consent from parents before a comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for their child.

(c)A list of all required elements for a comprehensive multi-year IEP, including:

(i)Measurable long-term goals not to exceed three years, coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that will enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and that will meet the child's other needs that result from the child's disability.

(ii)Measurable annual goals for determining progress toward meeting the long-term goals, coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that will enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and that will meet the child's other needs that result from the child's disability.

(d)A description of the process for the review and revision of a multi-year IEP, including:

(i)A review by the IEP team of the child's multi-year IEP at each of the child's natural transition points.

(ii)In years other than a child's natural transition points, an annual review of the child's IEP to determine the child's current levels of progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved, and a requirement to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue to meet the measurable goals set forth in the IEP.

(iii)If the IEP team determines, on the basis of a review, that the child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals described in the multi-year IEP, a requirement that within 30 calendar days of the IEP team's determination, the LEA shall ensure that the IEP team carries out a more thorough review of the IEP in accordance with section 614(d)(4) of the Act.

(iv)A requirement that, at the request of the parent, the IEP team will conduct an immediate review of the child's multi-year IEP, rather than at the child's next transition point or annual review. Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria While the Act establishes the foregoing requirements, it does not provide for other requirements that are necessary for the implementation of this program. Accordingly, in the December 2005 Notice, we proposed additional Multi-Year IEP Program requirements to address program implementation issues as well as selection criteria that we will use to evaluate State proposals for this program. In the December 2005 Notice, we also proposed requirements with which States would need to comply to allow the Department to evaluate the effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Under section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department is required to report to Congress on the effectiveness of this program. To accomplish this, the Institute of Education Sciences

(IES)will conduct an evaluation of the program using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on the following outcomes:

(i)Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for students with disabilities.

(ii)Time and resource expenditures by IEP team members and teachers.

(iii)Quality of long-term education plans incorporated in IEPs.

(iv)Degree of collaboration among IEP members.

(v)Degree of parent satisfaction. These outcomes will be compared for students whose parents consent to their child's participation in a multi-year IEP and students who are matched on type of disability, age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of special education, who do not participate in the multi-year IEP. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during discussions with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this evaluation. They will, at a minimum—

(i)Assist in developing the specifics of the evaluation plan;

(ii)Assure that districts participating in the multi-year IEP will participate in the evaluation;

(iii)Supply data relevant to the outcomes being measured from State data sources (e.g., student achievement and functional outcome data, complaint numbers); and

(iv)Provide background information on relevant State policies and practices, provide access to current student IEPs (consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (FERPA) and the privacy requirements under the Act) during Year One of the evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in interviews. The December 2005 Notice described the rationale for the additional requirements and selection criteria we were proposing. This notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria contains several changes from the December 2005 Notice. We fully explain these changes in the *Analysis of Comments and Changes* section that follows. Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to the Secretary's invitation in the December 2005 Notice, 31 parties submitted comments on the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria. In addition, we received approximately 1,200 comments that were identical in form and substance and that summarized major recommendations submitted by one of the 31 commenters referenced in the preceding sentence; we do not respond to these 1,200 comments separately. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria follows. We group issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, and suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority, or comments that express concerns of a general nature about the Department or other matters that are not directly relevant to the Multi-Year IEP Program. FAPE *Comment:* Many commenters recommended revising the final additional requirements and selection criteria to require States to identify effective mechanisms for reporting and resolving adverse events, such as the denial of FAPE. *Discussion:* We agree that States participating in this program should be required to report on and remedy any adverse consequences of the Multi-Year IEP Program regarding the provision of appropriate services or the denial of other rights protected under the Act and its implementing regulations. Accordingly, we will add a new requirement for States to describe in their proposals how they will collect and report to the Department and the evaluator evidence of any adverse consequences of their projects, including information that children with disabilities are not receiving appropriate services because of their participation in the Multi-Year IEP Program, and information obtained through their complaint and due process systems relating to the Multi-Year IEP Program. The new requirement will also require States to report on how the States responded to this information, including the outcome of that response. *Changes:* The additional Multi-Year IEP Program requirements have been revised by adding a new paragraph 3(e) to require each State to include in its proposal a description of how the State will collect and report to the Department and the evaluator evidence of adverse consequences of the project and how the State responded to this information, including the outcome of that response. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that multi-year IEPs should be limited to students who are given assessments based on grade-level achievement standards, and should not be offered to students given assessments based on modified or alternate achievement standards. Many commenters recommended that States not be allowed to restrict any multi-year IEP to any specific disability category or group of categories. Several commenters recommended restricting multi-year IEPs for students who are expected to achieve the same standards as their non-disabled peers, as these students must have annual IEPs that are directly tied to grade appropriate core curriculum content standards. Several commenters recommended that clarification be given regarding processes that a State may use for students given assessments against modified or alternate achievement standards. *Discussion:* Section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act requires that the IEPs for students who take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards include benchmarks or short-term objectives. We believe that Congress included this provision to ensure explicit short-term planning for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who participate in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. However, these students might also benefit from longer-range planning as part of multi-year IEPs, provided that such longer-range planning is complemented with shorter-term planning. The Act does not require that an IEP include benchmarks or short-term objectives for a student who takes an assessment based on modified achievement standards, as proposed by the Department on December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74624). We do not agree with the commenters who suggested that multi-year IEPs should be restricted for students who are expected to achieve the same standards as their non-disabled peers, or for students assessed based on alternate or modified achievement standards. These suggestions would preclude the participation of all children with disabilities in the program and would be inconsistent with the Act. Clarification is available on the processes that a State may use for students given assessments based on alternate achievement standards (see *Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Non-Regulatory Guidance* (August, 2005); *http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc* ). Because the final regulations on assessments based on modified achievement standards have not been finalized, we are unable to provide clarification at this time regarding processes that a State may use for students given assessments based on modified achievement standards. We agree with the commenters who recommended that multi-year IEPs be available to all students with disabilities, regardless of disability category, except that the multi-year IEP for a student who takes an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards must also include benchmarks or short-term objectives in addition to meeting the other requirements of the multi-year IEP. Therefore, we will add language to additional requirement 3 reflecting this change. *Changes:* We have added paragraph 3(a) to the additional requirements to require that States provide assurances that the multi-year IEP for any child with a disability who takes an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards includes a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives in accordance with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act. *Comment:* Two commenters stated that there is a potential conflict between recently released proposed regulations permitting States to develop modified achievement standards and assessments based on those standards for certain children with disabilities (see the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74623)). The commenters noted that section 200.1(e)(5) of the proposed regulations would require that IEP teams review, on an annual basis, decisions to assess students based on modified achievement standards to ensure that those standards remain appropriate. (70 FR 74623, 74635). *Discussion:* The Department has not issued final regulations on modified achievement standards. However, when those regulations are finalized, if a State wanted to offer assessments based on modified academic achievement standards to eligible children with disabilities, the State would have to comply with the requirements specified in those regulations. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters stated that nothing in the proposed additional requirements or selection criteria would require an IEP team to revisit and adjust a student's IEP when a student is not progressing in accordance with his or her annual IEP goals. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed by the statutory requirements for this program. Under the Act, IEP teams are required to conduct annual reviews of a child's level of progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved and to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue to meet the measurable goals set forth in the IEP (see 614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)(dd)(BB) of the Act). Moreover, under 614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)(dd)(CC) of the Act, if the IEP team determines, on the basis of an annual review, that a child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals described in the multi-year IEP, the LEA must ensure that, within 30 days of the IEP team's determination, the IEP team carries out a more thorough review of the IEP. These statutory requirements are restated in paragraph 3(d)(ii) and

(iii)of the *Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program* section of this notice. Because the Act addresses the commenters' concerns, we do not believe additional requirements or selection criteria are necessary. Furthermore, all of the statutory requirements will be reflected in the application package for this competition. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that States be required to provide a detailed description of how they plan to provide training on multi-year IEPs for administrators, teachers, related services providers, education support professionals, and parents. The commenters expressed concern that children with disabilities would be denied FAPE absent sufficient training of parents and education personnel on Federal and State requirements for multi-year IEPs. *Discussion:* The Secretary agrees with the commenters that it is essential that parents, teachers, administrators, related services providers, and education support professionals understand the program in order to ensure proper implementation. *Changes:* We have revised the additional requirements by adding a new paragraph 3(f) to require applying States to provide as part of their proposals a description of the procedures they will employ to ensure that diverse stakeholders understand the proposed elements of the State's submission for the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Comment:* One commenter recommended defining the term “parent” to have the meaning of the term as defined in section 602(23) of the Act. *Discussion:* We intend the term “parent” to have the meaning given the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR 300.30). However, we agree that additional clarification is needed and will add a note reflecting this change. *Changes:* We have revised the final additional requirements and selection criteria to include a note defining the term “parent” consistent with the definition of that term under section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B of the Act (34 CFR 300.30). *Comment:* One commenter asked the Department to provide additional clarification on the meaning of the term “natural transition points.” *Discussion:* Section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act defines the term “natural transition points” as those periods that are close in time to the transition of a child with a disability from preschool to elementary grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high school grades, from middle or junior high school grades to secondary school grades, and from secondary school grades to post-secondary activities, but in no case a period longer than three years. We believe that this definition is clear and that no further clarification is necessary. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters expressed concerned that the Multi-Year IEP Program would compromise the right of children with disabilities to receive FAPE. The commenters recommended that the final requirements and selection criteria specify that all of the Act's requirements regarding the provision of FAPE to children with disabilities (including requirements related to the content, development, review, and revision of the IEP under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act) apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program. *Discussion:* Public agencies participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program may develop, under the terms of their State's approved application, IEPs that may deviate in certain specified ways from the normal requirements regarding IEP content, review and revision. That said, nothing in this program authorizes participating public agencies to deny appropriate services to children with disabilities or to limit any other right they have under the Act and its implementing regulations. *Changes:* None. National Evaluation *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the national evaluation study be completed as two separate Requests for Proposals (RFPs)—one awarded to a group that will work in multiple States and sites to investigate the outcomes variables in a more controlled, experimental way, and one awarded to a separate group that will complete the study evaluation. *Discussion:* According to section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department must report on the effectiveness of the program and provide to Congress recommendations for broader implementation, if appropriate. A maximum of 15 States can participate in this program. Including only select States in the evaluation would undermine the rigor of the evaluation, as well as limit the generalizability of the findings. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Based on an internal review of the description of the national evaluation in the Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria section of this notice, we have determined that it is appropriate to clarify for applicants and other stakeholders that academic measures are among those student outcomes to be assessed as part of the national evaluation. *Changes:* In the *Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* section of this notice, we have added the phrase “including academic achievement” to the outcomes to be measured by the national evaluation. Paragraph

