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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-13 · Environmental Protection Agency · Notices

Notices. Notice

19,955 words·~91 min read·/register/2007/07/13/07-3433

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

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0529 FRL-8439-4] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's ENERGY STAR® Product Labeling; EPA ICR No. 2078.02, OMB Control No. 2060-0528 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 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 December 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 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0529 by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 202-566-9744. • *Mail:* Air and Radiation Docket Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. *Hand Delivery:* 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, 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-HQ-OAR-2007-0529. 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: Ann Bailey, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Mailcode 6202J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9023; fax number: 202-343-2200, e-mail address: *bailey.ann@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-HQ-OAR-2007-0529, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation 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 Air and Radiation 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-HQ-OAR-2007-0529. *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are product manufacturers which are Partners in EPA's ENERGY STAR program. *Title:* Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's ENERGY STAR® Product Labeling. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 2078.02, OMB Control No. 2060-0528. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December 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:* ENERGY STAR is a voluntary program developed in collaboration with industry to create a self-sustaining market for energy efficient products. The center piece of the program is the ENERGY STAR label, a registered certification label that helps consumers identify products that save energy, save money, and help protect the environment without sacrificing quality or performance. In order to protect the integrity of the label and enhance its effectiveness in the marketplace, EPA must ensure that products carrying the label meet appropriate program requirements. Since ENERGY STAR is a self-certification program, it is important that program participants submit signed Partnership Agreements indicating that they will adhere to logo-use guidelines and that participating products meet specified energy performance criteria based on a standard test method. As part of our contribution to the overall success of the program, EPA has agreed to facilitate the sale of qualifying products by providing consumers with easy-to-use information about the products. To be effective, EPA must receive qualifying product information from participating manufacturers. Partners are requested to submit updates to qualifying information on an annual basis, at minimum, so as to ensure that EPA information is recent and accurate. The information will be compiled into a complete qualifying products list per product category, posted on the ENERGY STAR Web site, and supplied to those purchasers who request it via phone, fax, or e-mail. In addition, because of the nature of these products, manufacturers of roof products and residential light fixtures are requested to submit testing reports in order to verify qualification. In order to monitor progress and support the best allocation of resources, EPA also asks manufacturers to submit annual shipment data for their ENERGY STAR qualifying products. EPA is flexible as to the methods by which manufacturers may submit unit shipment data. For example, if manufacturers already submit this type of information to a third party, such as a trade association, they are given the option of arranging for shipment data to be sent to EPA via this third party to avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure confidentiality. In using any shipment data received directly from a partner, EPA will mask the source of the data so as to protect confidentiality. Finally, Partners that wish to receive recognition for their efforts in ENERGY STAR may submit an application for the Partner of the Year Award. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 89.33 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 estimated total cost for respondents is $7,056,533 and the hourly burden is approximately 89,150 hours. This cost includes an estimated burden cost of $6,817,702 and an estimated cost of $238,831 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. The estimated total cost for the Agency is $468,724 and the hourly burden is approximately 11,932 hours. This cost includes an estimated burden cost of $467,508 and an estimated cost of $1,216 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. A grand total of $7,525,257 and an hourly burden of approximately 101,082 hours are expected for all information collection activities under ENERGY STAR product labeling. EPA collects initial information in the Partnership Agreement (PA), which is completed and submitted by every Partner participating in ENERGY STAR. One overarching PA has been developed by EPA for ENERGY STAR product labeling. It is expected that 292 new Partners will join each year for the three years of this ICR. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with completing the PA for each respondent is estimated to be 4.20 hours. This estimate includes time for reviewing the instructions on the PA, completing and reviewing the information requested by the PA, and submitting the PA. Every manufacturing Partner is required to submit information on each of their qualifying products. Annual updates, at minimum, notifying EPA of any changes in qualifying product information, are required as well. Thirty-three different product categories are covered by EPA under ENERGY STAR. Each product category has specific qualifying product information that must be submitted by each Partner for at least one qualifying product. Qualifying product information is expected for 9,986 new qualifying products each year for the three years of this ICR. The qualifying product list for each product category is updated by the Agency once each month, for a total of 396 times annually (32 qualifying product lists multiplied by 12 months in a year). Approximately twice each month the Agency receives a request for qualifying product information that cannot be fulfilled by the ENERGY STAR Web site, for a total of 792 requests. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with completing qualifying product information for each qualifying product submitted by a respondent is estimated to be 4.85 hours. This estimate includes time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the information requested, and submitting the information. ENERGY STAR Partners for residential light fixtures and roof products are required to submit testing reports for each product determined to be ENERGY STAR qualified. It is anticipated that qualifying product information for 4,464 new roof and residential light fixture products will be received by EPA each year for the three years of this ICR. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with testing reports by roof product and residential light fixture Partners for each qualifying product submitted by a respondent is estimated to be 14.30 hours. This estimate includes performing testing in-house or by a Third Party, assembling the data into a report format, reviewing it, and submitting it. Each year, ENERGY STAR Partners are required to submit unit shipment data for their ENERGY STAR qualified products. There will be an average of 692 total Partners each year for the three years of this ICR. Therefore, 692 reports of unit shipment data are expected each year for the three years of this ICR. Unit shipment data will be aggregated for each of the 33 product categories covered by EPA under ENERGY STAR. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with unit shipment data for each respondent is estimated to be 6.69 hours. This estimate includes reviewing instructions, gathering unit shipment data, compiling and reviewing it by category, and submitting it. Partners interested in receiving recognition for their efforts on ENERGY STAR are required to submit a Partner of the Year application. One set of Partner of the Year award criteria are developed by the Agency each year and posted on the ENERGY STAR Web site. An average of 17 award applications are expected each year for the three years of this ICR. The reporting burden for information collection requirements associated with the Partner of the Year application for each respondent is estimated to be 59.29 hours. This estimate includes reviewing instructions on the application, gathering data and information for submission, completing the application, reviewing the information and narrative description required, and submitting the application to EPA. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval? There is an increase of approximately 18,483 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. Although the estimated burden hours for each individual collection activity decreased, the overall increase in burden hours reflects the increased number of roof products and residential light fixture Partners that are required to submit testing reports along with qualifying product information. The currently approved ICR estimated 654 respondents, whereas this ICR estimates 4,464 respondents for this activity. This change is an adjustment. 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 29, 2007. Kathleen Hogan, Director, Climate Protection Partnerships Division. [FR Doc. E7-13623 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6688-9] 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. 20070176, ERP No. D-AFS-L65535-ID, Spruce Creek Project, Proposed Timber Harvest, Temporary Road Construction, Thinning of Sub-Merchantable Trees, Enhancement of Asper and Whitebark Pine, Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest, Valley County, ID. *Summary:* EPA commends the Forest Service for meeting the non-point source TMDL requirements in the project area. However, EPA has environmental concerns about potential impacts to Riparian Conservation Areas from timber management activities. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070188, ERP No. D-FHW-C40170-NY, Fort Drum Connector Route Project, Proposed Link between I-81 and U.S. Route 11 at the Fort Drum North Gate, Town of Le Ray and Pamelia, Jefferson County, NY. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concern about wetland impacts, and requested additional information about mitigation measures. Rating EC2. Final EISs EIS No. 20070214, ERP No. F-FRC-G02015-00, East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project, Construction and Operation of 243.3 miles Natural Gas Pipeline to Transport Natural Gas from Production Fields in eastern Texas to Markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern and Southeastern United States. *Summary:* No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20070217, ERP No. F-CDB-C80016-NY, East River Waterfront Esplanade and Piers Project, Revitalization, Connecting Whitehall Ferry Terminal and Peter Minuit Plaza to East River Park, Funding, New York, NY. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed project. EIS No. 20070224, ERP No. F-BLM-K65319-CA, Sierra Resource Management Plan, Provide Direction for Managing Public Lands, Several Counties, CA. *Summary:* EPA continues to express environmental concern about impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat, and to public health from exposure to naturally occurring asbestos. EIS No. 20070250, ERP No. F-NPS-D65037-PA, Flight 93 National Memorial, Designation of Crash Site to Commemorate the Passengers and Crew of Flight 93, Implementation, Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, PA. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed action. Dated: July 10, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-13659 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6688-8] Environmental Impacts 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 07/02/2007 through 07/06/2007 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20070281, Draft EIS, AFS, WV,* Lower Williams Project Area (LWPA), Proposed to Perform Vegetation Management and Wildlife Habitat Improvements, Implementation, Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela National Forest, Webster County, WV, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2007, Contact: O'Dell Tucker 304-799-4334 Ext 19. *EIS No. 20070282, Draft EIS, AFS, 00,* Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (MIS), Proposes to Adopt a Common List of Management Indicator Species (MIS), and Amending Land & Resource Management Plans for Following Ten Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus and Tahoe National Forests and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Several Counties, CA and Douglas, Esmeralda, Mineral Counties, NV, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2007, Contact: Diana Craig 707-562-8737. *EIS No. 20070283, Final EIS, AFS, OR,* Five Buttes Project, Conduct Vegetation Management Activities, Implementation, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes County, OR, Wait Period Ends: 08/13/2007, Contact: Marcy Boehme 541-433-3200. *EIS No. 20070284, Draft Supplement, DOE, CA,* Sacramento Area Voltage Support Project, Updated Information, Proposal to Build a Double-Circuit 230-kV Transmission Line, Placer, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2007, Contact: Catherine Cunningham 720-962-7000. *EIS No. 20070285, Draft EIS, COE, CA,* Berth 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project, Upgrade Existing Wharf Facilities, Install a Buffer Area between the Terminal and Community, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permit, West Basin Portion of the Port of Los Angeles, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2007, Contact: Dr. Spence D. MacNeil 805-585-2152. *EIS No. 20070286, Draft EIS, BLM, WY,* Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Lincoln, Sweetwater and Uinta Counties, WY, Comment Period Ends: 10/11/2007 Contact: Michele Easley 307-828-4524. *EIS No. 20070287, Final EIS, USA, MD,* Garrison Aberdeen Proving Ground, Base Realignment and Closure Actions, Realignment of Assets and Staff, Implementation, Harford and Baltimore Counties, MD, Wait Period Ends: 08/13/2007, Contact: Bob Ross 703-602-2878. *EIS No. 20070288, Second Draft Supplement, NOA, 00,* Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, Amendment 14 to the fishery Management Plan, Additional Information to Analyze a Range of Management Alternatives to End Bottomfish Overfishing in the Hawaiian Archipelago, HI, GU and AS, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2007, Contact: William L. Robinson 808-973-2941. *EIS No. 20070289, Draft EIS, SFW, AZ,* Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs Project, To Store and Release Water, Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit for Operation, Located Northeast of Phoenix, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, AZ, Comment Period Ends: 09/18/2007, Contact: Debra Bills 602-242-0210. *EIS No. 20070290, Final EIS, RUS, MO,* Norborne Baseload Power Plant, Proposed Construction and Operation of a 660-megawatt Net Coal-Fired Power Plant, Carroll County, MO, Wait Period Ends: 08/13/2007, Contact: Stephanie Strength 202-720-0468. *EIS No. 20070291, Draft EIS, APH, 00,* PROGRAMMATIC—Introduction of Genetically Engineered
(GE)Organisms, To Address Current and Future Technological Trends Resulting GE Plants, Implementation, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2007, Contact: Michael J. Wach 301-734-0485. *EIS No. 20070292, Final EIS, COE, CA,* San Luis Rey Flood Control Project, Operation and Maintenance of the Vegetation and Sediment Management, from College Blvd to the Pacific Ocean, San Diego County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 08/13/2007, Contact: Tiffany Kayama 213-452-3845. *EIS No. 20070293, Final EIS, SFW, 00,* Light Goose Management Plan, Reducing and Stabilitizing Specific Populations “Light Geese” in North America, Implementation, Wait Period Ends: 08/13/2007, Contact: James R. Kelley 612-713-5409. *EIS No. 20070294, Final EIS, APH, 00,* ADOPTION—Resident Canada Goose Management Plan, Evaluate Alternatives Strategies to Reduce, Manage, and Resident Canada Goose Population, Implementation, within the Conteriminous U.S., Contact: David Reinhold 301-734-7921. U.S. DOA, APH has adopted the U.S. DOI/SFW Final EIS 20050479 filed 11/09/2005. APH was a cooperating agency on the project. Recirculation of the document is not necessary under 1506.3(b) of the CEQ Regulations. Amended Notices *EIS No. 20070119, Draft EIS, NOA, AK,* PROGRAMMATIC—Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Seismic Survey, AK, Comment Period Ends: 07/30/2007, Contact: William T. Hogarth 301-713-1632. Revision of FR Notice Published 05/18/2007; Review Period extended to 07/30/2007. *EIS No. 20070185, Draft EIS, FHW, GA,* Northwest I-75/I-575 Corridor Project, Transportation Improvements, Funding, Cobb and Cherokee Counties, GA, Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2007, Contact: Wayne Fedora 404-562-3651. Revision of FR Notice Published on 05/18/2007; Review Period extended to 08/13/2007. Dated: July 10, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-13670 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0493; FRL-8138-4] Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; Assay Peer Review Process AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the approach EPA intends to take for conducting peer reviews of the Tier 1 screening assays and Tier 2 testing assays that are being validated by the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), as well as EPA's approach for conducting the peer review of the Tier 1 battery. EPA is also announcing the availability of a listserver (Listserv) that will allow interested parties to sign up to receive e-mail notifications of EDSP peer review updates, including information on the availability of peer review materials to be posted on the EDSP website. These materials may include the documents to be peer reviewed, background documents, the charge to the peer reviewers, and reports that summarize the results of peer reviews. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Phillips, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-1264; e-mail address: *phillips.linda@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you produce, manufacture, use, consume, work with, or import commercial or pesticide chemicals. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine section 408(p) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(p). Potentially affected entities, using the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities, may include, but are not limited to: • Chemical Manufacturers, Importers and Processors (NAICS code 325), e.g., entities who manufacture, import or process chemical substances. • Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 3253), e.g., entities who manufacture, import or process pesticide, fertilizer and agricultural chemicals. • Scientific Research and Development Services (NAICS code 5417), e.g., persons who conduct testing of chemical substances for endocrine affects. 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. 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* . Materials cited in this notice are available in docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0493. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 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., Confidential Business Information
(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 electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. 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. Introduction A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is announcing its approach for conducting peer reviews of Tier 1 screening assays and Tier 2 testing assays that are being validated by the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), as well as its approach for conducting the peer review of the Tier 1 battery. EPA is also announcing the availability of a listserver (Listserv). To subscribe to the EDSP Listserv send a blank e-mail message to: *join-edsp@lists.epa.gov* from the location at which you normally send or receive mail. For more information on the listserv, go to *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo* . Using the Listserv, interested parties may sign up to receive e-mail notifications of EDSP peer review updates, including information on the availability of peer review materials to be posted at the EDSP website. These materials may include the documents to be peer reviewed, background documents, the charge to the peer reviewers, and reports that summarize the results of peer reviews. EPA is not at this time soliciting public comment on the individual Tier 1 assays. Rather, EPA will solicit comments on the Tier 1 battery once the individual peer reviews have been completed as discussed in Unit IV.D. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 408(p) of FFDCA requires EPA “to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as [EPA] may designate.” (FFDCA 21 U.S.C. 346a(p)). These test systems are being validated under EPA's EDSP. EPA's validation process includes peer review as its final step. III. Background EPA initially set forth the EDSP in the August 11, 1998, **Federal Register** notice (63 FR 42852) (FRL-6021-3) and solicited public comment on the program in the December 28, 1998, **Federal Register** notice (63 FR 71541) (FRL-6052-9). The program set forth in these notices was based on the recommendations of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), which was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 9(c). The EDSTAC was comprised of members representing the commercial chemical and pesticides industries, Federal and State agencies, worker protection and labor organizations, environmental and public health groups, and research scientists. EDSTAC recommended that EPA's program address both potential human and ecological effects; examine effects on estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone-related processes; and include non-pesticide chemicals, contaminants, and mixtures in addition to pesticides (Ref. 1). Based on these recommendations, EPA developed a two tiered approach, referred to as the EDSP. The purpose of Tier 1 is to identify substances that have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems using a battery of relatively short-term screening assays. The purpose of Tier 2 is to identify and establish a dose-response relationship for any adverse effects that might result from the interactions identified through the Tier 1 assays. The Tier 2 tests are multi-generational assays that will provide the Agency with more definitive testing data. EDSTAC also recommended that EPA establish a priority-setting approach for choosing chemicals to undergo Tier 1 screening. EPA currently is implementing its EDSP in three major parts that are being developed in parallel and with substantial work on each well underway. This document deals only with the peer review component of the validation process (item 3 in the following discussion). EPA is addressing the other aspects of the EDSP in separate documents published in the **Federal Register** . The three parts are briefly summarized as follows: 1. *Priority setting* . EPA is prioritizing chemicals to undergo screening in the battery of Tier 1 assays. EPA described its priority setting approach for the first 50-100 chemicals to be tested in the **Federal Register** of September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56449) (FRL-7716-9). The draft initial list of chemicals to undergo Tier 1 screening was published in the **Federal Register** for public review on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 33486) (FRL-8129-3). The Agency expects to finalize this initial list of chemicals before screening is implemented in 2008. More information on EPA's priority setting approach for the EDSP is available at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/prioritysetting* . 2. *Procedures* . EPA intends to commence Tier 1 screening of the first group of pesticide chemicals by issuing test orders under FFDCA section 408(p) to chemical companies identified as the manufacturer or processor of the identified chemicals, including the pesticide registrant. EPA is developing a draft implementation policy that will describe the procedures that EPA will use to issue orders, the procedures that order recipients would use to respond to the order, how data protection and compensation will be addressed in the test orders, and other related procedures or policies. In addition, EPA is developing a draft template for the test order and a draft information collection request
(ICR)to obtain the necessary clearances under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Agency expects to seek public comment on the draft implementation policy and related documents in late summer 2007, and after considering those comments, EPA expects to finalize the policy by the end of 2007. 3. *Assay validation* . EPA is validating assays that are candidates for inclusion in the Tier 1 screening battery, selecting the appropriate screening assays for the screening battery based on the validation data, and developing and validating Tier 2 tests. Validation is defined as the process by which the reliability and relevance of test methods are evaluated for a specific use (Ref. 2). EPA has implemented the validation process in several phases (Ref. 3), including the following: • Preparation of detailed review papers
(DRPs)that involve a search of the relevant scientific literature and development of a document that discusses the scientific basis of each assay and critically evaluates candidate protocols. • Conduct of pre-validation studies that demonstrate and optimize the assay, with the end result being a standardized protocol for use in the multi-laboratory validation phase. • Conduct of validation studies in multiple laboratories. The purpose of this phase is to demonstrate the transferability of the protocol, measure lab-to-lab variability, and help establish final performance characteristics for the assay. • Peer review of the data to determine strengths and weaknesses of the assays. Peer review is the critical evaluation of scientific and technical work products by independent experts. Its purpose is to improve the quality, credibility, and acceptability of regulatory decisions. According to EPA's Peer Review Handbook (Ref. 4), peer review is an important component of the scientific process. It provides a focused, objective evaluation of a research proposal, publication, risk assessment, health advisory, guidance or other document submitted for review. The criticisms, suggestions and new ideas provided by the peer reviewers ensure objectivity, stimulate creative thought, strengthen the reviewed document and confer scientific credibility on the product. Comprehensive, objective peer review leads to good science and product acceptance within the scientific community. EPA plans to peer review the following EDSP work products: Tier 1 Assays Tier 1 Assay Battery Tier 2 Assays Adult Male Androgen Receptor Binding Aromatase Estrogen Receptor Binding Female Pubertal Fish Screen Frog Metamorphosis Hershberger 1 Male Pubertal Steroidogenesis H295R Uterotrophic 2 Battery To be Determined Amphibian Growth and Reproduction Two-generation Avian Two-generation Fish Two-generation Mysid 1 The Hershberger assay has been peer reviewed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). EPA will not conduct a separate peer review of this assay. 2 The Uterotrophic assay has been peer reviewed by OECD. EPA will not conduct a separate peer review of this assay. The primary product to be peer reviewed for each assay will be an Integrated Summary Report