(i)of the outcomes to be measured now reads: “Educational and functional results (including academic achievement) for students with disabilities.” *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Department commence the national evaluation process as soon as the final evaluation design has been completed, and that the evaluator begin collecting background information from the States at this time. *Discussion:* We do not agree with the commenters regarding the need to establish a specific timeframe for evaluation activities to commence or to begin collecting background information from States prior to awards being made. The collection of background information cannot begin until after awards are made to States, and we believe that it is more appropriate to allow IES to confirm the specifics of the evaluation design during its discussion with a technical workgroup and the participating States during the first several months of the study. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters requested a definition of “quasi-experimental design” and an explanation of how it compares with a “rigorous research design.” One commenter recommended that the evaluation include a variety of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-benefit analyses). *Discussion:* A quasi-experimental research design is similar to experimental research design but it lacks one key ingredient—random assignment. In conducting the national evaluation, it may not be possible for IES to match LEAs within States according to demographic characteristics, programmatic features, and other factors in order to apply an empirical research design that randomly assigns LEAs to experimental and control groups. For example, some States may have only one large urban school district, and a comparable control group within the State cannot be established. Similarly, it may not be possible to match participating States according to demographic characteristics in order to establish experimental and control groups. For this reason, IES will conduct the national evaluation using a rigorous quasi-experimental design (i.e., the evaluation will not randomly assign States or LEAs to “experimental” and “control” groups). In addition to quantitative analysis, IES may choose to employ a variety of qualitative evaluation methods (e.g., case studies, observation, cost-benefit analyses). Specifics of the design will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended deleting the requirement for States to work with the national evaluator for four months to conduct joint planning prior to implementing the program. The commenters instead recommended that States establish their own schedule to implement their proposals in an “expeditious manner.” *Discussion:* We believe that it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. A successful evaluation of the program requires States to work with the national evaluator. We believe that the four-month timeline for States to conduct joint planning with the national evaluator is essential to adequately plan and lay the groundwork for data collection and implementation of the program and the national evaluation. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended clarifying that all States that participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program must participate in the national evaluation conducted by IES. The commenters also recommended adding a new requirement that participating States conduct a State evaluation of the project to ensure accountability to participating children and families and that the State must provide more detailed State specific data than would be required for the national evaluation. *Discussion:* Paragraph 3(d) of the additional requirements makes clear that participating States must cooperate fully in the national evaluation. Section 614(d)(5) of the Act does not require a State evaluation component to the Multi-Year IEP Program and we believe that it is not appropriate to require States to conduct a State evaluation. However, nothing in the Act or the final additional requirements and selection criteria prevents States from including a proposal to conduct a Statewide assessment of their project as part of their application, if determined appropriate by the State. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that LEAs not be required to participate in the national evaluation. One commenter noted that States lack the authority to enforce the cooperation of school districts to participate in the national evaluation. *Discussion:* The State is responsible for ensuring that participating LEAs cooperate in the national evaluation conducted by IES. If a State is unable to provide an assurance that its participating LEAs will cooperate in the national evaluation, then the State will be deemed ineligible to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Similarly, an LEA that does not provide an assurance to the applying State that it will fully cooperate with the national evaluator is ineligible to participate in the program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter requested that we clarify the language in paragraph 3(d)(i) of the additional requirements regarding an evaluator having access to the most recent IEP created before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program because this language implies that no initially identified child (where the multi-year IEP would be the child's first IEP) could participate in the pilot project. *Discussion:* Initially identified children are eligible to participate in this program. We agree that additional clarification is needed because an initially identified child would not have a previous IEP, and therefore having access to the most recent IEP would not be applicable. *Changes:* Paragraph 3(d)(i) has been revised to clarify that the evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created (if applicable) before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Comment:* Several commenters recommended that IES report on the extent to which program activities ensure satisfaction of family members. *Discussion:* We generally agree with the commenters that the national evaluation should collect data on the satisfaction of family members of children participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Section 614(d)(5)(B)(v) of the Act requires the Department to submit a report to Congress and include in that report specific recommendations for “ensuring satisfaction of family members.” In this context, the Department interprets the term “family members” to mean “parents” and intends to collect data on parent satisfaction with the program. While the perspectives of family members, including siblings, grandparents, and other relatives, can be important in making educational decisions for a child with a disability, we believe that the parents of a child with a disability are in the best position to represent the interests of their child. Moreover, while the Act provides a definition of “parent,” it does not provide a definition of “family member.” Parents may, at their discretion, convey the interests and perspectives of other family members in the operation of the project on behalf of their children. We have revised the *Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* of this notice to clarify that IES will collect data on parent satisfaction with the program. In addition, as part of our internal review of the notice, we determined that it was appropriate to revise the *Background for Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria* to clarify that IES will collect data on teacher and administrator satisfaction. We have not made any changes to the additional requirements or selection criteria in response to these comments. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters recommended that the list of parties who will be involved in determining the specifics of the evaluation design should be expanded to include representatives of national parent organizations that represent a cross-section of disabilities, as opposed to being limited to the evaluator, a technical workgroup and the participating States. *Discussion:* IES will identify and select individuals with the necessary technical expertise to serve as members of the technical workgroup, which will advise IES on the development of a rigorous research design for conducting the national evaluation. These individuals may include representatives of national parent organizations. We decline at this time to add any other specific parties to those involved in determining the specifics of the evaluation design. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the evaluation process include public meetings during which parents who participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program may publicly state their opinions regarding the operation of the program. *Discussion:* We do not believe that it is necessary to design the evaluation process to include public meetings for parents because parent participation in the national evaluation of the program is assured under paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements. In addition, parent participation in the development and implementation of the program is assured under paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) of the additional requirements. However, we believe a change is necessary to paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements because it is appropriate to require all participating States to provide assistance to the evaluator on the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed consent for parents to participate in interviews and respond to questionnaires and surveys. *Changes:* Paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements has been amended by deleting the words “If necessary to the final design of the study,” to ensure that the national evaluation of the program will include the collection of data on the satisfaction of parents of children participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements should require the State to ensure that the national evaluation includes surveys of parents of children with disabilities from all 13 disability categories, and parents representing varying minority and socioeconomic backgrounds. One commenter noted that the individual nature of each IEP may not be conducive for the use of the proposed treatment of comparing students participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program with those who are not. The commenter went on to state that the national evaluation should not group students by disability category. *Discussion:* We recognize that random assignment of students to experimental and control groups is not possible due to the nature of the Multi-Year IEP Program. However, we believe that it is critical to compare the outcomes of students who participate in the program with those who do not to determine if patterns in student outcomes are demonstrated. We decline to require the national evaluation to include surveys of parents of children with disabilities from all 13 disability categories. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during discussions with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. IES will conduct an evaluation of the program using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on educational and functional results for students with disabilities, time and resource expenditures by IEP team members and teachers, quality of long-term education plans incorporated in IEPs, degree of collaboration among IEP members, and degree of parent satisfaction. These outcomes will be compared between students whose parents consent to their child's participation in a multi-year IEP and students who are matched on type of disability, age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, language spoken in the home, prior educational outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of special education, who do not participate in the multi-year IEP. *Changes:* None. *Comment* : Two commenters recommended deleting all requirements related to a State's participation in the national evaluation. The commenters expressed concern that such participation would add unnecessary costs and paperwork for States and local school districts and could discourage many States from applying for the Multi-Year IEP Program. One commenter noted that the quasi-experimental research design will be overly costly and burdensome to States and school districts, particularly regarding data collection. *Discussion:* Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this evaluation. They will assist in developing the specifics of the evaluation plan; assure that districts participating in the multi-year IEP will participate in the evaluation; supply data relevant to the outcomes being measured from State data sources (e.g., student achievement and functional outcome data, complaint numbers); and provide background information on relevant State policies and practices, provide access to current student IEPs during Year One of the evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in interviews. State participation in the national evaluation is critical to assess the impact of the program. We believe that participation in the national evaluation will not add unnecessary costs and paperwork or be overly burdensome for States and local school districts. Moreover, during the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an annual incentive payment (described in the *Additional Requirement* s section of this notice) that will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter noted that the privacy rights of individuals under the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act must be protected in making individual student's IEPs accessible as part of the national evaluation. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph 3(d)(i) of the additional requirements to clarify that States must ensure, consistent with the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act, that the evaluator will have access to students' most current IEPs. In addition, we have revised the description of the role that States will play in the national evaluation in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice to ensure that the privacy requirements of FERPA and the Act are protected. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 3(d)(i) of the additional requirements by adding the words “consistent with the privacy requirements of the Act and The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” to the sentence requiring States to ensure that the evaluator will have access to students' IEPs. *Comment:* Two commenters recommended that the Department contract with an independent agency to develop a research design that would produce reliable information about the effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program and meet the requirements of the Department's “What Works Clearinghouse.” *Discussion:* Data collection and analysis will be the responsibility of IES through its independent contractor. The Department's “What Works Clearinghouse”

(WWC)collects, screens, and identifies existing studies of effectiveness of educational interventions (programs, products, practices, and policies). The evaluation will be based on a strong quasi- experimental design that will yield valid and reliable results consistent with the WWC evidence standards for quasi-experimental studies and will meet the needs of the Secretary for reporting to Congress under section 426 of the Department of Education Organization Act and section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Department indicate when the results of the national evaluation will be available and how they will be disseminated. *Discussion:* We believe that it is not appropriate to set a timeline for disseminating the results of the national evaluation until the specifics of the national evaluation are confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. Consistent with section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Secretary will submit an annual report to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate regarding the effectiveness of the program and any specific recommendations for broad implementation. It is the expectation of the Department that this annual report will be based, at least in part, on the results of the national evaluation. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters recommended that the final additional requirements and selection criteria require States to assist the national evaluator in collecting data on the implementation of the program from parents and family members of children participating in the program, including by obtaining informed consent from parents to participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters that States should be required to assist the national evaluator in collecting data from parents. Therefore, a change will be made. *Changes:* Paragraph 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements has been revised to clarify that participating State educational agencies

(SEAs)must provide assistance to the evaluator in the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed consent for parents to participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires. Consent *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the final additional requirements and selection criteria clarify that parents may revoke their consent for their child to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program at any time. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters that it would be useful to clarify that consent may be revoked at any time. Therefore, a change will be made. *Changes:* Paragraph 3(b)(ii) of the additional requirements (paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to clarify that parents may revoke their consent at any time during the implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Comment:* Several commenters recommended requiring that, before a comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for a child, the LEA must obtain informed written consent from the parent agreeing to allow the development of a multi-year IEP for the child that would supercede the regular IEP requirements, and that the notice that the LEA provides to the parent must be in the native language of the parent. *Discussion:* We intended the phrase “informed consent” in paragraph 3(a) of the proposed additional requirements to mean written consent that is both informed and provided by the parents voluntarily. “Consent” in this context has the same meaning as given the term in 34 CFR 300.9. For consent to be informed, parents must understand what they are consenting to (i.e., that they are agreeing to a multi-year IEP for their child in lieu of an IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act). To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, we agree to revise the final additional requirements to state explicitly that LEAs must obtain voluntary informed written consent from parents for a multi-year IEP for their child, and that, before an LEA requests such consent, it must inform the parents in writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any differences between the requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal. *Changes:* Paragraph 3(b) of the additional requirements (paragraph 3(a) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to clarify that States must include in their proposals assurances that, before an LEA requests a parent's voluntary informed written consent to the development of a multi-year IEP in lieu of an IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the LEA will inform the parent in writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of any differences between the requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that informed written parental consent must include a statement including the opinions of those in the field that recommend against such consent. The commenters noted that such a statement should give a description of how the multi-year IEP differs from a regular IEP and encourage parents to seek advice from advocacy agencies and resource centers before consenting to a multi-year IEP. *Discussion:* We believe it is unreasonable to expect States and school districts to seek out and collect information from individuals who oppose the development of multi-year IEPs for students with disabilities and to include such information in notices that are provided to parents. Parents are encouraged to consult with parent resource centers and other resources in making educational decisions for their child. The parent notification rights under section 615(c)(1)(D) of the Act requires that parents receive notification of sources that parents may contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of the Act, including the provisions of the Multi-Year IEP Program under section 614(d)(5) of the Act. Furthermore, paragraph 3(b)(i) of the additional requirements (paragraph 3(a)(i) of the proposed additional requirements) requires the LEA to identify any differences between the requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal. *Changes:* None. Program Implementation *Comment:* Many commenters recommended requiring that any State that submits a proposal for the Multi-Year IEP Program must establish a committee comprised of school district personnel, and at least three parents (each representing a different disability group) to provide input on the State's proposal. In addition, many commenters recommended requiring that the State's application:

(a)Include a summary of the public input;

(b)indicate what input the State incorporated into its proposal and who or what organization provided the suggestion; and

(c)identify which stakeholders agreed and which stakeholders disagreed with each Federal statutory and regulatory requirement, and State requirement, that the State proposed to waive under its proposed Multi-Year IEP Program. Many commenters recommended requiring States to use a variety of mechanisms to obtain broad stakeholder input, including holding public meetings at convenient times and places and inviting written public comments. Similarly, two commenters observed that public input must be transparent, and involve the greatest number of stakeholders, particularly teachers, administrators, related services providers, and parents. Many commenters recommended that paragraph 3(c) of the additional requirements clarify that proposed State proposals must comply with the public participation requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act. Several commenters urged the Secretary to require that States obtain input from representatives of parent training and information centers and community parent resource centers (in addition to obtaining input from school and district personnel, and parents). In addition, one commenter recommended that the Secretary should require States to

(1)Obtain input from family members and advocates for children with disabilities,

(2)require the State to summarize input that it received and the type of stakeholder who submitted the input, and

(3)describe how the State's proposal would improve educational and functional results for children. *Discussion:* Proposed State plans must conform with the public participation requirements in section 612(a)(19) of the Act, which require that before the adoption of any policies and procedures needed to comply with the Act (including any amendments to such policies and procedures), the State ensures that there are public hearings, adequate notice of the hearings, and an opportunity for comment available to the general public, including individuals with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. However, we believe that States should have some flexibility in designing their process for obtaining public input, rather than adopting the specific suggestions of the commenter. Accordingly, we have revised paragraph 3 of the additional requirements (paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) of the proposed additional requirements) to require States to include in their proposals a description of how they involved multiple stakeholders and provided an opportunity for public comment in developing their proposals consistent with section 612(a)(19) of the Act. With this change, each State's application will be judged on the extent to which the State involved multiple stakeholders and provided an opportunity for public comment when developing its proposal. *Changes:* We have revised and renumbered paragraph 3(c) of the additional requirements to incorporate language from paragraph 3(b) of the proposed additional requirements and to clarify that a State must include in its proposal a description of how it will meet the public participation requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act. More specifically, paragraph 3(c) of the additional requirements now requires each State to include in its proposal how the State

(a)Involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children, special education and regular education teachers, related services providers, and school and district administrators in the development of its proposal;

(b)provided an opportunity for public comment in developing its proposal, including a summary of public comments received by the State as well as a description of how the proposal addresses those public comments; and

(c)obtained input from school and district personnel and parents in developing the list of required elements for each multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review and revision of each multi-year IEP. *Comment:* One commenter recommended requiring that the design and development activities of the proposed project be completed during the course of the project period. The commenter noted that the proposed additional requirements for the program require States to begin to develop their model prior to the submission of the application, and that the period of the project performance would be devoted to implementation and evaluation of the program. *Discussion:* Prior to submitting its application, a State must involve multiple stakeholders and convene public meetings to gather input on Federal and State requirements that the State proposes to waive to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The State must also provide a summary of public comments and how public comments were addressed in the application. Because a State must meet these minimum requirements for its application to be deemed eligible for review, it follows that the focus of the project period must be on the implementation and evaluation of the program, rather than program design and development activities. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended increasing the annual incentive payment provided to States to support program-related activities, and recommended requiring that the national evaluator provide funds to participating school districts based on the number of participating students in the evaluation. One commenter asked for clarification on whether the Department will allocate additional dollars to school districts or if the State would use its incentive payments to offset school district costs. *Discussion:* Paragraph 4 of the proposed additional requirements provided that each State receiving approval to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program would be awarded an annual incentive payment of $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with the project officer and the evaluator. In addition, paragraph 4 of the proposed additional requirements indicated that each participating State would receive an additional incentive payment of $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State, and that incentive payments may also be provided to participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in the evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Because the total available funds for each award will depend on the number of awards made, we are unable to specify an exact amount over the initially proposed incentive payment amounts. However, the Secretary agrees with the commenters that more funds should be made available if possible and, therefore, the final additional requirements have been revised to clarify that participating States will receive at least $10,000 to support program-related evaluation activities, and at least $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State. *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 4 of the final additional requirements to clarify that each State receiving approval to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to support program-related evaluation activities, and not less than $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State, to offset the cost of participating districts, or to do both. We also have added language to this paragraph to clarify that the total available funds for each award will depend on the number of awards made. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that States not be allowed to authorize LEAs to begin using multi-year IEPs until the beginning of the first school year after the specifics of the study design for the national evaluation and the State's evaluation have been determined and all the background information for the national evaluation has been provided to IES. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed because the evaluation design will be determined and all background information will be collected prior to implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Accordingly, LEAs may not begin using multi-year IEPs until the beginning of the first school year after the specifics of the study design for the national evaluation and the State's evaluation have been determined and all the background information for the national evaluation has been provided to IES. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Some commenters recommended prohibiting an existing annual IEP from being converted into a multi-year IEP before a child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting, unless the child's parent submits a written request to convene an IEP meeting on this issue at an earlier date. *Discussion:* In its application, a State may propose to prohibit an existing IEP from being converted into a multi-year IEP before the child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting. However, we do not see a compelling reason to preclude States from proposing to allow participating LEAs to convert an existing IEP into a multi-year IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(5) of the Act and the requirements in this notice. It is important to note, however, that if a participating school proposes to convert an existing IEP into a multi-year IEP before the child's next scheduled annual IEP meeting, it will need to obtain the informed written consent of the parent, and may not implement a multi-year IEP for the child without that informed written parental consent. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Several commenters agreed with the language in paragraph 3(d)(ii) of the proposed additional requirements that requires States to provide a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and have agreed to implement the Multi-Year IEP Program. These commenters urged the Department to add a requirement that would prevent districts or schools from participating in the program if they have a demonstrated history of not complying with the Act or have experienced a disproportionate number of complaints to the SEA or participated in a disproportionate number of dispute resolution processes. *Discussion:* We generally agree with the commenters. The State is obligated to ensure that children with disabilities who participate in the program continue to receive services in accordance with the Act and implementing regulations, modified only to the extent consistent with the State's approved application. States therefore should take into consideration the compliance history of LEAs within the State as part of their process for selecting LEAs to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program, and monitor implementation of the program and take corrective action, if needed. *Changes:* Paragraph 3(e) of the additional requirements (paragraph 3(d) of the proposed additional requirements) has been revised to require the State to provide a description of how it will collect and report to the Department and the evaluator evidence that children are not receiving appropriate services because of the State's implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program, and how the State responded to this information, including the outcome of that response, such as providing technical assistance to the LEA to improve implementation, or suspending or terminating the authority of an LEA to implement multi-year IEPs due to unresolved compliance problems. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the final additional requirements and selection criteria reference the language from the report of the U.S. House of Representatives indicating that the usual rules for annual IEPs must apply to multi-year IEPs. *Discussion:* We believe that the Act is clear that except as specifically provided for under section 614(d)(5) of the Act, all of the Act's requirements regarding the provision of FAPE to children with disabilities apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program. We reiterate this information in the *Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program* section of this notice. The provisions of section 614(d)(5) of the Act, though, do contemplate that States could propose to apply to multi-year IEPs some changes to the normally applicable rules for annual IEPs, such as changes in the process of reviewing multi-year IEPs in some years. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Department prohibit States from participating in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program), which is the subject of a separate notice. Many commenters recommended adding a requirement that any State permitted to participate in both the Multi-Year IEP Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program may not implement both programs in the same district or school. *Discussion:* The Act allows States to apply for the Multi-Year IEP Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program. However, we agree with the commenters that a State that receives awards for the Multi-Year IEP Program and the Paperwork Waiver Program should not be permitted to execute both programs in the same school district. We believe that this type of prohibition would allow for a more precise evaluation of each program. *Changes:* Paragraph 5 has been added to the final additional requirements to clarify that States must describe how districts were selected and provide an assurance that districts are voluntarily participating along with a description of the circumstances under which district participation may be terminated. States participating in this program and the Paperwork Waiver Program may not select the same LEAs to participate in both programs. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that we approve only those Multi-Year IEP Program proposals that propose a project period of not more than four years. *Discussion:* We agree with this comment. A four-year period is sufficient time to allow States to spend one year preparing to implement multi-year IEPs and three years on the actual implementation, which coincides with one full cycle of a multi-year IEP (i.e., three years). In addition, a four-year project period is consistent with the project period established under the Paperwork Waiver Program. (The Department will invite applications for the Paperwork Waiver Program through a separate competition.) *Changes:* Paragraph 6 has been added to the final additional requirements to specify that State proposals will be approved for a project period not to exceed four years. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the proposed additional requirements for this program be revised to prohibit applicants from using the Paperwork Waiver Program (authorized under 609(a) of the Act) as a vehicle for implementing multi-year IEPs that do not comply with the terms of the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Discussion:* Sections 609 and 614(d)(5) of the Act do not preclude a State from proposing to waive requirements related to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs, nor does the Act preclude a State from proposing to incorporate elements of the Multi-Year IEP Program in its application for the Paperwork Waiver Program. We decline to make the requested change because we believe that there are sufficient protections in the requirements for the Paperwork Waiver Program to protect a child's right to FAPE as well as to ensure that civil rights and procedural safeguard requirements are not waived. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* As part of our internal review of the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria for this program, we determined that it was appropriate to revise Paragraph 1 of the proposed additional requirements to provide that the Secretary may disapprove a State's application to participate in the program if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of part B of the Act. The Act does not require the Secretary to disapprove a State's application to participate in the program under these conditions and we do not believe that it would be appropriate to require the Secretary to deny approvals under these conditions. Instead, we believe that it is important that the Secretary have the authority to take into consideration the compliance history of States as part of the process used for selecting States to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Accordingly, we have determined that the Secretary should retain the discretion to deny or approve a State's application if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of part B of the Act. *Changes:* Paragraph 1 of the additional requirements has been revised by deleting the words “will not grant” and replacing them with the words “may deny” such that the requirement reads as follows: “The Secretary may deny a State approval to participate in this program if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of part B of the Act.” *Comment:* One commenter recommended revising paragraph 2 of the additional requirements by deleting the words “may terminate” and replacing them with the words “shall terminate,” so that there will be no option to allow a State's Multi-Year IEP Program to continue under the circumstances described in that paragraph. *Discussion:* We disagree with the commenter that there should be no option to allow a State's Multi-Year IEP Program to continue under the circumstances identified in paragraph 2 of the additional requirements. The Act does not require the Secretary to terminate a State's application to participate in the program under the circumstances described in paragraph 2 of the proposed additional requirements. However, we believe that it is important that the Secretary have the authority to take into consideration the compliance history of States as part of the process used for monitoring implementation of the program and taking corrective action, if needed. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters asked for additional clarity regarding the implementation of multi-year IEPs. Specifically, the commenters asked for examples, or a clear description, of the process for the development, review and revision of a comprehensive multi-year IEP. *Discussion:* Only State applications that meet the requirements of the Act and the additional requirements and selection criteria in this notice will be eligible for approval. We offer the following example as one possible approach that States might propose to follow to develop, review and revise a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed three years, that coincides with natural transition points for a child. The following example should not be construed as a requirement:

(1)If the parent of a child with a disability provides informed written consent, an IEP team develops for the child a comprehensive IEP that meets all requirements of section 614(d) of the Act and includes longer-range measurable goals coinciding with natural transition points for the child.