(ISR)that summarizes and synthesizes the information compiled from the validation process (i.e., DRPs, pre-validation studies, and inter-lab validation studies, with a major focus on inter-laboratory validation results). IV. Peer Review Process The approaches that EPA intends to use for conducting peer reviews of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 assays, and the Tier 1 battery are described in the following sections. A. Tier 1 Assays The mechanism that will be used to peer review Tier 1 Assays will be an external letter review organized under an EPA peer review contract. The procedures used for peer review of the Tier 1 assays will be in accordance with EPA's Peer Review Handbook (Ref. 4). For each assay, the contractor will compile a list of qualified peer review candidates who are independent of those who performed the work or who have been involved in the development or refinement of the protocol, including those who have provided EPA with expert advice throughout the validation process. The potential peer reviewers will be identified from among academia, government, and the private sector, based on their subject matter expertise, availability, and lack of conflict of interest or past involvement in the project. From this pool of candidate reviewers, the contractor will establish a balanced peer review panel consisting of 3 to 10 peer reviewers. EPA will be notified of the identity of the peer reviewers, but will not have contact with them before or during the peer review process to ensure that an independent review is performed. The contractor will provide the reviewers with the ISR for the assay to be reviewed and any supporting documentation that is needed for the peer review, along with a list of charge questions that will be developed by EPA. The ISR will summarize and synthesize the information compiled from the validation process (i.e., DRPs, pre-validation studies, and inter-lab validation studies), with a major focus on inter-laboratory validation results. The charge to the reviewers will be designed to address the following types of issues: 1. Clarity of the stated purpose of the assay. 2. Clarity, comprehensiveness, and consistency of the data interpretation with the stated purpose of the assay. 3. Biological and toxicological relevance of the assay as related to its stated purpose. 4. Clarity and conciseness of the protocol in describing the methodology of the assay such that the laboratory can: a. Comprehend the objective; b. Conduct the assay; c. Observe and measure prescribed endpoints; d. Compile and prepare data for statistical analyses; and e. Report the results. 5. Strengths and/or limitations of the assay. 6. Impacts of the choice of: a. Test substances, b. Analytical methods, and c. Statistical methods in terms of demonstrating the performance of the assay. 7. Repeatability and reproducibility of the results obtained with the assay, considering the variability inherent in biological and chemical test methods. The panel will review and comment on the assay, and the contractor will compile the peer review record. The peer review record will include the peer review document and all supporting materials given to the peer reviewers; the instructions/charge to the peer reviewers; all comments, information, and materials received from the peer reviewers; and names, affiliations, qualifications of the peer review panel members. EPA will use the peer review record to make a final determination as to a Tier 1 assay's suitability for use in the screening program, and finalize the assay for consideration for inclusion in the Tier 1 battery. EPA plans to begin peer reviewing Tier 1 assays by mid-2007. This schedule is dependent upon the successful completion of studies that are currently underway. B. Tier 1 Battery As recommended by the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA's EDSP testing strategy will consist of a battery of Tier I assays. The battery is expected to be comprised of screening assays that, when used in combination, will identify substances that have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone systems. Prior to initiating testing, EPA intends to propose a battery of Tier 1 screening assays. The battery will be peer reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP)established under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The FIFRA SAP is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to EPA on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the FACA. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. In addition, FIFRA, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency. More information about the FIFRA SAP is available at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap* . The proposed battery along with the materials supporting its composition will be provided to a panel of approximately 15 to 20 SAP reviewers. Some of the panel members may be individuals who participated in review of one or more Tier 1 assays, and some individuals will be new to the EDSP peer review process. Use of some of the same reviewers for both the Tier 1 assays and the Tier 1 battery is intended to ensure that individuals familiar with the individual assays are represented when the battery is discussed. This should not present a conflict of interest because the context of the review and the questions being asked of the battery reviewers will differ from what is asked of the reviewers for the individual Tier 1 assays (e.g., questions posed to the SAP reviewers would pertain to whether the proposed battery adequately covers the endpoints of interest for estrogen, androgen, and thyroid while questions posed to the Tier 1 assay reviewers would focus on the strengths and weaknesses of individual assays. C. Tier 2 Assays The peer review strategy for the Tier 2 assays will follow a pattern similar to that used for Tier 1 battery. These assays will be peer reviewed by the FIFRA SAP. D. Public Comment The formal peer review process described above is intended to ensure a systematic and unbiased review of the scientific basis for including an assay in the EDSP. Although the Agency recognizes that other qualified scientists may also wish to offer opinions to the Agency on the merits of the assays, EPA is not soliciting public comments during the period in which the individual Tier 1 assays are being peer reviewed. Instead, the Agency will accept comments on the overall Tier 1 battery from the public when the composition of the Tier 1 battery is being peer reviewed by the SAP. A separate **Federal Register** notice will announce the SAP review of the Tier 1 battery and provide information on opportunities for public comment. V. Listserv The EDSP has created a listserver (Listserv) or “mailing group.” A Listserv is an electronic mailing list that makes it possible to reach all individuals in a mailing group with a single e-mail message sent over the Internet. By adding your name to the EDSP Listserv, you will periodically receive an e-mail announcing the availability of materials on the EDSP website and other timely information. To subscribe to the EDSP Listserv send a blank e-mail message to: *join-edsp@lists.epa.gov* from the location at which you normally send or receive mail. VI. References The following is a list of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. These references are available in the docket as identified under ADDRESSES . 1. U.S. EPA. Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee Final Report. August 1998. Available at: *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/edspoverview/finalrpt.htm.* 2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods, A Report of the ad hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods. Research Triangle Park, NC. NIH Report 97-3981. March 1997. 3. U.S. EPA. Validation of Screening and Testing Assays Proposed for the EDSP, Draft Version 5.3. October 23, 2006. Available at: *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2007/february/edsp-validation-paper.pdf* . 4. U.S. EPA. Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review, 3rd Edition. Office of Science Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/100/B-06/002. Available at: *http://www.nheerl.epa.gov/nheerl_science/peer/about_peer/files/3rd_Edition_PR_Handbook.pdf* . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Endocrine disruptors, Pesticides. Dated: July 2, 2007. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E7-13672 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket Nos. EPA-R04-SFUND-2007-0542; FRL-8439-3] Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site, Plymouth, Washington County, NC; Notice of Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of settlement. SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h) 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 Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Site located in Plymouth, Washington County, North Carolina. DATES: The Agency will consider public comments settlement until August 13, 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-R04-SFUND-2007-0542 or Site name Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Superfund Site by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online 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-2007-0452. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online 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 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 22, 2007. Rosalind H. Brown, Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch,Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E7-13628 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD [No. 2007-N-10] Federal Home Loan Bank Members Selected for Community Support Review AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is announcing the Federal Home Loan Bank
(Bank)members it has selected for the 2006-07 sixth quarter review cycle under the Finance Board's community support requirements regulation. This notice also prescribes the deadline by which Bank members selected for review must submit Community Support Statements to the Finance Board. DATES: Bank members selected for the review cycle under the Finance Board's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to the Finance Board on or before August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Bank members selected for the 2006-07 sixth quarter review cycle under the Finance Board's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to the Finance Board either by regular mail at the Federal Housing Finance Board, Office of Supervision, Community Investment and Affordable Housing, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, or by electronic mail at *FITZGERALDE@FHFB.GOV.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emma J. Fitzgerald, Program Analyst, Office of Supervision, Community Investment and Affordable Housing, by telephone at 202/408-2874, by electronic mail at *FITZGERALDE@FHFB.GOV,* or by regular mail at the Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Selection for Community Support Review Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires the Finance Board to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1). The regulations promulgated by the Finance Board must take into account factors such as the Bank member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), 12 U.S.C. 2901 *et seq.* , and record of lending to first-time homebuyers. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(2). Pursuant to section 10(g) of the Bank Act, the Finance Board has promulgated a community support requirements regulation that establishes standards a Bank member must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances, and review criteria the Finance Board must apply in evaluating a member's community support performance. See 12 CFR part 944. The regulation includes standards and criteria for the two statutory factors—CRA performance and record of lending to first-time homebuyers. 12 CFR 944.3. Only members subject to the CRA must meet the CRA standard. 12 CFR 944.3(b). All members, including those not subject to CRA, must meet the first-time homebuyer standard. 12 CFR 944.3(c). Under the rule, the Finance Board selects approximately one-eighth of the members in each Bank district for community support review each calendar quarter. 12 CFR 944.2(a). The Finance Board will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. Selection for review is not, nor should it be construed as, any indication of either the financial condition or the community support performance of the member. Each Bank member selected for review must complete a Community Support Statement and submit it to the Finance Board by the August 31, 2007 deadline prescribed in this notice. 12 CFR 944.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c). On or before July 27, 2007, each Bank will notify the members in its district that have been selected for the 2006-07 sixth quarter community support review cycle that they must complete and submit to the Finance Board by the deadline a Community Support Statement. 12 CFR 944.2(b)(2)(i). The member's Bank will provide a blank Community Support Statement Form, which also is available on the Finance Board's Web site: *http://www.fhfb.gov.* Upon request, the member's Bank also will provide assistance in completing the Community Support Statement. The Finance Board has selected the following members for the 2006-07 sixth quarter community support review cycle: Member City State Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston—District 1 Charter Oak Federal Credit Union Groton Connecticut Salisbury Bank and Trust Company Lakeville Connecticut Chelsea Groton Savings Bank Norwich Connecticut Rockville Bank Rockville Connecticut Thomaston Savings Bank Thomaston Connecticut The Wilton Bank Wilton Connecticut Kennebec Savings Bank Augusta Maine Bath Savings Institution Bath Maine Maine Savings Federal Credit Union Hampden Maine Androscoggin Savings Bank Lewiston Maine Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution Saco Maine Sanford Institution for Savings Sanford Maine The Community Bank Brockton Massachusetts Chicopee Savings Bank Chicopee Massachusetts Weymouth Bank East Weymouth Massachusetts Easthampton Savings Bank Easthampton Massachusetts Dukes County Savings Bank Edgartown Massachusetts Bank of Fall River, A Co-operative Bank Fall River Massachusetts Gloucester Cooperative Bank Gloucester Massachusetts Hudson Savings Bank Hudson Massachusetts Hyde Park Cooperative Bank Hyde Park Massachusetts Lee Bank Lee Massachusetts The Washington Savings Bank Lowell Massachusetts Eastern Bank Lynn Massachusetts Community Credit Union of Lynn Lynn Massachusetts Strata Bank Medway Massachusetts Middlesex Savings Bank Natick Massachusetts Newburyport Five Cents Savings Bank Newburyport Massachusetts North Easton Savings Bank North Easton Massachusetts Seamen's Bank Provincetown Massachusetts Granite Savings Bank Rockport Massachusetts The Cooperative Bank Roslindale Massachusetts Randolph Savings Bank Stoughton Massachusetts The Savings Bank Wakefield Massachusetts Walpole Co-operative Bank Walpole Massachusetts Watertown Savings Bank Watertown Massachusetts Northern Bank & Trust Company Woburn Massachusetts First Colebrook Bank Colebrook New Hampshire Merrimack County Savings Bank Concord New Hampshire Laconia Savings Bank Laconia New Hampshire Federal Home Loan Bank of New York—District 2 Skylands Community Bank Hackettstown New Jersey Haddon Savings Bank Haddon Heights New Jersey Gibraltar Savings Bank, FSB Newark New Jersey New Community Federal Newark New Jersey Merrill Lynch Trust Company, FSB Princeton New Jersey R&I Bank Rahway New Jersey Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company Buffalo New York The Bank of Greene County Catskill New York Bank of Richmondville Cobleskill New York Fairport Savings Bank Fairport New York Trustco Bank Glenville New York Highland Falls FS&LA Highland Falls New York Steuben Trust Company Hornell New York Ulster Savings Bank Kingston New York Suffolk Federal Credit Union Medford New York Walden Savings Bank Montgomery New York Atlantic Bank of New York New York New York Habib American Bank New York New York Sterling National Bank New York New York Rome Savings Bank Rome New York New York Sleepy Hollow Bank Sleepy Hollow New York Solvay Bank Solvay New York Champlain National Bank Willsboro New York Banco Popular de Puerto Rico San Juan Puerto Rico Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh—District 3 Enterprise Bank Allison Park Pennsylvania Apollo Trust Company Apollo Pennsylvania Farmers and Merchants Trust Company Chambersburg Pennsylvania Cambria County Federal Savings & Loan Association Cresson Pennsylvania Portage National Bank Ebensburg Pennsylvania Elderton State Bank Elderton Pennsylvania East Penn Bank Emmaus Pennsylvania First National Bank of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Pennsylvania The Gratz National Bank Gratz Pennsylvania Harleysville National Bank & Trust Company Harleysville Pennsylvania Irwin Bank Irwin Pennsylvania The Farmers National Bank of Kittanning Kittanning Pennsylvania The Bank of Landisburg Landisburg Pennsylvania First National Bank of Liverpool Liverpool Pennsylvania The Mars National Bank Mars Pennsylvania The Union National Bank of Mount Carmel Mt. Carmel Pennsylvania New Tripoli Bank New Tripoli Pennsylvania Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Philadelphia Pennsylvania St. Edmond's Federal Savings Bank Philadelphia Pennsylvania Police & Fire Federal Credit Union Philadelphia Pennsylvania Phoenixville Federal Bank and Trust Phoenixville Pennsylvania Orrstown Bank Shippensburg Pennsylvania Jersey Shore State Bank Williamsport Pennsylvania PeoplesBank, a Codurus Valley Company York Pennsylvania First Exchange Bank Mannington West Virginia FNB Bank, Inc. Romney West Virginia Ameribank Welch West Virginia Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta—District 4 AuburnBank Auburn Alabama SOUTHBank, A Federal Savings Bank Huntsville Alabama First Commercial Bank of Huntsville Huntsville Alabama Peachtree Bank Maplesville Alabama The North Jackson Bank Stevenson Alabama Riverside National Bank Fort Pierce Florida Peoples State Bank Lake City Florida The Bank of Brevard Melbourne Florida The First National Bank of Florida Milton Florida The Bank of Tampa Tampa Florida First Commercial Bank of Tampa Bay Tampa Florida Indian River National Bank Vero Beach Florida HeritageBank of the South Albany Georgia First American Bank and Trust Company Athens Georgia Bank of Atlanta Atlanta Georgia ebank Atlanta Georgia United Community Bank Blairsville Georgia First State Bank of Randolph County Cuthbert Georgia First Intercontinental Bank Doraville Georgia Glennville Bank Glennville Georgia Farmers and Merchants Bank Lakeland Georgia Security Bank of Bibb County Macon Georgia Southwest Georgia Bank Moultrie Georgia The Carver State Bank Savannah Georgia The First State Bank Stockbridge Georgia Bank of Upson Thomaston Georgia Thomasville National Bank Thomasville Georgia Kopernik Federal Bank Baltimore Maryland Liberty Federal Savings and Loan Association Baltimore Maryland Bradford Bank Baltimore Maryland Slavie Federal Savings Bank Bel Air Maryland Mercantile Eastern Shore Bank Chestertown Maryland Chesapeake Bank and Trust Company Chestertown Maryland Hagerstown Trust Company Hagerstown Maryland Lafayette Federal Credit Union Kensington Maryland First United Bank & Trust Oakland Maryland NBRS Financial Rising Sun Maryland Bank of Stanly Albemarle North Carolina Home Savings Bank of Albemarle, SSB Albemarle North Carolina Self-Help Credit Union Durham North Carolina Farmers & Merchants Bank Salisbury North Carolina First National Bank of Shelby Shelby North Carolina Farmers and Merchants Bank Holly Hill South Carolina E*Trade Bank Arlington Virginia Northern Neck State Bank Bowling Green Virginia American National Bank and Trust Company Danville Virginia The Bank of Fincastle Fincastle Virginia Marshall National Bank and Trust Company Marshall Virginia The Middleburg Bank Middleburg Virginia First Sentinel Bank Richlands Virginia First Bank Strasburg Virginia Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati—District 5 Bedford Loan and Deposit Bank Bedford Kentucky South Central Bank of Bowling Green, Inc. Bowling Green Kentucky Meade County Bank Brandenburg Kentucky Campbellsville National Bank Campbellsville Kentucky The First National Bank of Columbia Columbia Kentucky Edmonton State Bank Edmonton Kentucky First Security Bank & Trust, McLean Island Kentucky The Lawrenceburg National Bank Lawrenceburg Kentucky The Farmers National Bank of Lebanon Lebanon Kentucky Liberty Alliance Federal Credit Union Lexington Kentucky Bank of McCreary County Whitley City Kentucky Williamsburg National Bank Williamsburg Kentucky FirstMerit Bank, N.A. Akron Ohio Bethel Building and Loan Company Bethel Ohio The Citizens National Bank of Bluffton Bluffton Ohio The Equitable Savings and Loan Company Cadiz Ohio CinFed Employees Federal Credit Union Cincinnati Ohio The Mt. Washington Savings and Loan Company Cincinnati Ohio Charter One Bank, N.A. Cleveland Ohio Community First Bank, National Association Forest Ohio First Ohio Credit Union, Incorporated Fostoria Ohio Galion Building and Loan Association Galion Ohio Second National Bank Greenville Ohio Greenville National Bank Greenville Ohio Lawrence Federal Savings Bank Ironton Ohio The First Bremen Bank Lancaster Ohio First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lorain Lorain Ohio The New Richmond National Bank New Richmond Ohio Geauga Savings Bank Newbury Ohio Ripley Federal Savings Bank Ripley Ohio Strasburg Savings Bank Strasburg Ohio Toledo Area Catholic Credit Union Sylvania Ohio The Peoples Savings Bank Urbana Ohio First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Van Wert Van Wert Ohio Perpetual Savings Bank Wellsville Ohio People's Community Bank West Chester Ohio Century National Bank Zanesville Ohio The Citizens National Bank of Athens Athens Tennessee Tennessee Valley Federal Credit Union Chattanooga Tennessee Bank of Putnam County Cookeville Tennessee First Federal Bank Dickson Tennessee Carter County Bank Elizabethton Tennessee Gates Banking & Trust Company Gates Tennessee Bank of Gleason Gleason Tennessee Greene County Bank Greeneville Tennessee Bank of Halls Halls Tennessee Commercial Bank Harrogate Tennessee Union Bank Jamestown Tennessee Bank of Tennessee Kingsport Tennessee First Bank Lexington Tennessee The Bank of Milan Milan Tennessee Citizens Bank New Tazewell Tennessee Commercial Bank & Trust Company Paris Tennessee Tennessee State Bank Pigeon Forge Tennessee The Farmers Bank Portland Tennessee Central Bank Savannah Tennessee First Community Bank of Bedford County Shelbyville Tennessee Farmers & Merchants Bank Trezevant Tennessee American City Bank Tullahoma Tennessee Reelfoot Bank Union City Tennessee Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis—District 6 The New Washington State Bank Charlestown Indiana First National Bank Cloverdale Indiana CSB State Bank Cynthiana Indiana Three Rivers Federal Credit Union Fort Wayne Indiana Grabill Bank Grabill Indiana Lafayette Savings Bank Lafayette Indiana Peoples Savings & Loan Association Monticello Indiana American Trust and Savings Bank Whiting Indiana FirstBank—Alma Alma Michigan Signature Bank Bad Axe Michigan Lake—Osceola State Bank Baldwin Michigan Central State Bank Beulah Michigan Eastern Michigan Bank Croswell Michigan State Bank of Ewen Ewen Michigan Oakland Commerce Bank Farmington Hills Michigan Credit Union One Ferndale Michigan Co-op Services Credit Union Livonia Michigan Firstbank Mount Pleasant Michigan First National Bank of Norway Norway Michigan Sterling Bank & Trust, FSB Southfield Michigan United Federal Credit Union St. Joseph Michigan Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago—District 7 First Community Bank and Trust Beecher Illinois National Bank of Commerce Berkeley Illinois Commonwealth Credit Union Bourbonnais Illinois Integra Bank, N.A. Bridgeview Illinois Marquette Bank Chicago llinois ShoreBank Chicago Illinois The First Commercial Bank Chicago Illinois Resource Bank, N.A. DeKalb Illinois Du Quoin State Bank Du Quoin Illinois First Clover Leaf Bank Edwardsville Illinois Crossroads Bank Effingham Illinois Midwest Bank and Trust Company Elmwood Park Illinois Fisher National Bank Fisher Illinois First State Bank of Forrest Forrest Illinois Midwest Community Bank Freeport Illinois Jacksonville Savings Bank Jacksonville Illinois Union Federal Savings and Loan Association Kewanee Illinois Citizens State Bank Lena Illinois Brickyard Bank Lincolnwood Illinois Citizens National Bank Macomb Illinois First Suburban National Bank Maywood Illinois Morris Building and Loan, s.b. Morris Illinois First National Bank of Nokomis Nokomis Illinois Nokomis Savings Bank Nokomis Illinois First National Bank of Pana Pana Illinois Peoples Bank & Trust Pana Illinois Vermillion Valley Bank Piper City Illinois First State Bank of Red Bud Red Bud Illinois AmeriMark Bank Villa Park Illinois North Shore Trust and Savings Waukegan Illinois Waukegan Savings and Loan, SB Waukegan Illinois Prospect Federal Savings Bank Worth Illinois First Community Bank, Xenia-Flora Xenia Illinois Eagle Valley Bank Burnesville Minnesota Capaha Bank, S.B. Cape Girardeau Missouri American National Bank Fox Cities Appleton Wisconsin State Bank of Arcadia Arcadia Wisconsin First National Bank & Trust Barron Wisconsin Blackhawk State Bank Beloit Wisconsin First National Bank Berlin Wisconsin Bonduel State Bank Bonduel Wisconsin Bank of Cashton Cashton Wisconsin Badger State Bank Cassville Wisconsin State Bank of Chilton Chilton Wisconsin American Bank Fond du Lac Wisconsin Peoples Bank of Wisconsin Hayward Wisconsin Horicon State Bank Horicon Wisconsin Farmers State Bank Markesan Wisconsin Mid Wisconsin Bank Medford Wisconsin Mitchell Bank Milwaukee Wisconsin Lincoln State Bank Milwaukee Wisconsin Bank of Monticello Monticello Wisconsin The Bank of New Glarus New Glarus Wisconsin First National Community Bank New Richmond Wisconsin The River Bank Osceola Wisconsin Bank of Poynette Poynette Wisconsin Johnson Bank Racine Wisconsin Shell Lake State Bank Shell Lake Wisconsin Acuity Bank, SSB Tomah Wisconsin The Equitable Bank, S.S.B. Wauwatosa Wisconsin ALLCO Credit Union West Allis Wisconsin Fortress Bank of Westby Westby Wisconsin Westby Co-op Credit Union Westby Wisconsin Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines—District 8 Ackley State Bank Ackley Iowa Exchange State Bank Adair Iowa First State Bank Belmond Iowa Columbus Junction State Bank Columbus Junction Iowa Freedom Security Bank Coralville Iowa Iowa State Savings Bank Creston Iowa Decorah Bank & Trust Company Decorah Iowa AmerUS Life Insurance Company Des Moines Iowa Dupaco Community Credit Union Dubuque Iowa Grundy National Bank Grundy Center Iowa Hartwick State Bank Hartwick Iowa Hiawatha Bank & Trust Company Hiawatha Iowa Community State Bank Indianaola Iowa Green Belt Bank & Trust Iowa Falls Iowa First National Bank Le Mars Iowa First National Bank of Muscatine Muscatine Iowa Security State Bank New Hampton Iowa First National Bank of Sioux Center Sioux Center Iowa The Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa Sioux City Iowa Heartland Bank Somers Iowa State Bank Spencer Iowa Farmers Trust and Savings Bank Spencer Iowa First Bank & Trust Spirit Lake Iowa Citizens First National Bank of Storm Lake Storm Lake Iowa West Chester Savings Bank Washington Iowa Community National Bank Waterloo Iowa First National Bank Waverly Iowa Peoples Savings Bank Wellsburg Iowa Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company West Des Moines Iowa Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company West Des Moines Iowa Farmers Savings Bank Wever Iowa State Bank Worthington Iowa Community America Credit Union Kansas City Kansas Atwater State Bank Atwater Minnesota First National Bank Brewster Brewster Minnesota City County Federal Credit Union Brooklyn Center Minnesota Peoples Bank of Commerce Cambridge Minnesota First National Bank Chisholm Minnesota Clinton State Bank Clinton Minnesota Eitzen State Bank Eitzen Minnesota Mainstreet Bank Forest Lake Minnesota Citizens State Bank of Glenville Glenville Minnesota Eagle Bank Glenwood Minnesota First Security Bank—Hendricks Hendricks Minnesota Jackson Federal Savings and Loan Association Jackson Minnesota Janesville State Bank Janesville Minnesota Citizens State Bank of Kelliher Kelliher Minnesota Security State Bank of Kenyon Kenyon Minnesota Lake Community Bank Long Lake Minnesota Lake Country State Bank Long Prairie Minnesota Frandsen Bank & Trust Lonsdale Minnesota Bank of Maple Plain Maple Plain Minnesota Citizens Bank of Minnesota New Ulm Minnesota Community National Bank Northfield Minnesota Minnwest Bank Ortonville Ortonville Minnesota First National Bank of Henning Ottertail Minnesota Pine River State Bank Pine River Minnesota First Security Bank—Sanborn Sanborn Minnesota Americana Community Bank Sleepy Eye Minnesota Heritage Bank, National Association Spicer Minnesota Western Bank St. Paul Minnesota Vermillion State Bank Vermillion Minnesota Northern State Bank of Virginia Virginia Minnesota First State Bank of Wabasha Wabasha Minnesota Merchants Bank, NA Winona Minnesota First State Bank of Wyoming Wyoming Minnesota Bank of Zumbrota Zumbrota Minnesota Boone County National Bank Columbia Missouri Commercial Trust Company Fayette Missouri Home Exchange Bank Jamesport Missouri Jefferson Bank of Missouri, Inc. Jefferson City Missouri Central Bank of Kansas City Kansas City Missouri Kearney Trust Company Kearney Missouri Lawson Bank Lawson Missouri United State Bank Lewistown Missouri First State Bank of Purdy Monett Missouri First Missouri State Bank Poplar Bluff Missouri The Seymour Bank Seymour Missouri State Bank of Slater Slater Missouri Metropolitan National Bank Springfield Missouri Webb City Bank Webb City Missouri Heartland State Bank Edgeley North Dakota Bremer Bank, N.A. Grand