(2)The IEP team conducts a comprehensive review of the child's IEP during natural transition points for the child, not to exceed three years from the date the child's initial IEP was developed, consistent with section 614(d)(4) of the Act.

(3)In the intervening years between the child's natural transition points, the child's primary special education teacher or related services provider (i.e., the educational professional who is primarily responsible for overseeing implementation of the child's IEP) conducts a streamlined annual review of the child's IEP to determine

(a)The child's current levels of progress,

(b)whether the annual goals for the child have been achieved, and

(c)whether the child is on track for meeting the longer-range transition goals. Based on these reviews, the child's primary special education teacher or related services provider amends the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue to meet the measurable annual goals and natural transition point goals set out in the child's IEP.

(4)The child's parent is regularly informed of the child's progress and the extent to which the child is progressing toward meeting the measurable annual goals in the IEP and is on track for reaching the longer-range transition point goals set out in the IEP.

(5)If the primary special education teacher or related services provider determines that the child has met the measurable annual goals and is on track for meeting the longer-range transition goals, the special education teacher or related services provider submits his or her findings to all members of the IEP team, who have the opportunity to either agree and sign the IEP, or call for a thorough review of the child's IEP in accordance with section 614(d)(4) of the Act within 30 calendar days.

(6)If one or more members of the IEP determine that the child did not make sufficient progress toward the annual goals or is not on track for meeting the longer-range transition point goals described in the multi-year IEP, then the IEP team carries out a comprehensive review of the IEP within 30 calendar days.

(7)If requested by the parent, the IEP team conducts a comprehensive review of the child's multi-year IEP rather than or subsequent to a streamlined annual review. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that States should indicate in their applications whether they would need technical assistance from the Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP)or some other entity. *Discussion:* States may choose to indicate in their applications whether they will need technical assistance from OSEP in the implementation of the program. States that are awarded authority to develop multi-year IEPs for students with disabilities consistent with the program requirements may contact OSEP for assistance. OSEP funds a number of national technical assistance centers and regional resource centers that can provide technical assistance to States in the operation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* As part of our internal review of the proposed additional requirements and selection criteria, we determined that it is appropriate to revise paragraph 3(d) of the additional requirements by moving the phrase “if selected.” The phrase “if selected” was intended to clarify that the requirement only applies to States that are selected to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. However, we believe that the phrase might be misconstrued to mean that not all States that participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be selected to participate in the national evaluation. Accordingly, we have re-worded this paragraph to read, “Assurances that the State will cooperate fully in a national evaluation of this program, if selected to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program.” *Changes:* We have revised paragraph 3(d) to clarify that assurances of cooperation with the national evaluation are required from States selected to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Selection Criteria *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Upon further consideration of the proposed selection criteria, the Department has made the decision to use selection criteria already established in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210 for the review of this program. The proposed selection criteria included many of the measures that would be evaluated as part of the national evaluation of this program. We have determined that it would be inappropriate to include these measures in the selection criteria. We believe that use of the EDGAR selection criteria will enable the Department to sufficiently evaluate State applications for this program. *Changes:* Throughout the selection criteria, we have replaced or modified proposed selection criteria to better align with language taken from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. Specifically, we have deleted or modified proposed selection criteria 1(b), 1(c), 2(a), 2(b), 3(b) and 3(c) and added language from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. *Comment:* One commenter recommended eliminating proposed selection criteria 1(a) (i.e., that the proposed project demonstrate the extent to which it will develop or demonstrate promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies). *Discussion:* We decline to make the requested change because we believe that selection criterion 1(a) is an important criterion for evaluating the innovativeness of each State application for the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended revising selection criterion 1(b) to emphasize that the potential for improved long-term planning as a result of a State's Multi-Year IEP Program proposal be weighted in light of other important outcomes of a well-written IEP. The commenters recommended inserting a statement that the Secretary will consider the extent to which the proposed project will result in improvements to the IEP without compromising the provision of FAPE, the measurement of progress toward the achievement of annual and long-term goals, educational outcomes, and family satisfaction. *Discussion:* Since publishing the December 2005 notice, we have decided to use certain selection criteria from those found in EDGAR in 34 CFR 75.210 for the review of this program. Proposed selection criterion 1(b), “The likelihood that the proposed project will result in improvements in the IEP process, especially long-term planning for children with disabilities, without compromising the provision of FAPE, satisfaction of parents, and educational outcomes for children with disabilities” has been deleted. Upon internal review of the proposed selection criteria, we have determined that this criterion is inappropriate because it would require panel reviewers to speculate on the impact proposals would have on the variables to be measured by the national evaluation (i.e., long-term planning for children with disabilities, satisfaction of parents and educational outcomes for children with disabilities). If the relationship between changes in multi-year IEPs and outcome variables were known, then there would be no need for the evaluation. We have replaced proposed selection criterion 1(b) with the following EDGAR criterion, which is from 34 CFR 75.210(b)(2)(iii): “The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues or effective strategies.” This criterion will allow panel reviewers to evaluate the proposal's significance relative to how articulately or persuasively the State can connect current problems or issues with its multi-year IEP proposal. This type of evaluation and subsequent scoring of an application is commonly done in proposal review by standing panel members. *Changes:* Proposed selection criterion 1(b) has been deleted and replaced with the selection criterion from section 75.210(b)(2)(iii) of EDGAR. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that we consider the importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and student achievement. The commenters suggested that we include a selection criterion to evaluate the extent to which the proposed project will reduce the amount of non-instructional time spent by teachers and related services personnel. *Discussion:* As described elsewhere in this notice, since publishing the December 2005 notice, we have decided to adopt certain selection criteria from those found in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR for the review of this program. We believe that including variables, such as non-instructional time or student achievement in selection criteria, would be inappropriate because these are the dependent variables to be examined by the national evaluation. We do not believe it is appropriate for panel reviewers to speculate on the impact specific proposals would have on these variables. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters suggested that we delete the reference to reducing the paperwork burden associated with IEPs in proposed selection criterion 2(b) and to add language clarifying that improvements in long-range planning not compromise the provision of FAPE, the measurement of progress toward the achievement of annual and long-term goals, educational outcomes and family satisfaction. *Discussion:* Statutory and additional requirements for this program only permit certain changes to the development, review and revision of IEPs. Other than these changes, the requirements of the Act must be met. The statutory and additional requirements also require LEAs to complete annual reviews of children's progress and to protect parents' rights to remove their child from the Multi-Year IEP Program. Additionally, as noted previously, we have decided to adopt certain selection criteria from those found in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR for the review of this program and the proposed 2(b) criterion referred to in these comments has been deleted. *Changes:* Following a decision to adopt certain selection criteria from those found in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR, criterion 2(b) was deleted. *Comment:* One commenter recommended striking selection criterion 2(c) (i.e., that the Secretary consider the extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement, including parental involvement) as it seemed vague and duplicative of selection criterion 3(c) (i.e., How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, related services providers, administrators, or others, as appropriate). *Discussion:* We agree that proposed selection criterion 2(c) is duplicative. *Changes:* We have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c) regarding the extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement, including parental involvement. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that we consider the quality of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project activities and results. *Discussion:* We agree with the commenters. The design and procedures for documenting proposed activities and results of the Multi-Year IEP Program must be of high quality for evaluation purposes. *Changes:* We have added a new selection criterion 2(c) (as noted elsewhere, we have deleted proposed selection criterion 2(c)) to enable the Secretary to consider the quality of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project activities and results. *Comment:* One commenter recommended revising selection criterion 3(b) to address resources devoted by the State to implement the project in addition to resources devoted by the State to evaluate the project activities. *Discussion:* We do not believe that is necessary to require States to submit a detailed description of the resources they plan to devote to implement the project activities. We believe that the main cost incurred will relate to planned training activities. States certainly could include as part of their application a detailed description of planned training activities to demonstrate how their project will improve long-term planning and address the need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with IEPs, while maintaining the provision of FAPE. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the proposed project was designed to involve broad parental input. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed by selection criterion 3(c), which ensures that States seek a diversity of perspectives, including parents, in the implementation of their projects. Moreover, we believe that paragraphs 3(b)(ii), 3(c)(i), 3(c)(iii), and 3(d)(v) of the additional requirements ensure involvement by parents in this program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the State sufficiently describes how it will recruit school districts to participate in the program. *Discussion:* We believe that additional requirement 5 addresses the commenter's concern. Additional requirement 5 requires that States must describe how districts were selected and provide an assurance that districts are voluntarily participating along with a description of the circumstances under which district participation may be terminated. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of children with disabilities. *Discussion:* We agree that it is important to consider the extent to which the design of a project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of children with disabilities. As discussed elsewhere, we have added new selection criterion 1(c) to highlight the importance of improving teaching and student achievement. To place even more emphasis within the selection criteria on this issue, we have also added another selection criterion that would require consideration of the extent to which the project's purpose will address the needs of the target population. *Changes:* We have added selection criterion 2(b) to place further emphasis on how well the project will address the needs of the target population as a basis for application review. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended revising the selection criteria to incorporate the statutory requirements laid out in section 614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act regarding the content of proposals. *Discussion:* As noted in paragraph 2 of the *Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program* section of this notice, all applicants are required to meet the statutory requirements laid out in section 614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II) of the Act regarding the content of their proposals. All States must meet the statutory requirements of section 614(d)(5) of the Act in order to be deemed eligible to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to repeat the statutory requirements of section 614(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II) in the selection criteria section for this program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended including the selection criterion found in section 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR, which requires the Secretary to consider the extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field. *Discussion:* We decline to include the selection criterion from section 75.210(c)(2)(v) of EDGAR in the selection criteria for this program because that selection criterion applies to professional development grants and is not appropriate for the Multi-Year IEP Program. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project. *Discussion:* We believe that the commenters' concerns are addressed under the management plan selection criterion in paragraph 3(a) (i.e., that the Secretary consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project). *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that we consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, and that we also consider whether such procedures ensured multiple methods for collecting data on parent satisfaction from a broad representative sample throughout the State. One commenter recommended amending the selection criteria to allow States to modify and revise their original statutory, regulatory, and administrative waiver requests during the course of the pilot project. One commenter recommended requiring States to include an evaluation of whether the pilot project has a mechanism for reporting adverse events, such as denial of FAPE to a child with disability, and the effectiveness of that mechanism. *Discussion:* We believe that final selection criterion 3(c) addresses the concerns of commenters regarding the involvement of multiple stakeholders in the operation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. In addition, the Secretary is committed to ensuring the objectivity and integrity of the national evaluation conducted by IES. For this reason, we do not support allowing States to pursue changes to waiver activities proposed in their initial applications as this would significantly interfere with the reliability of outcome data gathered as part of the evaluation component for this program. Finally, with respect to the comment regarding FAPE, we believe that the commenter's concerns are addressed by paragraph 3(e) of the additional requirements. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended including a new selection criterion to require that the Secretary consider the extent to which the applicant has devoted sufficient resources to conduct a State evaluation of its project and the training of IEP Team members to ensure proper implementation of the demonstration program. *Discussion:* Section 614(d)(5) of the Act does not require a State evaluation component to the Multi-Year IEP Program, rather, States are required to cooperate with the national evaluation conducted by IES. That said, nothing in the Act or the final additional requirements and selection criteria prevents States from including a proposal to conduct a Statewide assessment component of their project as part of their application, if determined appropriate by the State. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter recommended revising the selection criteria to require States to address their commitment to cooperate in the national evaluation in their applications, and to clarify that States are not required to document the extent to which they devoted sufficient resources to conduct data collection and analysis as part of the evaluation of the program. *Discussion:* We believe that it is not necessary to include a selection criterion that evaluates an applicant's commitment to cooperate with the national evaluation because paragraph 3(d) of the additional requirements already requires applicants to include assurances to this effect in their proposals. Moreover, as noted elsewhere in this preamble, the Department has decided to use only selection criteria from EDGAR; consequently, selection criterion 3(b) has been deleted in its entirety, including references to the sufficiency of resources devoted to the evaluation. *Changes:* Criterion 3(b) has been deleted. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider how the applicant will ensure that the perspectives of children with disabilities are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project. One commenter recommended revising selection criterion 3(c) to ensure that the perspectives of family members and advocates for children with disabilities are considered. *Discussion:* We believe it is important to involve children with disabilities in their educational programming. We therefore agree with the commenter that it is appropriate to ensure that the perspectives of children with disabilities are brought to bear in the operation of the project. However, we do not agree with the commenter regarding the need to involve family members and child advocates, other than the child's parents or legal guardian. Selection criterion 3(c) addresses how the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate. While the perspectives of siblings, grandparents, other relatives, and outside advocates can be important in making educational decisions for a child with a disability, we believe that the parents of a child with a disability are in the best position to represent the interests of their child. Parents may, at their discretion, convey the interests and perspectives of other family members and outside advocates in the operation of the project on behalf of their children. In addition, outside stakeholder involvement in the development phase of the project is assured under paragraph 3(c) of the additional requirements. *Changes:* Selection criterion 3(c) has been amended to adopt selection criteria from section 75.210(g)(2)(v) of EDGAR: “How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.” *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State provide for examining the effectiveness of the project implementation strategies and provide guidance for quality assurance. *Discussion:* We believe that the concerns of the commenters are addressed in the *Quality of the project design* selection criterion (selection criterion 2). Selection criterion 2 provides that we will consider