Forks North Dakota Unison Bank Jamestown North Dakota Northland Financial Steele North Dakota Peoples State Bank Westhope North Dakota Security State Bank Wishek North Dakota Dakota State Bank Blunt South Dakota BankWest, Inc. Pierre South Dakota First Bank of White White South Dakota 1st Dakota National Bank Yankton South Dakota Superior Guaranty Insurance Company Burlington Vermont Southwest Bank of St. Louis Milwaukee Wisconsin Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas—District 9 Sagicor Life Insurance Company Scottsdale Arizona Pinnacle Bank Bentonville Arkansas Bank of Cave City Cave City Arkansas First National Bank of Crossett Crossett Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado, N.A. El Dorado Arkansas Bank of Arkansas, N.A. Fayetteville Arkansas Greers Ferry Lake State Bank Heber Springs Arkansas Little River Bank Lepanto Arkansas Malvern National Bank Malvern Arkansas Merchants and Planters Bank Newport Arkansas Commercial National Bank of Texas Texarkana Arkansas First Bank of the Delta, N.A. West Helena Arkansas Liberty Bank and Trust Company Baton Rouge Louisiana Kaplan State Bank Kaplan Louisiana Sabine State Bank and Trust Company, Inc. Many Louisiana Exchange Bank and Trust Company Natchitoches Louisiana Sicily Island State Bank Sicily Island Louisiana St. Martin Bank and Trust Company St. Martinville Louisiana Concordia Bank & Trust Company Vidalia Louisiana The Evangeline Bank & Trust Company Ville Platte Louisiana Progressive Bank Winnsboro Louisiana First Security Bank Batesville Mississippi Peoples Bank of Franklin County Bude Mississippi Bank of the South Crystal Springs Mississippi The Commercial Bank DeKalb Mississippi Community Bank of Mississippi Jackson Mississippi Community Bank Laurel Mississippi Century Bank Lucedale Mississippi Great Southern National Bank Meridian Mississippi Newton County Bank Newton Mississippi First National Bank of Oxford Oxford Mississippi The Citizens Bank of Philadelphia Philadelphia Mississippi Renasant Bank Tupelo Mississippi My Bank Belen New Mexico The Carlsbad National Bank Carlsbad New Mexico Western Bank Lordsburg New Mexico Community Bank Santa Fe New Mexico Centinel Bank of Taos Taos New Mexico Amarillo National Bank Amarillo Texas Treaty Oak Bank Austin Texas First National Bank of Bastrop Bastrop Texas Citizens State Bank Buffalo Texas 1st Community Bank Corpus Christi Texas National Bank of Daingerfield Daingerfield Texas Equity Bank, SSB Dallas Texas Town North Bank, N.A. Dallas Texas First National Bank Edinburg Texas First National Bank El Paso Texas First National Bank Fairfield Texas First National Bank in Graham Graham Texas First State Bank, Granger Granger Texas First Community Credit Union of Houston Houston Texas First National Bank of Huntsville Huntsville Texas The Laredo National Bank Laredo Texas Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union Live Oak Texas First State Bank of Livingston Livingston Texas The First National Bank of Livingston Livingston Texas First State Bank New Braunfels Texas American Bank, N.A. Waco Texas Union Square Federal Credit Union Wichita Falls Texas Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka—District 10 FirstBank of Arvada Arvada Colorado FirstBank of Aurora Aurora Colorado FirstBank of Douglas County Castle Rock Colorado American National Bank Denver Colorado FirstBank of Lakewood Lakewood Colorado FirstBank of Littleton Littleton Colorado FirstBank of Silverthorne Silverthorne Colorado FirstBank of Wheat Ridge Wheat Ridge Colorado Colorado Community Bank Yuma Colorado The First State Bank of Burlingame Burlingame Kansas The Farmers State Bank Circleville Kansas ESB Financial Emporia Kansas Home State Bank Erie Kansas Union State Bank Everest Kansas First National Bank & Trust Co. in Larned Larned Kansas The Bank Oberlin Kansas First State Bank and Trust Tonganoxie Kansas Security Benefit Life Insurance Company Topeka Kansas Capital City Bank Topeka Kansas Commerce Bank and Trust Topeka Kansas Wellsville Bank Wellsville Kansas Boeing Wichita Credit Union Wichita Kansas First National Bank & Trust of Beatrice Beatrice Nebraska Exchange Bank Gibbon Nebraska First State Bank Gothenburg Nebraska Bank of Nebraska La Vista Nebraska West Gate Bank Lincoln Nebraska Home State Bank Louisville Nebraska Bank of Mead Mead Nebraska Farmers & Merchants Bank Milford Nebraska First State Bank Scottsbluff Nebraska Cattle National Bank & Trust Company Seward Nebraska The First National Bank of Valentine Valentine Nebraska CharterWest National Bank West Point Nebraska Winside State Bank Winside Nebraska AmeriState Bank Atoka Oklahoma ACB Bank Cherokee Oklahoma First Commercial Bank Edmond Oklahoma Grand Savings Bank Grove Oklahoma Weokie Credit Union Oklahoma City Oklahoma American Fidelity Assurance Company Oklahoma City Oklahoma First NB&TC of Weatherford, Inc. Weatherford Oklahoma First National Bank in Wewoka Wewoka Oklahoma Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco—District 11 Omni Bank, N.A. Alhambra California Fremont Investment & Loan Anaheim California Bay Federal Credit Union Capitola California First Coastal Bank El Segundo California Farmers & Merchants Bank of Central California Lodi California Center Bank Los Angeles California Nara Bank Los Angeles California Wilshire State Bank Los Angeles California County Bank Merced California Valley Community Bank Pleasanton California Alliance Credit Union San Jose California Silver State Bank Henderson Nevada Security Savings Bank Las Vegas Nevada Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle—District 12 Honolulu City & County Employees FCU Honolulu Hawaii Rocky Mountain Bank Billings Montana Bank of Bridger Bridger Montana Mountain West Bank, N.A. Helena Montana Three Rivers Bank of Montana Kalispell Montana First National Bank of Lewistown Lewistown Montana Bitterroot Valley Bank Lolo Montana Missoula Federal Credit Union Missoula Montana Western Bank of Wolf Point Wolf Point Montana Rogue Federal Credit Union Medford Oregon First National Bank of Layton Layton Utah Capital Community Bank Orem Utah Trans West Credit Union Salt Lake City Utah Deseret First Credit Union Salt Lake City Utah Anchor Bank Aberdeen Washington The Bank of the Pacific Aberdeen Washington Whatcom Educational Credit Union Bellingham Washington Security State Bank Centralia Washington North Cascades National Bank Chelan Washington Bank of Whitman Colfax Washington Islanders Bank Friday Harbor Washington Community First Bank Kennewick Washington 1st Security Bank of Washington Mountlake Terrace Washington NorthStar Bank Seattle Washington Sound Community Bank Seattle Washington Yakima National Bank Yakima Washington Yakima Valley Credit Union Yakima Washington First National Bank of Wyoming Laramie Wyoming Rawlins National Bank Rawlins Wyoming First State Bank Wheatland Wyoming II. Public Comments To encourage the submission of public comments on the community support performance of Bank members, on or before the July 27, 2007, each Bank will notify its Advisory Council and nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in its district of the members selected for community support review in the 2006-07 sixth quarter review cycle. 12 CFR 944.2(b)(2)(ii). In reviewing a member for community support compliance, the Finance Board will consider any public comments it has received concerning the member. 12 CFR 944.2(d). To ensure consideration by the Finance Board, comments concerning the community support performance of members selected for the 2006-07 sixth quarter review cycle must be delivered to the Finance Board on or before the August 31, 2007 deadline for submission of Community Support Statements. Dated: June 29, 2007. Neil R. Crowley, Acting General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-13147 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6725-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 9, 2007. **Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis** (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291: *1. Taunton Bancshares, Inc.* ; to become a bank holding company by acquiring at least 98 percent of the voting shares of The State Bank of Taunton, both of Taunton, Minnesota. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 10, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-13620 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 9, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond** (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: *1. Wachovia Corporation* , Charlotte, North Carolina; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of A. G. Edwards Trust Company FSB, St. Louis, Missouri, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 10, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-13621 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: OS-0990-0000; 60-day notice] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects:
(1)The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. *Type of Information Collection Request:* New collection. *Title of Information Collection:* HHS Web Site Customer Satisfaction. *Form/OMB No.:* 0990-0000. *Use:* The results of the HHS Web Site Customer Satisfaction Survey will be used to ensure that the content on the HHS web sites meets visitor needs and expectations. In addition, the results will determine if the site will be easy to use and the content easy to understand. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Individual or Households. *Annual Number of Respondents:* 48,000. *Total Annual Responses:* 48,000. *Average Burden per Response:* 12 minutes. *Total Annual Hours:* 9,600. To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to: *Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov* , or call the Reports Clearance Office on
(202)690-6162. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received with 60-days, and directed to the OS Paperwork Clearance Officer at the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Resources and Technology, Office of Resources Management, Attention: Sherrette Funn-Coleman (0990-0000), Room 537-H, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20201. Dated: July 3, 2007. Seleda Perryman, Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13691 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-25-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of the Availability of Funds and Request for Applications for a Cooperative Agreement for a Project Titled Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Scholarship Program AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. ACTION: Notice. *Announcement Type:* Competitive Cooperative Agreement. *Agency Funding Opportunity Number:* N/A. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 93.990. DATES: To receive consideration, applications must be received by the Office of Grants Management, Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Attention Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Scholarship, no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2007. The application due date requirement in this announcement supersedes the instructions in the OPHS-1 form. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained electronically by accessing Grants.gov at *http://www.grants.gov* or GrantSolutions at *www.GrantSolutions.gov* . To obtain a hard copy of the application kit, contact OPHS/Office of Grants Management, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852 at
(240)453-8822. Applications must be prepared using Form OPHS-1 “Grant Application,” which is included in the application kit. SUMMARY: *Total Amount Awarded:* $600,000. *Total Number of Awards:* One (1). *Description of Opportunity:* The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP)/Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS), announces a competitive cooperative agreement project titled Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Scholarship Program for up to $600,000, in the fiscal year
(FY)2007 for a 5 year period, subject to available funding. This project seeks to provide disease prevention and health promotion educational and training opportunities for medical and public health students; preventive medicine and primary care residents; and practicing physicians and public health professionals. *Eligibility:* To qualify for funding, an applicant must be a professional non-profit organization, association, or institute of higher learning that focuses or has as its mission to educate one or more of the following groups: Medical and/or public health students, preventive medicine and primary care residents; and practicing physicians from communities across the country. Eligible applicants are also encouraged to apply in partnerships. Faith-based groups that meet the definition of professional non-profit organization or institution of higher learning as described above are also eligible to apply. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For Administrative Requirements, Please Contact:* OPHS/Office of Grants Management, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852; phone 240-453-8822. *For Programmatic Requirements, Please Contact:* Cecilia Penn, MD, MPH; or Sarah Linde-Feucht, MD, 1101 Wootton Pkwy, Suite LL 100, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: 240-453-8251; 240-453-8256. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section I. Funding Opportunity Description Under authority of Section 301, Title III of the U.S. Public Health Service Act: General Powers and Duties of the Public Health Service, 42 U.S.C. Section 301, ODPHP/OPHS, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces a total of $600,000 for fiscal year
(FY)2007 is available for a competitive cooperative agreement project entitled Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Scholarship Program. This project supports several focus areas of Healthy People 2010 specifically, Access to Quality Health Services; Educational and Community-Based Programs; Health Communication; and Public Health Infrastructure. Purpose The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to enhance core competencies in disease prevention and health promotion for medical and public health students, residents, physicians, and public health professionals. Measurable outcomes will include:
(1)Increased knowledge of public health issues;
(2)increased understanding of process, content, value, and use of policies, programs and initiatives aimed to support the Nation's health goals; for example Healthy People 2010, (Healthy People 2020 (under development)), and HealthierUS;
(3)increased knowledge of and aptitude in the use of health information technology including healthfinder®, National Health Information Center (NHIC), and the Prevention Communication Research Database (PCRD);
(4)increased experience in and knowledge of priority setting and bases for national policy decisions. This project enables the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion to fulfill its mission to lead and coordinate efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services related to disease prevention and health promotion. The use of cooperative agreements with public and private not-for-profit organizations facilitates the education of emerging and current public health professionals. Section II. Award Information a. *Availability of Funds:* $600,000 is expected to be available for FY 2007 to fund one cooperative agreement. This agreement is expected to begin September 1, 2007 and will be made for a 12-month budget period for up to 5 years pending availability of funding. Funding estimates may change. Awardee may make subcontract awards. b. *Cooperative Agreement:* The administrative and funding instrument to be used for this program will be a cooperative agreement in which there will be substantial ODPHP/HHS scientific and programmatic involvement. Under the cooperative agreement, ODPHP will support and/or stimulate awardee activities by working with them in a non-directive partnership role. This will include formulation of a work plan, participation in stakeholder meetings, data analysis, evaluation design, and development of structure and content of educational activities. Awardee and ODPHP responsibilities are listed as follows: c. *Awardee Responsibilities:* A successful applicant, with assistance from or in collaboration with ODPHP, will: 1. Develop, implement, and monitor education and training in disease prevention and health promotion through the Paul Ambrose Health Promotion Graduate Student Leadership Symposium. i. Develop and execute a 2-3 day educational seminar for up to 40 selected first-year through fourth-year medical students, third-year through fourth-year pharmacy students, graduate nursing students, graduate physician assistant students, and graduate dentistry students to enhance their understanding of community-based health promotion and disease prevention strategies within the framework of Healthy People 2010 and 2020, as well as HealthierUS. ii. Assist symposium students and their sponsoring institutions in the development of a specific health promotion or disease prevention project prior to and/or following the symposium by linking students to faculty at their institutions of higher learning engaged in disease prevention and health promotion activities. iii. Provide a forum for students to share their progress and outcomes for their projects. 2. Develop, implement, manage, and monitor preventive medicine and primary care resident and practicing primary care clinician education in disease prevention and health promotion. i. Convene a meeting at the start of each residency year (12 month period starting in June) and/or project year with relevant residency program directors, field placement/site mentors, and/or advisors to review program goals, objectives, and educational plans; to gain insight as to how to bolster this educational opportunity. ii. Facilitate and structure an elective rotation for 2-3 months duration. iii. Recruit and select 4-8 residents to participate in this elective rotation. iv. Conduct and share with ODPHP an evaluation of resident experiences while at ODPHP. 3. Recruit, interview, and select a preventive medicine/primary care physician with public health background to be the Luther Terry Fellow every 2 years. The awardee will also provide a framework for identifying educational content and resources in the public health community for the fellowship development. 4. Recruit, interview, and select a maximum of 3 public health professionals to serve a 1-year fellowship/internship position to support ODPHP office teams: Health Communications, Science, or Community Strategies teams. The awardee will also provide a framework for identifying educational content and resources in the public health community for the fellowship/internship development. 5. Develop and execute a one-day workshop for selected public health professionals representing States, Territories, Tribes, and Communities to enhance their understanding and application of Healthy People 2010 and 2020, HealthierUS, and/or other prevention programs. (Designated Support-$200K) 6. Coordinate the abstract submission process for a National Prevention Summit or similar conference(s) utilizing an Abstract Management System capable of meeting goals established by ODPHP and conference co-planners for the conference(s). 7. Recruit and select 2 public health professionals (post 5 years of obtaining bachelors or masters' degree) for 6 months duration per fiscal year with specific skills or background in Social and Behavioral Sciences; Nutrition and Food Safety; Health Policy and Management; Population and International Health; or Prevention and Research Policy. These professionals would contribute to and engage in health policy development and initiatives within the Office. 8. Develop, present, and implement a proposal to expand disease prevention and health promotion education opportunities for primary care providers. This may include expanding continuing medical education or other mechanisms for education practitioners on principles of public health, disease prevention and health promotion. d. *ODPHP Responsibilities:* 1. Provide technical assistance and oversight as necessary for overall design and implementation of the Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Scholarship Program. 2. Contribute to the development and approval of educational experiences, including materials and program activities for scholarship participants. 3. Provide location and mentorship for scholars on assignment at ODPHP. 4. Provide assistance in management of program strategies, directions, and any decisions related to adjustment in funding levels of participating institutions. 5. Participate in training and educational events. 6. Participate in the development and review of evaluation activities. e. *Use of Funds:* Funds may not be used for construction or renovation, to purchase or lease vehicles or equipment, to purchase a facility to house project staff or carry out project activity, or to substitute new activities and expenditures for current ones. Section III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* To qualify for funding, an applicant must be a professional non-profit organization, association, or institution of higher learning whose mission is to educate one or more of the following groups: medical and public health students, preventive medicine and primary care residents, public health professionals, and practicing clinicians from communities across the country. Eligible applicants also are encouraged to apply as partners and submit one joint application. Faith-based groups that meet the definition of professional non-profit organization or institutions of higher learning as described above are also eligible to apply. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* Awardee will not be expected to match funds or share project costs. Section IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Kit:* Application kits for this grant program may be obtained via Grants.gov at *http://www.grants.gov* or the GrantSolutions system at *http://www.grantsolutions.gov* . To obtain a hard copy of the application kit for this grant program, contact OPHS/Office of Grants Management, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852, at
(240)453-8822. Applications must be prepared using Form OPHS-1, which can be obtained at the Web sites noted above. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* A. Application and Submission All applications must be accompanied by a Project Abstract. The abstract should contain substantive information about the proposed projects in summary form and must be typed, single spaced, and not exceed 2 pages. A list of keywords and a format sheet for your use in preparing the abstract will be included in the application packet. All grant applications must be accompanied by a Project Narrative. The applicant should refer to instructions provided in OPHS-1 (Rev 03/2006) and specific guidelines given in the Program Guidelines of the Application Packet. Biographical sketches should be either typed on the appropriate form or plain paper and should not exceed two pages, with publications listed being limited only to those that are directly relevant to this project. *Program Narrative:* This section provides a comprehensive framework and description of all aspects of the proposed program. It should be succinct, self-explanatory, and well organized so that reviewers can understand the proposed project. Use the following section headers for the Narrative: • *Executive Summary:* This section should briefly describe the proposed project and supporting initiatives as well as summarize goals that the program intends to achieve through the project initiatives. • *Work Plan:* Describe the current and proposed activities or steps that will be used to achieve the stated goals and objectives. Describe expected outcomes resulting from activities as well as any evaluation mechanisms that will be used to measure the success of the initiatives. • *Mechanism for Administration:* Describe how resources and funds will be administered with regard to the proposed projects. • *In-Kind Support and Resources:* Describe any in-kind support from other sources, if any that will be used to support the proposed initiatives and activities. • *Appendices:* Please provide the additional relevant information (including tables, charts, biographic profiles, and other relevant documents) to complete the content of the application. Please note that these are supplementary in nature, and are not intended to be a continuation of the project narrative. Be sure each appendix is clearly labeled. B. Data Universal Numbering System Number
(DUNS)Applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants. The D&B number can be obtained by calling
(866)705-5711 or through the Web site at *http://www.dnb.com/us/* . Application Format Requirements 1. *Length of Application:* The entire application may not exceed 80 pages in length, including the abstract, project and budget narratives, face page, attachments, any appendices and letters of commitment and support. Pages must be numbered consecutively. 2. Applications submitted electronically that exceed 80 pages when printed will be deemed non-compliant. All non-compliant applications will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. 3. *Number of Copies:* Please submit one
(1)original and two
(2)unbound copies of the application. Please do not bind or staple the application. Application must be single sided. 4. *Font:* Please use an easily readable serif typeface, such as Times Roman, Courier, or CG Times. The text and table portions of the application must be submitted in not less than 12 point and 1.0 line spacing. Applications not adhering to 12 point font requirements may be returned. 5. *Paper Size and Margins:* For scanning purposes, please submit the application on 8 1/2 ″ x 11″ white paper. Margins must be at least one
(1)inch at the top, bottom, left and right of the paper. Please left-align text. 6. *Numbering:* Please number the pages of the application sequentially from page 1 (face page) to the end of the application, including charts, figures, tables, and appendices. 7. *Names:* Please include the name of the applicant on each page. 8. *Section Headings:* Please put all section headings flush left in bold type. 3. Submission Dates and Times The Office of Public Health and Science
(OPHS)provides multiple mechanisms for the submission of applications, as described in the following sections. Applicants will receive notification via mail from the OPHS Office of Grants Management confirming the receipt of applications submitted using any of these mechanisms. Applications submitted to the OPHS Office of Grants Management after the deadlines described below will not be accepted for review. Applications which do not conform to the requirements of the grant announcement will not be accepted for review and will be returned to the applicant. While applications are accepted in hard copy, the use of the electronic application submission capabilities provided by the Grants.gov and GrantSolutions.gov systems is encouraged. Applications may only be submitted electronically via the electronic submission mechanisms specified below. Any applications submitted via any other means of electronic communication, including facsimile or electronic mail, will not be accepted for review. In order to apply for new funding opportunities which are open to the public for competition, you may access the Grants.gov Web site portal. All OPHS funding opportunities and application kits are made available on Grants.gov. If your organization has/had a grantee business relationship with a grant program serviced by the OPHS Office of Grants Management, and you are applying as part of ongoing grantee related activities, please access GrantSolutions.gov. Electronic grant application submissions must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date specified in the DATES section of the announcement using one of the electronic submission mechanisms specified below. All required hardcopy original signatures and mail-in items must be received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management (1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the next business day after the deadline date specified in the DATES section of the announcement. Applications will not be considered valid until all electronic application components, hardcopy original signatures, and mail-in items are received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management according to the deadlines specified above. Application submissions that do not adhere to the due date requirements will be considered late and will be deemed ineligible. Applicants are encouraged to initiate electronic applications early in the application development process, and to submit early on the due date or before. This will aid in addressing any problems with submissions prior to the application deadline. Electronic Submissions Via the Grants.gov Web Site Portal The Grants.gov Web site Portal provides organizations with the ability to submit applications for OPHS grant opportunities. Organizations must successfully complete the necessary registration processes in order to submit an application. Information about this system is available on the Grants.gov Web site, *http://www.grants.gov* . In addition to electronically submitted materials, applicants may be required to submit hard copy signatures for certain Program related forms, or original materials as required by the announcement. It is imperative that the applicant review both the grant announcement, as well as the application guidance provided within the Grants.gov application package, to determine such requirements. Any required hard copy materials, or documents that require a signature, must be submitted separately via mail to the OPHS Office of Grants Management, and, if required, must contain the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review. Electronic applications submitted via the Grants.gov Web site Portal must contain all completed online forms required by the application kit, the Program Narrative, Budget Narrative and any appendices or exhibits. All required mail-in items must received by the due date requirements specified above. Mail-In items may only include publications, resumes, or organizational documentation. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review. Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission via the Grants.gov Web site Portal, the applicant will be provided with a confirmation page from Grants.gov indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission, as well as the Grants.gov Receipt Number. It is critical that the applicant print and retain this confirmation for their records, as well as a copy of the entire application package. All applications submitted via the Grants.gov Web site Portal will be validated by Grants.gov. Any applications deemed “Invalid” by the Grants.gov Web site Portal will not be transferred to the GrantSolutions system, and OPHS has no responsibility for any application that is not validated and transferred to OPHS from the Grants.gov Web site Portal. Grants.gov will notify the applicant regarding the application validation status. Once the application is successfully validated by the Grants.gov Web site Portal, applicants should immediately mail all required hard copy materials to the OPHS Office of Grants Management to be received by the deadlines specified above. It is critical that the applicant clearly identify the Organization name and Grants.gov Application Receipt Number on all hard copy materials. Once the application is validated by Grants.gov, it will be electronically transferred to the GrantSolutions system for processing. Upon receipt of both the electronic application from the Grants.gov Web site Portal, and the required hardcopy mail-in items, applicants will receive notification via mail from the OPHS Office of Grants Management confirming the receipt of the application submitted using the Grants.gov Web site Portal. Applicants should contact Grants.gov regarding any questions or concerns regarding the electronic application process conducted through the Grants.gov Web site Portal. Electronic Submissions Via the GrantSolutions System OPHS is a managing partner of the GrantSolutions.gov system. GrantSolutions is a full life-cycle grants management system managed by the Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and is designated by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)as one of the three Government-wide grants management systems under the Grants Management Line of Business initiative (GMLoB). OPHS uses GrantSolutions for the electronic processing of all grant applications, as well as the electronic management of its entire Grant portfolio. When submitting applications via the GrantSolutions system, applicants are required to submit a hard copy of the application face page (Standard Form 424) with the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and assume the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. If required, applicants will also need to submit a hard copy of the Standard Form LLL and/or certain Program related forms (e.g., Program Certifications) with the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review. Electronic applications submitted via the GrantSolutions system must contain all completed online forms required by the application kit, the Program Narrative, Budget Narrative and any appendices or exhibits. The applicant may identify specific mail-in items to be sent to the Office of Grants Management separate from the electronic submission; however these mail-in items must be entered on the GrantSolutions Application Checklist at the time of electronic submission, and must be received by the due date requirements specified above. Mail-In items may only include publications, resumes, or organizational documentation. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review. Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission, the GrantSolutions system will provide the applicant with a confirmation page indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission. This confirmation page will also provide a listing of all items that constitute the final application submission including all electronic application components, required hardcopy original signatures, and mail-in items, as well as the mailing address of the OPHS Office of Grants Management where all required hard copy materials must be submitted. As items are received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management, the electronic application status will be updated to reflect the receipt of mail-in items. It is recommended that the applicant monitor the status of their application in the GrantSolutions system to ensure that all signatures and mail-in items are received. Mailed or Hand-Delivered Hard Copy Applications Applicants who submit applications in hard copy (via mail or hand-delivered) are required to submit an original and two copies of the application. The original application must be signed by an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency or organization and to assume for the organization the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. Mailed or hand-delivered applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received by the OPHS Office of Grant Management on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date specified in the DATES section of the announcement. The application deadline date requirement specified in this announcement supersedes the instructions in the OPHS-1. Applications that do not meet the deadline will be returned to the applicant unread. 4. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to the Public Health Systems Reporting Requirements. Under these requirements, a community-based non-governmental applicant must prepare and submit a Public Health System Impact Statement (PHSIS). The Applicant shall submit a copy of the application face page (SF-424) and a one page summary of the project, called the Public Health System Impact Statement. The PHSIS is intended to provide information to State and local health officials to keep them apprised on proposed health services grant applications submitted by community-based, non-governmental organizations within their jurisdictions. Community-based, non-governmental applicants are required to submit, no later than the Federal due date for receipt of the application, the following information to the head of the appropriate State and local health agencies in the area(s) to be impacted:
(a)A copy of the face page of the application (SF 424),
(b)a summary of the project (PHSIS), not to exceed one page, which provides:
(1)A description of the population to be served,
(2)a summary of the services to be provided, and
(3)a description of the coordination planned with the appropriate State or local health agencies. Copies of the letters forwarding the PHSIS to these authorities must be contained in the application materials submitted to the ODPHP/HHS. This program is also subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 that allows States the option of setting up a system for reviewing applications from within their States for assistance under certain Federal programs. The application kit to be made available under this notice will contain a listing of States that have chosen to set up a review system and will include a State Single Point of Contact
(SPOC)in the State for review. Applicants (other than federally recognized Indian tribes) should contact their SPOCs as early as possible to alert them to the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions on the State process. For proposed projects serving more than one State, the applicant is advised to contact the SPOC in each affected State. A complete list of SPOCs may be found at the following Web site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html* . The due date for State process recommendations is 60 days after the application deadline. The ODPHP/HHS does not guarantee that it will accommodate or explain its responses to State process recommendations received after that date. (See “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” Executive Order 12372, and 45 C.F.R. Part 100 for a description of the review process and requirements.) 5. Funding Restrictions Funds may not be used for construction, building alterations, equipment purchase, medical treatment, renovations, or to purchase food. Allowance, allocation, rationale, and necessity of direct and indirect costs that may be charged are outlined in the following documents: OMB-21 (Institutes of Higher Education); OMB Circular A-122 (Nonprofit Organizations) and 45 CFR Part 74, Appendix E (Hospitals). Copies of these circulars can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb* . All budget requests must be justified fully in terms of the proposed goals and objectives of the program and include an itemized computational explanation/breakout of how costs were determined. Section V. Application Review Information Applications will be screened by ODPHP staff for completeness and for responsiveness to the RFA. The Applicant should pay strict attention addressing these criteria, as they are the basis upon which applications will be judged. Those applications judged to be non-responsive or incomplete will be returned to the applicant without review. 1. Criteria Applications that are complete and responsive to the guidance will be evaluated for technical merit by an appropriate peer review group specifically convened for this solicitation and in accordance with HHS policies and procedures. As part of the initial merit review, all applications will receive a written critique. All applications recommended for approval will be discussed fully by an ad hoc peer review group and assigned a priority score for funding. Eligible applications will be assessed according to the following criteria: a. Education and Training Plan (30 Points) The proposed goals and objectives in the Education Plan relate to the goal of increasing knowledge and use of disease prevention and health promotion materials and methods among the targeted levels of medical students/ residents and practitioners: 1. Extent to which the plan summarizes the state of disease prevention and health promotion education for medical students, preventive medicine and primary care residents, and practicing primary care physicians. 2. The extent to which disease prevention and health promotion lectures and applied experiences and opportunities exist in medical education and clinical practice. 3. Description of how the applicant develops each activity specific to the medical students, preventive medicine residents and primary care residents, and practicing physicians as outlined under Awardee Responsibilities. 4. Appropriateness and relationship of strategies and objectives to the overall goal and implementation of the required activities. 5. Appropriateness of specific, realistic, measurable and time-phased process and outcome objectives for each of the strategies to be implemented. 6. Relevancy of the evidentiary basis for the proposed strategies. 7. Degree to which the *Healthy People 2010 and 2020* initiatives, corresponding Healthy People State plans, the Clinical and Community Guides to Preventive Services, and Healthier U.S. will be incorporated into proposed activities. 8. Where applicable, how proposed strategies and objectives are currently being implemented using other resources. 9. How applicant will leverage additional resources for implementation of components of the each educational/training activity. b. Project Evaluation (20 Points) 1. Extent to which application describes how process and outcome objectives for all educational activities will be measured, evaluated and documented. 2. Identification of mechanisms to track:
(1)The participants in the educational/training activities,
(2)the effect(s) the activities have on the respective careers, and