(a)The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(b)the extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs; and

(c)the quality of the proposed project's procedures for documenting project activities and results. Additionally, the responsibility for evaluation of these projects rests with the national evaluation to be conducted by IES in cooperation with the States, not with the States themselves. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment toward achieving intended outcomes. *Discussion:* We believe that the concerns of the commenters are addressed in selection criteria 2(a) and 3(a). Selection criterion 2(a) provides that the Secretary will consider the extent to which the goals, objectives and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and address active participation in the program evaluation. Selection criterion 3(a) provides that we will consider the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Many commenters recommended that the Secretary consider the extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the State include multiple methods for collecting data on parent satisfaction from a broad representative sample throughout the State with respect to the waivers and the usefulness of the information and training they have received. *Discussion:* We believe that the evaluation of these projects is the responsibility of the national evaluation to be designed and conducted by IES in collaboration with the States. There is no requirement for the States to complete an impact evaluation of their projects independent of the national evaluation. *Changes:* None. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. We will invite applications through a separate notice in the **Federal Register** . Additional Requirements and Selection Criteria for Multi-Year IEP Program Additional Requirements The Secretary establishes the following additional requirements for the Multi-Year IEP Program: 1. The Secretary may deny a State approval to participate in this program if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of part B of the Act. 2. The Secretary may terminate any Multi-Year IEP Program project if the Secretary determines that the State

(a)needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and the State's participation in this program has contributed to or caused the need for assistance;

(b)needs intervention under 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or

(c)failed to appropriately implement its project. 3. States submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program must include the following material in their proposal:

(a)Assurances that the multi-year IEP for any child with a disability who takes an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards includes a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives in accordance with section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc) of the Act.

(b)Assurances that before an LEA requests a parent's voluntary informed written consent to the development of a multi-year IEP in lieu of an IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the LEA will inform the parent in writing (and in the native language of the parent, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so) of:

(i)Any differences between the requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal; and

(ii)The parent's right to revoke consent at any time during the implementation of the Multi-Year IEP Program and the LEA's responsibility to conduct, within 30 calendar days after revocation by the parent, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act.

(c)A description of how the State will meet the public participation requirements of section 612(a)(19) of the Act, including how the State:

(i)Involved multiple stakeholders, including parents, children with disabilities, special education and regular education teachers, related services providers, and school and district administrators, in the development of its proposal;

(ii)Provided an opportunity for public comment in developing its proposal. This description must include a summary of public comments received by the State as well as a description of how the proposal addresses those public comments; and

(iii)Obtained input from school and district personnel and parents in developing the list of required elements for each multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review and revision of each multi-year IEP.

(d)Assurances that the State will cooperate fully in a national evaluation of this program, if selected to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program. Cooperation includes devoting a minimum of four months between the State's award and subsequent implementation of this program to conduct joint planning with the evaluator. It also includes participation by the State educational agency

(SEA)in the following evaluation activities:

(i)Providing to the evaluator the list of required elements for the multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review and revision of the multi-year IEP submitted as part of the State's application for this program. Consistent with the privacy requirements of the Act and The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, ensuring that the evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created (if applicable) before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program and the multi-year IEP(s) created during the project for each participating child (multi-year IEP participants and matched participants who do not have a multi-year IEP), together with a general description of the process for completing both versions of the IEP.

(ii)Recruiting districts or schools to participate in the evaluation (as established in the evaluation design) and ensuring their continued cooperation with the evaluation. Providing a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and have agreed to implement the proposed Multi-Year IEP Program, allow data collection to occur, and cooperate fully with the evaluation. Providing, for each participating school or district, basic demographic information such as student enrollment, district wealth and ethnicity breakdowns, the number of children with disabilities by category, and the number or type of personnel, as requested by the evaluator.

(iii)Serving in an advisory capacity to assist the evaluator in identifying valid and reliable data sources and improving the design of data collection instruments and methods.

(iv)Providing to the evaluator an inventory of existing State-level data relevant to the evaluation questions or consistent with the identified data sources. Supplying requested State-level data in accordance with the timelines specified in the evaluation design.

(v)Providing assistance to the evaluator on the collection of data from parents, including obtaining written informed consent for parents to participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.

(vi)Designating a coordinator for the project who will monitor the implementation of the project and work with the evaluator. This coordinator also will serve as the primary point of contact for the Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP)project officer.

(e)A description of how the State will collect and report to the Department, as part of the State's annual performance report submission to the Secretary in accordance with section 616(b)(2)(c)(ii)(II) of the Act, and to the national evaluator, that children are not receiving appropriate services because of the State's implementation of Multi-Year IEP Program, and how the State responded to this information, including the outcome of that response such as providing technical assistance to the LEA to improve implementation, or suspending or terminating the authority of an LEA to implement multi-year IEPs due to unresolved compliance problems.

(f)A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure that diverse stakeholders (including parents, teachers, administrators, related services providers, and other stakeholders, as appropriate) understand the proposed elements of the State's submission for the Multi-Year IEP Program. 4. Each State receiving approval to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of not less than $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with the project officer and the evaluator. Each participating State will receive an additional incentive payment of not less than $15,000 annually from the contractor to support evaluation activities in the State. Incentive payments may also be provided to participating districts to offset the costs of their participation in the evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Total available funds will depend on the number of awards made. 5. States must describe how districts were selected and provide an assurance that districts are voluntarily participating along with a description of the circumstances under which district participation may be terminated. States participating in this program and the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program may not select the same LEAs to participate in both programs. 6. Proposals must be for projects not to exceed a period of four years. Note: The term “parent” as used in these requirements and selection criteria for the Multi-Year IEP Program has the same meaning given the term in section 300.30 of the final regulations implementing part B of the Act. Selection Criteria The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate State proposals submitted under this program. These particular criteria were selected because they address the statutory requirements and program requirements and permit applicants to propose a distinctive approach to addressing these requirements. Note: We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published in the **Federal Register** inviting States to submit applications for this program. 1. *Significance.* The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

(b)The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies.

(c)The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the project, especially improvements in teaching and student outcomes. 2. *Quality of the project design.* The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

(b)The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.