(3)use of clinical preventive services and participation in health promotional activities. 3. Feasibility and appropriateness of evaluation design; 4. Ability to share and disseminate project results. c. Organizational Capabilities/Qualifications (20 Points) 1. The management and administrative structure of the applicant is explained. Evidence of the applicant's ability to manage a project of the proposed activities is well defined. 2. The application clearly demonstrates the successful management of projects of similar scope by the organization and or by the individual and/or team designated to manage the project. 3. The organization's active involvement in education and or training of the targeted groups is demonstrated. 4. Position descriptions and/or resumes of key personnel, including those of consultants/contractors, are presented. The position descriptions and/or resumes relate specifically to the staff in the proposed approach and budget of the application. Position descriptions clearly describe the position and its project objectives. Resumes demonstrate that proposed staff are qualified to carry out proposed activities. Either the position descriptions or the resumes contain the qualifications and/or specialized skills, necessary for overall quality management of the project. Resumes must be included if individuals have been identified for positions in the application. d. Partnerships (15 Points) 1. List and description of partner organization(s) (if any) and its mission(s) and how the organization(s) supports the purposes of this cooperative agreement. 2. Description of how partners (if any) were selected and how they will contribute to the development, implementation, monitoring, and any modifications to the proposed activities over time. e. Budget (15 Points) A detailed, well-written, and fully justified budget which: 1. Includes sufficient details to facilitate the determination of cost and the relevance to the proposed activities; 2. Requests funds which are appropriate and necessary for the scope of the proposed activities; and 3. Demonstrates administrative efficiency and value which allows for the maximizing of resources for the proposed activities. 2. Review and Selection Process Applications will be reviewed in competition with other submitted applications, by a panel of peer reviewers. Each of the above criteria will be addressed and considered by the reviewers in assigning the overall score. Final award will be made by September 1, 2007, on the basis of score, program relevance and availability of funds. Section VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices ODPHP/HHS does not release information about individual applications during the review process until final funding decisions have been made. When these decisions have been made, applicants will be notified by letter regarding the outcome of their applications. The official document notifying an applicant that an application has been approved and funded is the Notice of Grant Award signed by the Grants Management Officer, which specifies to the awardee the amount of money awarded, the purpose of the agreement, the terms and conditions of the agreement, and the amount of funding. 2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements The regulations set out at 45 CFR parts 74 and 92 are the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)rules and requirements that govern the administration of grants. Part 74 is applicable to all recipients except those covered by part 92, which governs awards to State and local governments. The applicant funded under this announcement must be aware of and comply with these regulations. The CFR volume that includes parts 74 and 92 may be downloaded from: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/45cfrv1_05.html* . The HHS Appropriations Act requires that when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitation, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, grantees shall clearly state the percentage and dollar amount of the total cost of the program or project which will be financed with Federal money and the percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources. 3. Reporting All projects are required to have an evaluation plan, consistent with the scope of the proposed project and funding level that conforms to the project's stated goals and objectives. The evaluation plan should include both a process evaluation to track the implementation of project activities and an outcome evaluation to measure changes in knowledge and skills that can be attributed to the project. Project funds may be used to support evaluation activities. A successful applicant under this notice will also submit
(1)Semi-annual progress reports;
(2)an annual Financial Status Report; and
(3)a final progress report and Financial Status Report in the format established by ODPHP, in accordance with provisions of the general regulations which apply under “Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance,” 45 CFR 74.51-74.52, with the exception of State and local governments to which 45 CFR part 92, Subpart C reporting requirements apply. In addition to conducting their own evaluation of projects, the successful applicant must be prepared to participate in an external evaluation, to be supported by ODPHP/HHS and conducted by an independent entity, to assess efficiency and effectiveness for the project funded under this announcement. Section VII. Agency Contacts For Application Kits, submission of applications, and information on budget and business aspects of the application, please contact: OPHS/Office of Grants Management, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852 at
(240)453-8822. Also contact OPHS/Office of Grants Management with questions regarding programmatic information and/or requests for technical assistance in the preparation of the grant application. For programmatic requirements, please contact: Cecilia Penn, MD, MPH; or Sarah Linde-Feucht, MD, 1101 Wootton Pkwy, Suite LL 100, Rockville, MD 20852, Phone: 240-453-8251; 240-453-8256. Section VIII. Other Information Tips for Writing a Strong Application • Keep your audience in mind. Reviewers will use only the information contained in the application to assess the application. Be sure the application and responses to the program requirements and expectations are complete and clearly written. Do not assume that reviewers are familiar with the applicant organization. Keep the review criteria in mind when writing the application. • Start preparing the application early. Allow plenty of time to gather required information from various sources. • Follow the instructions in this guidance carefully. Place all information in the order requested in the guidance. If the information is not placed in the requested order, you may receive a lower score. • Be brief, concise, and clear. Make your points understandable. Provide accurate and honest information, including candid accounts of problems and realistic plans to address them. If any required information or data is omitted, explain why. Make sure the information provided in each table, chart, attachment, etc., is consistent with the proposal narrative and information in other tables. • Be organized and logical. Many applications fail to receive a high score because the reviewers cannot follow the thought process of the applicant or because parts of the application do not fit together. • Be careful in the use of appendices. Do not use the appendices for information that is required in the body of the application. Be sure to cross-reference all tables and attachments located in the appendices to the appropriate text in the application. • Carefully proofread the application. Misspellings and grammatical errors will impede reviewers in understanding the application. Be sure pages are numbered (including appendices) and that page limits are followed. Limit the use of abbreviations and acronyms, and define each one at its first use and periodically throughout application. Dated: July 2, 2007. Sarah Linde-Feucht, Deputy Director, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. [FR Doc. E7-13701 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of Anticipated Availability of Funds for Family Planning Services Grants AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Population Affairs. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Office of Population Affairs, OPHS, HHS published a notice in the **Federal Register** of Monday, June 11, 2007 announcing the anticipated availability of funds for family planning services grants. Since that time, an additional State/population/area to be served has become available for competition. This Notice reflects the availability of Arizona, Navajo Nation for competition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Moskosky, 240-453-2818. Correction In the **Federal Register** of June 11, 2007, FR Doc. 07-11183, on page 32113, correct Table I to read: Table I States/populations/areas to be served Approximate funding available Application due date Approximate grant funding date Region I: No service areas competitive in FY 2008 Region II: New York, New York City area $4,209,000 03/01/08 07/01/08 New Jersey 8,586,000 09/01/07 01/01/08 Region III: Maryland 3,957,000 12/01/07 04/01/08 Southeast Pennsylvania 4,889,000 03/01/08 07/01/08 West Virginia 2,169,000 12/01/07 04/01/08 Region IV: Kentucky 5,442,500 03/01/08 07/01/08 South Carolina 5,767,000 03/01/08 07/01/08 Florida, Greater Miami area 544,000 06/01/08 09/30/08 Region V: Ohio, Central area 709,500 11/01/07 03/01/08 Minnesota 2,632,500 09/01/07 01/01/08 Region VI: Arkansas 3,341,000 11/01/07 03/01/08 Louisiana 4,370,000 03/01/08 07/01/08 New Mexico 2,835,000 09/01/07 01/01/08 Region VII: Iowa 2,531,500 03/01/08 07/01/08 Iowa 1,061,500 06/01/08 09/30/08 Region VIII: Montana 1,970,000 03/01/08 07/01/08 Region IX: Arizona 4,080,500 09/01/07 01/01/08 Arizona, Navajo Nation 658,900 03/01/08 07/01/08 California 20,451,500 09/01/07 01/01/08 California, Los Angeles area 472,000 09/01/07 01/01/08 Republic of the Marshall Islands 190,500 03/01/08 07/01/08 Region X: Alaska 873,000 03/01/08 07/01/08 In addition, on page 32111, in the first column, under II. Award Information, please correct the second sentence to read, “Of this amount, OPA intends to make available approximately $81.7 million for competing Title X family planning services grant awards in 22 states, populations, and/or areas.” Dated: July 10, 2007. Evelyn M. Kappeler, Acting Director,Office of Population Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-13700 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-34-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration On Aging Availability of Funding Opportunity Announcement *Funding Opportunity Title/Program Name:* Alzheimer's Disease Demonstration Grants to States (ADDGS) Program: Translating Evidence-Based Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia Direct Services Research Into Practice. *Announcement Type:* Initial Announcement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* HHS-2007-AoA-AZ-0718. *Statutory Authority:* Sec. 398 of the Public Health Service Act (Pub. L. 78-410; 42 U.S.C. 280c-3), amended by the Home Health Care and Alzheimer's Disease Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-557) and by the Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-392). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 93.051, Alzheimer's Disease Demonstration Grants to States (ADDGS) Program. DATES: The deadline date for the submission of applications is August 28, 2007. The deadline date for submission of a letter of intent is July 31, 2007. I. Funding Opportunity Description This announcement seeks proposals that will demonstrate how existing evidence-based service delivery research programs targeting persons with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias
(ADRD)or their caregivers can be translated into useful programs that can be administered at a reasonable cost at the community level through the Aging Services Network. Applications that seek to replicate evidence-based programs that do not specifically target persons with ADRD or their caregivers will not be considered for funding. ADDGS Program's mission is to expand the availability of diagnostic and support services for persons with Alzheimer's disease, their families, and their caregivers, as well as improve the responsiveness of the home and community based care system to persons with ADRD. The program focuses on serving hard-to-reach and underserved people with ADRD. A detailed description of the funding opportunity may be found at *http://www.aoa.gov/doingbus/fundopp/fundopp.asp.* II. Award Information 1. Funding Instrument Type: Cooperative Agreement. 2. Anticipated Total Priority Area Funding Per Budget Period: AoA intends to make available, under this program announcement, cooperative agreements for up to eight
(8)projects, with eighteen
(18)month project periods, at a federal share up to $400,000 with most awardees expected to receive $250,000. III. Eligibility Criteria and Other Requirements 1. Eligible Applicants This is a limited grant competition. Eligibility for grant awards is limited to agencies of State Government including, but not limited to, current ADDGS grantees. 2. Cost Sharing or Matching Under this program, AoA will fund no more than 75 percent of the project's total cost. Grantees are required to provide at least 25 percent of the total program costs from non-federal cash or in-kind resources in order to be considered for the award. 3. DUNS Number [All grant applicants must obtain aD-U-N-S number from Dun and Bradstreet. It is a nine-digit identification number, which provides unique identifiers of single business entities. The D-U-N-S number is free and easy to obtain from *http://www.dnb.com/US/duns_update/* ] 4. Intergovernmental Review Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, is not applicable to these grant applications. IV. Application and Submission Information Address to Request Application Application materials are available online at *http://www.grants.gov.* 1. Submission Requirements Applications must be submitted electronically to *http://www.grants.gov.* In order to be able to submit the application; you must register in the Central Contractor Registry
(CCR)database. Information about CCR is available at *http://www.grants.gov/CCRRegister.* 2. Submission Dates and Times To receive consideration, applications must be submitted electronically by midnight, Eastern time, August 28, 2007. V. Responsiveness Criteria Each application submitted will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time. Applications received by the closing date and time will be screened for completeness and conformity with the requirements outlined in Sections III and IV of this Notice and the Program Announcement. Only complete applications that meet these requirements will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. VI. Application Review Information Eligible applications in response to this announcement will be reviewed according to the following evaluation criteria: Purpose and Need for Assistance (15 points); Approach/Method— Workplan and Activities (40 points); Outcomes/Benefits/Impacts (25 points); and Level of Effort, Program Management, Organizational Capacity (20 points). VII. Agency Contacts Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, Office of Community-Based Services, Washington, DC 20201, telephone: 202-357-3452. Dated: July 10, 2007. Josefina G. Carbonell, Assistant Secretary for Aging. [FR Doc. 07-3433 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 11
21 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
  • 40 CFR 1506.9
  • 12 CFR 944
  • 12 CFR 944.3
  • 12 CFR 944.3(b)
  • 12 CFR 944.3(c)
  • 12 CFR 944.2(a)
  • 12 CFR 944.2(b)(1)(ii)
  • 12 CFR 944.2(b)(2)(i)
  • 12 CFR 944.2(b)(2)(ii)
  • 12 CFR 944.2(d)
  • 12 CFR 225
  • 45 CFR 100
  • 45 CFR 74
  • 45 CFR 74.51-74
  • 45 CFR 92
  • Pub. L. 78-410
  • Pub. L. 101-557
  • Pub. L. 105-392
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 346a
U.S.C.§ 1430
U.S.C.§ 2901
U.S.C.§ 1841
U.S.C.§ 1842
U.S.C.§ 1843
C.F.R.§ 225.28
U.S.C.§ 301
Cite40 CFR 9
Cite5 CFR 1320.12
Cite5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
Cites 32 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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