(c)The quality of the proposed project design and procedures for documenting project activities and results. 3. *Quality of the management plan.* The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

(b)How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate. Executive Order 12866 This notice of final additional requirements and selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. Although there may be costs associated with participating in this pilot, the Department will provide incentive payments to States to help offset these costs. In addition, we expect that States will weigh these costs against the benefits of being able to participate in the pilot and will only opt to participate in this pilot if the potential benefits exceed the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.326Q Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program) Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414. Dated: June 29, 2007. Jennifer Sheehy, Director of Policy and Planning for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E7-13146 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed Subsequent Arrangement AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement. SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada. This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 147,929 kg of Natural UF6 (67.6% U), containing 100,000 kg of Uranium. This material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Canada, to Urenco Deutschland GmbH, Germany for final use in a civilian nuclear power reactor program by Exelon Generation, Illinois, USA. The material originally was exported to Canada pursuant to NRC Export License Number XSOU-8798. Urenco GmbH is authorized to receive nuclear material pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation. In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security. This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice. Dated: June 28, 2007. For the Department of Energy. Anatoli Welihozkiy, Acting Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements. [FR Doc. E7-13111 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed Subsequent Arrangement AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement. SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada. This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 59,191.6 kg of Natural UF6 (67.6% U), containing 40,000 kg of Uranium. This material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Canada, to Urenco Ltd., Netherlands for final use in a civilian nuclear power reactor program by Constellation Energy Group, Maryland, USA. The material originally was exported to Canada pursuant to NRC Export License Number XSOU-8798. Urenco Ltd. is authorized to receive nuclear material pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation. In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security. This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice. Dated: June 28, 2007. For the Department of Energy. Anatoli Welihozkiy, Acting Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements. [FR Doc. E7-13112 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [6450-01-P] Office of Science; Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee; Renewal AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of renewal. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and in accordance with section 102-3.65, title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period beginning July 2007. The Committee will provide advice to the Director, Office of Science, on the Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program managed by the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The renewal of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Committee will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and rules and regulations issued in implementation of those Acts. Further information regarding this Advisory Committee may be obtained from Ms. Rachel Samuel at

(202)586-3279. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2007. James N. Solit, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13140 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science; DOE/Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 9 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. ADDRESSES: American Geophysical Union (AGU), 2000 Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009-1277. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melea Baker, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research; SC-21/Germantown Building; U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone

(301)903-7486, (E-mail: *Melea.Baker@science.doe.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Meeting:* The purpose of this meeting is to provide advice and guidance on the advanced scientific computing research program. *Tentative Agenda:* Agenda will include discussions of the following: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 Opening Remarks from the Committee Chair Federal Advisory Committee Act Basics View from Washington and Germantown ESnet Workshops Report Discussions on Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) Committee of Visitors

(COV)Report Discussion on Charge—Networking Report Discussion on Charge—Joint Panel with the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC) on Genomes to Life

(GTL)Role of High Productivity Computing

(HPC)in BER New Charge—Joint Panel with BERAC on Climate Modeling Presentation on Town Hall Meetings What's Going on in European and Asian Supercomputing Update on Incite Public Comment Wednesday, August 15, 2007 Update on High Productivity Computing System

(HPCS)Update on SciDAC New Charge—Assessing the Strategic Priorities and Balance of the ASCR Program The Future of Performance Engineering in HPC Improving R&D Integration in DOE Public Comment *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Melea Baker via Fax at

(301)903-4846 or via e-mail ( *Melea.Baker@science.doe.gov* ). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. *Minutes:* The ASCAC will prepare meeting minutes within 45 days of the meeting. The minutes will be posted on the ASCAC Web site at *http://www.sc.doe.gov/ascr/ASCAC/LastMeet* . Issued in Washington, DC on June 28, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13109 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY State Energy Advisory Board AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open teleconference correction. On June 27, 2007, the Department of Energy published a notice of open teleconference announcing a teleconference of the State Energy Advisory Board, 72 FR 35227. In that notice, the meeting was scheduled for July 19, 2007. Today's notice is announcing that the meeting date will be July 18, 2007. Issued in Washington, DC on July 2, 2007. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13141 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Fossil Energy; Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. This notice announces a meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Tuesday, July 24, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Crowne Plaza Houston North Greenspoint, 425 North Sam Houston Parkway, Houston, Texas 77060. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert or Bill Hochheiser, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 202-586-5600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Committee:* The purpose of the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee is to provide advice on development and implementation of programs related to ultra-deepwater natural gas and other petroleum resources to the Secretary of Energy; provide comments and recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Subtitle J, Section 999. Tentative Agenda 8:30 a.m.-9 a.m. Registration 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Welcome & Introductions, Opening Remarks by the Designated Federal Officer, Subcommittee presentations and reports 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Facilitated Discussions by the members regarding subcommittee reports; approval of final Committee recommendations 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Public Comments 5 p.m. Adjourn *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. The Designated Federal Officer, the Chairman of the Committee, and a Facilitator will lead the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena Melchert or Bill Hochheiser at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued at Washington, DC, on July 2, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13110 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Fossil Energy; Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. This notice announces a meeting of the Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Wednesday, July 25, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.; 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Crowne Plaza Houston North Greenspoint, 425 North Sam Houston Parkway, Houston, Texas 77060. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert or Bill Hochheiser, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 202-586-5600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Committee:* The purpose of the Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee is to provide advice on development and implementation of programs related to onshore unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources to the Secretary of Energy; and provide comments and recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Subtitle J, Section 999. *Tentative Agenda:* 8:30 a.m.-9 a.m.—Registration. 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.—Welcome & Introductions, Opening Remarks by the Designated Federal Officer, Subcommittee presentations and reports. 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m.—Facilitated Discussions by the members regarding subcommittee reports; approval of final Committee recommendations. 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m.—Public Comments. 5 p.m.—Adjourn. *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. The Designated Federal Officer, the Chairman of the Committee and a Facilitator will lead the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena Melchert or Bill Hochheiser at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued at Washington, DC, on July 2, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee, Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13139 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice—214] Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act; Lea Power Partners, LLC AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of filing. SUMMARY: On June 25, 2007, Lea Power Partners, LLC, as the owner and operator of a new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy

(DOE)pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. Section 201(d) of FUA requires DOE to publish a notice of receipt of the self-certification in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Copies of self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Room 8G-026, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell at

(202)586-9624. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), provides that no new base load electric powerplants may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA section 201(d), in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** reciting that the certification has been filed. The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61: *Owner:* Lea Power Partners, LLC. *Capacity:* 600 MW. *Plant Location:* Hobbs, New Mexico. *In-Service Date:* June, 2008. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2007. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E7-13105 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-OAR-2007-0093, FRL-8336-3] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Clean Air Act Tribal Authority, EPA ICR No. 1676.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0306 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on 12/31/2007. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2007-0093 identified by the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 202-566-9744. • *Mail:* Clean Air Act Tribal Authority, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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-OAR-2007-0093. 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* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darrel Harmon, Office of Air and Radiation, Immediate Office, (6101A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7416; fax number: 202-501-0394; e-mail address: *harmon.darrel@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2007-0093 established a public docket for each of the ICRs identified in this document which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Clean Air Act Tribal Authority Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Clean Air Act Tribal Authority Docket is 202-566-1742. Use *www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv)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, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2007-0093. *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are State, local or tribal governments. *Title:* Clean Air Act Tribal Authority. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1676.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0306. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on 12/31/2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This Information Collection Request

(ICR)seeks authorization for tribes to demonstrate their eligibility to be treated in the same manner as states under the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and to submit applications to implement a CAA program. This ICR extends the collection period of information for determining eligibility, which expires December 31, 2007. The ICR also is revising the estimates of burden costs for tribes in completing a CAA application. The program regulation provides for Indian tribes, if they so choose, to assume responsibility for the development and implementation of CAA programs. The regulation, Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management (Tribal Authority Rule [TAR] 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50 and 81), sets forth how tribes may seek authority to implement their own air quality planning and management programs. The rule establishes:

(1)Which CAA provisions Indian tribes may seek authority to implement,

(2)what requirements the tribes must meet when seeking such authorization, and

(3)what Federal financial assistance may be available to help tribes establish and manage their air quality programs. The TAR provides tribes the authority to administer air quality programs over all air resources, including non-Indian owned fee lands, within the exterior boundaries of a reservation and other areas over which the tribe can demonstrate jurisdiction. An Indian tribe that takes responsibility for a CAA program would essentially be treated in the same way as a state would be treated for that program. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 27. *Frequency of response:* one-time application. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 1. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 360. *Estimated total annual costs:* $18,838.80. This includes an estimated burden cost of $18,838.80 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is no decrease of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: June 28, 2007. Elizabeth Craig, Acting Assistant Administrator for Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-13113 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038; FRL-8136-9] Management Support Technology, Inc. and System Integration Group, Inc.; Transfer of Data AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information

(CBI)by the submitter, will be transferred to Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc. in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., have been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., to fulfill the obligations of the contract. DATES: Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc. will be given access to this information on or before July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-0786; e-mail address: *croom.felicia@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket.* EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. Contractor Requirements Under Contract No. EP-W-07-063, Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., will provide image production support for study documents. This support involves the conversion of paper source documents into digital images. Management Support Technology, Inc. will provide image production support for pesticide administrative documents (registration jackets) including application forms and other forms associated with pesticide registration applications, pesticide product labels. And correspondence associated with pesticide registrations. Provide document destruction services. The OPP has determined that access by Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc. to information on all pesticide chemicals may be necessary for the performance of this contract. Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the contract with Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc. prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the *FIFRA Information Security Manual* . In addition, Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., by EPA for use in connection with this contract will be returned to EPA when Management Support Technology, Inc. and its subcontractor, System Integration Group, Inc., have completed their work. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government contracts, Government property, Security measures. Dated: June 25, 2007. Robert A. Forrest, Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-13005 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6688-7] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements

(EISs)was published in the **Federal Register** dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156). Draft EISs EIS No. 20070089, ERP No. D-MMS-A09833-00, PROGRAMMATIC—Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, Implementation, Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and Alaska. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed action. Rating LO. EIS No. 20070131, ERP No. D-IBR-G39048-NM, Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, To Provide a Long-Term (Year 2040) Water Supply, Treatment and Transmission of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water to Navajo National and Jicarilla Apache Nation, City of Gallup, New Mexico. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed action. Rating LO. Final EISs EIS No. 20070157, ERP No. F-MMS-A02244-00, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Exploration and Development Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Counties of AL, AK, DE, FL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NC, TX, and VA. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20070195, ERP No. F-AFS-L65514-AK, Traitors Cove Timber Sale Project, Timber Harvest and Road Construction, Implementation, Revillagigedo Island, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, AK. *Summary:* EPA continues to have environmental concerns about potential cumulative water quality impacts. EIS No. 20070201, ERP No. F-FHW-H40188-00, US 59—Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge over the Missouri River, Construction from Atchison, Kansas to U.S. 59/State Route 45 Intersection, US Coast Guard Section 9 Permit and U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Atchison, KS and Buchanan County, MO. *Summary:* No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20070202, ERP No. F-AFS-L65497-ID, South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Program, Implementation, Krassel and McCall Ranger Districts, Payette National Forest and Cascade Ranger District, Valley and Idaho Counties, ID. *Summary:* EPA's previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20070232, ERP No. F-FHW-H50002-00, Bellevue Bridge Study, To Improve Connectivity between the Omaha Metropolitan Area and across the Missouri River from U.S. 75 to I-29, Coast Guard Permit, NPDES Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Mills County, IA and Sarp County, NE. *Summary:* EPA's previous issues have been resolved; therefore, EPA does not object to the action as proposed. Dated: July 2, 2007. Robert Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-13093 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6688-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information

(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/* . Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 06/25/2007 Through 06/29/2007 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20070265, Final EIS, AFS, CA* , Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project, Proposed Restoration of Forest Health and Ecosystem, Implementation, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Siskiyou County, CA, *Wait Period Ends:* 08/06/2007. *Contact:* Dennis Poehlmann 530-926-9656. This document is available on the Internet at: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects/smmu-projects.shtml* . *EIS No. 20070266, Draft EIS, SFW, 00* , Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 15 Year Guidance for Management of Refuge Operations, Habitat and Visitor Services, Implementation, Coos County, NH and Oxford County, ME. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/20/2007. *Contact:* Nancy McGarigal 413-253-8562. *EIS No. 20070267, Second Draft Supplement, COE, FL* , Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study, New Updated Information, Evaluation of Three New Alternatives on Operational Changes to the Current Water Control Plan, Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades Agricultural Area, Lake Okeechobee, Glades, Okeechobee Hendry, Palm Beach and Martin Counties, FL. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/20/2007. *Contact:* Yvonne L. Haberer 904-232-1701. *EIS No. 20070268, Final EIS, GSA, VT* , U.S. Commercial Port of Entry, Replacing existing Station at Route I-91, Design and Construction, Derby Line, Vermont. *Wait Period Ends:* 08/06/2007. *Contact:* Glenn C. Rotondo 617-565-5694. *EIS No. 20070269* , *Draft EIS, IBR, CA* , Lower Yuba River Accord, Proposal to Resolve Instream Flow Issues Associated with Operation, Yuba River, Yuba County, CA. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/24/2007. *Contact:* Tamara LaFramboise 916-978-5269. *EIS No. 20070270* , *Draft EIS, NRC, MD,* License Renewal of the National Bureau of Standards Reactor (NBSR), Renew the Operating License for an Addditional 20 Years, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NUREG-1873, Montgomery County, MD. *Comment Period Ends:* 09/05/2007. *Contact:* Dennis Beissel 301-415-2145. *EIS No. 20070271* , *Final EIS, AFS, WI,* Fishbone Project Area, Vegetation and Road Management, Implementation, Washburn Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Bayfield County, WI. *Wait Period Ends:* 08/06/2007. *Contact:* Jennifer Maziasz 715-373-2267 Ext 235. *EIS No. 20070272* , *Draft EIS, STB, UT,* Central Utah Rail Project, Six Counties Association of Governments, Construction and Operation Exemption Rail Line between Levan and Salina, Right-of-Way Application, Docket No. FD 34075, Sanpete, Sevier, Juab Counties, UT. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/22/2007. *Contact:* Phillis Johnson-Ball 202-245-0304. *EIS No. 20070273* , *Draft Supplement, MMS, 00,* Eastern Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)Oil and Gas Lease Sale 224, Gulf of Mexico Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Marshes/Counties of LA, MS, AL, and North Western Florida. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/20/2007. *Contact:* Dr. Sally Valdes 703-787-1707. *EIS No. 20070274* , *Draft EIS, COE, MD,* Atlantic Coast of Maryland Shoreline Protection Project, Proposed Dredging of Several New Offshore Shoals to Provide Sand for Borrow Sources from 2010 to 2044, Ocean City, Worcester County, MD. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/28/2007. *Contact:* Christopher Spaur 410-962-6134. *EIS No. 20070275* , *Draft EIS, FHW, CA,* Eureka-Arcata Route 101 Corridor Improvement Project, Proposed Roadway Improvements on Route 101 between the Eureka Slough Bridge and 11th St. Overcrossing in Arcata, Humbolt County, CA. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/24/2007. *Contact:* Lanh Phan 916-498-5046. *EIS No. 20070276* , *Draft Supplement, COE, MS,* Pascagoula Harbor Navigation Channel Project, To Construct Congressionally Authorized Widening and Deepening Improvements, To Update the FEIS-1985, Jackson County, MS. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/20/2007. *Contact:* Jenny L. Jackson 251-690-2724. *EIS No. 20070277* , *Draft EIS, CGD, AL,* Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal Deepwater Port License Application, Proposes to Construct and Operate a Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving and Regasification Facility, Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, South of Fort Morgan, AL. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/20/2007. *Contact:* Mary Jager 202-372-1454. *EIS No. 20070278* , *Draft EIS, FHW, CA,* Tier 1—Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation Project, Select and Preserve a Corridor for the Future Construction from CA-70/99 to CA 65, Placer and Sutter Counties, CA. *Comment Period Ends:* 08/20/2007. *Contact:* Cesar Perez 916-498-5065. *EIS No. 20070279* , *Final EIS, AFS, WA,* White Pass Expansion Master Development Plan, Implementation, Naches Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests and Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Yakima and Lewis Counties, WA. *Wait Period Ends:* 08/06/2007. *Contact:* Randy Shepard 509-653-1446. *EIS No. 20070280* , *Final EIS, USA, VA,* Fort Belvoir 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Recommendations and Related Army Actions, Implementation, Fairfax County, VA. *Wait Period Ends:* 08/06/2007. *Contact:* Bob Ross 703-602-2878. Dated: July 2, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-13095 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0402; FRL-8136-8] Bioban P-1487 Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability and Risk Reduction Options AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk assessments, and related documents for the pesticide Bioban P-1487, and opens a public comment period on these documents. The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for Bioban P-1487 through a modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0402, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0402. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Centra, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-2476; fax number:

(703)305-5620; e-mail address: *centra.michelle @epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessment and related documents for Bioban P-1487, an antimicrobial pesticide, and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or proposals. Bioban P-1487, a mixture of the two active ingredients morpholine and dimorpholine, is currently registered for indoor non-food and non-feed use as an antimicrobial agent (inhibition of microbial growth and materials preservative) for the control of slime-forming fungi and bacteria. EPA developed the risk assessment and risk characterization for Bioban P-1487 through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). For inhibition of microorganism growth, Bioban P-1487 containing products are approved for use in industrial processes and water systems such as metalworking fluids; oil storage tank bottom water, fuel storage tank bottom water; and diesel oil, fuel oil, gasoline, and kerosene (hydrocarbon preservation). Bioban P-1487 is also used as a materials preservative in die cast lubricants, corrosion inhibiting metal coatings, mold-release agents (manufacture of plastics), and diesel engines (fuel conditioner). EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessment for Bioban P-1487. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as an acute inhalation toxicity study, a 90-day inhalation toxicity study, a 90-day subchronic dermal toxicity study conducted in the rabbit, a two-generational reproductive toxicity study, a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study, acute toxicity testing of rainbow trout, acute toxicity testing of Daphnid, algal growth testing using freshwater green algae, application and/or treatment rates for occupational uses of metalworking fluids and fuels, and monitoring data to confirm the estimated (CMA and/or PHED) dermal and inhalation unit exposure values, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide. Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for Bioban P-1487. The risk of concern associated with the use of Bioban P-1487 is: Occupational handler (machinist) dermal exposure to metalworking fluids. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to Bioban P-1487, compared to the general population. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For Bioban P-1487, a modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its refined risk assessment, limited use, small number of users, few complex issues, and few affected stakeholders. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for Bioban P-1487. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review was completed by August 3, 2006. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: June 25, 2007. Betty Shackleford, Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-12738 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0364; FRL-8138-3] Glutaraldehyde Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability and Risk Reduction Options AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk assessment and related documents for the pesticide glutaraldehyde, and opens a public comment period on these documents. The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for Glutaraldehyde through a modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0364, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0364. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Centra, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-2476; fax number:

(703)305-5620; e-mail address: *centra.michelle@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessment and related documents for glutaraldehyde, an antimicrobial pesticide, and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or proposals. Glutaraldehyde is registered for use in disinfectant, sanitizer, biocide, fungicide, microbiocide, tuberculocide, and virucide antimicrobial products. EPA developed the risk assessment and risk characterization for glutaraldehyde through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). As an antimicrobial agent, glutaraldehyde is applied to various sites, including food handling and food storage establishments such as commercial egg hatcheries, poultry/livestock equipment and processing premises, animal feeding and watering equipment; commercial/industrial buildings and trucks, construction materials, and laundry equipment; oil recovery drilling muds and secondary oil recovery injection water; metalworking cutting fluids; commercial/industrial water cooling systems and evaporative condenser and heat exchanger water systems; hospital, veterinary and laboratory premises/ equipment in addition to critical hospital plastic and rubber items; industrial coatings; and in the manufacture of a variety of materials as a preservative: cleaners, adhesives, paper and paperboard, water based coatings, latex paints, inks and dyes. It is not registered for any direct food uses. Glutaraldehyde containing products are also approved for use in aquatic areas such as ponds, flood water and sewage water and cooling tower water. EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessment for glutaraldehyde. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as an aerobic soil metabolism study; nontarget plant phytotoxicity tests in four species; seedling emergence and vegetative vigor testing; monitoring data in soil; and water for once-through cooling tower use, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide. Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for glutaraldehyde. Risks of concern associated with the use of glutaraldehyde are: Residential handler inhalation and dermal exposures to paint and laundry detergent; residential postapplication inhalation exposures to paints and cooling tower emissions; occupational handler inhalation exposures to hard surface disinfection in medical, dental, and veterinary offices and poultry houses; occupational postapplication inhalation exposures to professional painters; and occupational postapplication dermal exposures to machinists using metal working fluids, and toxicity to terrestrial and aquatic organisms. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to glutaraldehyde, compared to the general population. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For glutaraldehyde, a modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its refined risk assessment. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for glutaraldehyde. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review was completed by August 3, 2006. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: June 27, 2007. Betty Shackleford, Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-12996 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0037; FRL-8135-7] Pesticide Registration Review; New Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the following pesticides: 1-Methyl-3, 5, 7-Triaza-1-Azoniatricyclodecane Chloride (Busan 1024), Case number 5026; and 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, Case number 5020. With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification

(ID)number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed in the table in Unit III.A. For the pesticides you are commenting on. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the pesticides included in this document, contact the specific Chemical Review Managers for these pesticides as identified in the table in Unit III.A. For general questions on the registration review program, contact Kennan Garvey, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-7106; fax number:

(703)308-8090; e-mail address: *garvey.kennan@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Authority EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review published in the **Federal Register** of August 9, 2006, and effective on October 10, 2006 (71 FR 45719) (FRL-8080-4). You may also access the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/August/Day-09/p12904.htm* . Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be periodically reviewed. The goal is a review of a pesticide's registration every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a), a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food. III. Registration Reviews A. What Action is the Agency Taking? As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is periodically reviewing pesticide registrations to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The implementing regulations establishing the procedures for registration review appear at 40 CFR part 155. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table. **Table—Registration Review Dockets Opening** Registration Review Case Name and Number Pesticide Docket ID Number Chemical Review Manager, Telephone Number, E-Mail Address 1-Methyl-3, 5, 7-Triaza-1-Azoniatricyclodecane Chloride (Busan 1024); Case 5026 EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0243 K. Avivah Jakob,

(703)305-1328, jakob.kathryn@epa.gov 2,4-Imidazolidinedione; Case 5020 EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0244 Diane Isbell,

(703)308-8154, isbell.diane@epa.gov B. Docket Content 1. *Review dockets* . The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information: • An overview of the registration review case status. • A list of current product registrations and registrants. • **Federal Register** notices regarding any pending registration actions. • **Federal Register** notices regarding current or pending tolerances. • Risk assessments. • Bibliographies concerning current registrations. • Summaries of incident data. • Any other pertinent data or information. Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome. 2. *Other related information* . More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm* . Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review* . 3. *Information submission requirements* . Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements: • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date. • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form. • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information. • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review. • As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, antimicrobials, Busan 1024, 2,4-Imidazolidinedione. Dated: June 26, 2007. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E7-12869 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231; FRL-8137-5] Metaldehyde; Amendment and Closure of Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's intention to modify certain provisions of the 2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for the pesticide metaldehyde. EPA is amending the metaldehyde RED in response to comments received during the public comment period on the RED and new information considered by the Agency after the RED was issued. The public comments submitted during the comment period have prompted the Agency to reconsider several risk mitigation measures discussed in the RED. This reconsideration has resulted in revisions to several elements of the risk mitigation program, including product labeling. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Bloom, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-8019; fax number:

(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *bloom.jill]@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. In 2006, EPA issued a RED for metaldehyde under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. In response to a notice of availability published in the **Federal Register** on August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45551) (FRL-8067-1), the Agency received comments from stakeholders, including a dog owner, registrants, government agencies, and users. The Agency reviewed these comments and additional information that became available after the RED was released, and determined that certain changes were warranted to the explanatory text and requirements of the RED. These changes are captured in the amendment to the metaldehyde RED, which includes the revised label table. These documents, and an analysis of the comments received during the public comment period on the RED, may be found on the public docket at *www.regulations.gov* (use the advanced search for docket “OPP-2005-0231”). Changes to the RED made in response to comments and additional information are summarized in this Notice. Several commenters thought that the precautionary labeling and storage restrictions required by the RED for end-use products were excessive in length and contained redundant phrases. The Agency has reexamined this labeling, and is revising it to be more concise. The phrase, “metaldehyde can be fatal to children and dogs...if ingested” and its variants in the precautionary statements are being revised in response to a comment that fatal poisonings of children have not been ascribed to metaldehyde. Because nonlethal incidents in children have been recorded, the subject phrase is revised to note that metaldehyde may be harmful to children if ingested. Also in reference to precautionary labeling, some commenters suggested that it is premature to require two poisoning hotline numbers, one each for incidents in humans and in domestic animals, or to designate that poisoning calls be routed to NPIC. The Agency has reexamined its requirements and agrees that its concerns can be addressed through the use of a standardized incident handling and data collection system, covering both human and domestic animal exposures, by entities that the registrants choose for their hotline service. Other changes to the precautionary statements were made in response to comments on the environmental hazard statements, as detailed in the amendment, and can be viewed from the docket. The Agency solicited ideas for a graphic warning to be placed on the front of residential end-use product labels. The purpose of the graphic is to draw attention to the need for keeping children and pets out of treated areas from the time the metaldehyde product is applied until the applied product is no longer visible. No comments were submitted offering alternatives to the graphic suggested by the RED, so the RED is now revised to require that the suggested graphic, i.e., a red circle with the words “Children” and “Pets” within the circle and with a red bar running diagonally through it, be incorporated onto the front of the label. The Agency received comments on key general application restrictions and repeating language in the Directions for Use portions of the labels. The Agency determined that some additional restrictions would be added, that the repetition was warranted, and that unusual restrictions must be offset from the surrounding text by the use of boldface or other contrasting type. The Agency also abbreviated the cultural practices language to be more concise. These changes are incorporated into the amended label table to the RED. One registrant requested that the number of applications allowed on blueberries be increased from two per season to three. During development of the original mitigation plan, the Agency consulted an expert in the field who advised that blueberry growers have a critical need for a third application in years of high rainfall and high pest pressure. The Agency's restriction to two applications per season was made in error and the number of applications is increased to three in the amended RED. Three aplications per season is a decrease from the assessed five per season. Based on comments from stakeholders and additional research findings obtained after the RED was released, the Agency has determined that the requirement for adding blue dye to metaldehyde pellets will be withdrawn. The comments and information led the Agency to conclude that the blue-dyed pellets would not with certainty reduce wildlife ingestion of metaldehyde formulations, and that the blue color might turn out to be attractive to children. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service commented that some use sites the Agency excluded from product labels (such as railroad rights-of-way) were essential to the Service's program for controlling invasive slug and snail species that threaten plant and human health. The Agency is allowing these use sites within a “Special Use Box” on the labels of products that have been used this way in the past or which may be used in this manner. The Special Use Box indicates that such applications must only be made in response to Federal and/or State mollusk eradication operations. The body of the RED is revised in several places to expand on EPA findings and correct errors based on comments submitted by the registrants. The comparison of costs for metaldehyde and alternatives is revised to address the differences in maximum vs. typical application rates. A passage describing the potential for exposures other than ingestion to cause death in domestic animals is corrected to note that while such exposures are possible, they are not known to be fatal. The metaldehyde RED will be implemented with the changes cited above, as detailed in the amendment and the revised label table posted on the public docket. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: June 26, 2007. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs [FR Doc. E7-12865 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0081; FRL-8136-3] Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for an Exemption from the Requirements of a Tolerance for Thymol (as Present in Thyme Oil) in or on Food Commodities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the exemption of regulations for residues of thymol (as present in thyme oil) in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0081 and the pesticide petition number

(PP)6F7147, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0081. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Heyward, Product Manager

(PM)34, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-6422; e-mail address: *heyward.adam@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is printing notice of the filing of a pesticide petition received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this notice contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this pesticide petition. Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* . New Exemption from Tolerance *PP 6F7147* . Sensible Life Products (Division of LBD, Ltd.), 34-7 Innovation Dr., Ontario, Canada L9H7H9, proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the antimicrobial, thymol (as present in thyme oil) in or on food commodities when used as a hard surface disinfectant. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 27, 2007. Betty Shackleford, Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-12995 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0432; FRL-8134-4] (E,E)-9,11-Tetradecadien-1-yl Acetate; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, and Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has received a quarantine exemption request from the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) to use the pesticide (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate (CAS No. 30562-09-5) to treat host plants to control the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. Due to the unique nature of this emergency situation, in which the time to review the conditions of this situation was short, it was not possible to issue a solicitation for public comment, in accordance with 40 CFR 166.24, prior to the Agency's decision to grant these exemptions. DATES: EPA is waiving the public comment period, as allowed in 40 CFR 166.24, due to the short period of time available with which to review this situation and render a timely decision. However, comments may still be submitted and will be evaluated. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0432, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0432. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-9367; fax number:

(703)605-0781; e-mail address: *ertman.andrew@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability of the provisions discussed above. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. II. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. USDA/APHIS has requested the Administrator to issue a quarantine exemption for the use of (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate on host plants to control the LBAM. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request. As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that requested chemical is needed as part of a quarantine program to eradicate the LBAM. The LBAM destroys, stunts, or deforms young seedlings, spoils the appearance of ornamental plants, and injures deciduous fruit-tree crops, citrus, and grapes. LBAM has the potential to cause significant economic losses due to increased production costs and the possible loss of international and domestic markets. The impact on production costs for LBAM hosts may exceed $100 million in the state of California. The Applicant proposes to place the pheromone dispensers in tree crops and field crops. Dispensers are to be applied uniformly throughout the treated acreage to obtain a reduction in mating. Between 200 to 300 dispensers should be used per acre. This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) which has not been registered by EPA. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. EPA is waiving the public comment period, as allowed in 40 CFR 166.24, due to the short period of time available with which to review this situation and render a timely decision. However, comments may still be submitted and will be evaluated. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: June 22, 2007. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-12872 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8336-6] Casmalia Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), the EPA is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative *de minimis* settlement concerning the Casmalia Superfund Site in Santa Barbara County, California (“the Casmalia Superfund Site”). Section 122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g), provides EPA with the authority to enter into administrative *de minimis* settlements. This settlement is intended to resolve the liabilities of 31 settling parties for the Casmalia Superfund Site under CERCLA and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6973. The settlement will also resolve the Casmalia Superfund Site-related liability for response costs incurred or to be incurred, and potential natural resource damage claims, by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Air Force. The settling parties will pay a total of $1,067,477 to EPA. DATES: EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement until August 10, 2007. The EPA will consider all comments it receives during this period, and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if any comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. In accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area. The deadline for requesting a public meeting is July 19, 2007. Requests for a public meeting may be made by calling Karen Goldberg at

(415)972-3951, or e-mailing her at *goldberg.karen@epa.gov* , or submitting a written request by facsimile addressed to her at

(415)947-3570. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Casmalia Case Team, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (mail code SFD-7-1), San Francisco, California 94105-3901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information about the Casmalia Superfund Site and about the proposed settlement may be obtained on the Casmalia Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/region09/Casmalia* or by calling Karen Goldberg at

(415)972-3951. List of Settling Parties PRP Volume (pounds) AK Steel Corporation, Successor by Merger to Armco, Inc 1,112,240 Bioresearch, Inc 25,366 Carlsbad Unified School District 682,892 City of San Jose 411,927 E.C. Loomis & Son 1,268,700 General Atomics 369,696 Goleta Water District 212,560 Guadalupe Union School District 55,140 Kevex Corporation 431 Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp 1,555,738 Paccar, Inc 511,100 Plessey Semiconductors, Inc 167,208 Redevelopment Agency of San Jose 78,200 Santa Palm Car Wash 777,886 Saticoy Lemon Association 278,898 Siemens Energy & Automation 158,722 Siemens Holding, LLC 76,021 Siemens Information & Communication Networks, Inc 34,979 Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., Oncology Care Systems Group 8,972 Sweetwater Union High School District 54,518 Technitron Incorporated 51,918 Tenneco Packaging, Inc. (n/k/a Pactiv Corporation) 166,718 Thermo Finnigan LLC, formerly Finnigan Corporation 10,907 Thermo Securities Corporation (as Successor to Cal-Doran Metallurgical Services) 64,206 Thermo Separation Product, Inc 1,514 U.S. Coast Guard 604,643 U.S. Department of Interior 18,420 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 871,758 United States Environmental Protection Agency 72,501 Dated: June 26, 2007. Keith Takata, Director, Superfund Division, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-13124 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket #EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0518; FRL-8336-4] Climan Transportation of the Carolinas, Inc. Truck Wreck Livingston, Rockcastle County, KY; Notice of Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of settlement. SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response concerning the Climan Transportation of the Carolinas, Inc. Truck Wreck located in Livingston, Rockcastle County, Kentucky. DATES: The Agency will consider public comments settlement until August 6, 2007. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0518 or Site name Climan Transportation of the Carolinas, Inc. Truck Wreck Superfund Site by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: Batchelor.Paula@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 404/562-8842/Attn Paula V. Batchelor. *Mail:* Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA Region 4, SD-SEIMB, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. “In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.” *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-2007-0518. 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* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Batchelor at 404/562-8887. Dated: June 20, 2007. Greg Armstrong, Acting Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E7-13114 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Status: This meeting will be closed to the public. Items To Be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. Date and Time: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Status: This hearing will be open to the public. Matter Before the Commission: Hybrid Communications. Date and Time: Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor). Status: This meeting will be open to the public. Items To Be Discussed: Correction and Approval of Minutes. Advisory Opinion 2007-08: Michael King by counsel, Marc Elias and Caroline Goodson. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Use of Campaign Funds for Donations to Non-Federal Candidates and Any Other Lawful Purpose Other Than Personal Use. Report of the Audit Division on Ted Poe for Congress. Management and Administrative Matters. Person To Contact for Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:

(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-3313 Filed 7-3-07; 12:27 pm]

Notices. Notice