Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

15,192 words·~69 min read·/register/2007/08/15/07-3990

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

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-3416; MB Docket No. 07-143; RM-11381] Radio Broadcasting Services; Charlo, MT AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Spanish Peaks Broadcasting, Inc. (“Petitioner”) proposing the allotment of Channel 251C3 at Charlo, Montana. The proposed coordinates are 47-32-20 NL and 114-08-52 WL with a site restriction of 11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles) north of Charlo, Montana.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before September 17, 2007, and reply comments on or before October 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the Petitioner as follows: Kevin Terry, President, Spanish Peaks Broadcasting, Inc.; 3702 Sunridge Drive; Park City, Utah 84098. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* MB Docket No. 07-143, adopted July 25, 2007, and released July 27, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is amended by adding Charlo, Channel 251C3. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-15900 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Yellowstone National Park Bison Herd as Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Yellowstone National Park

(YNP)bison herd as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). On the basis of our review of the petition and information readily available in our files, we have determined that there is substantial information indicating that the YNP bison herd may meet the criteria of discreteness and significance as defined by our policy on distinct vertebrate population segments (DPS). However, we have also determined that there is not substantial information indicating that listing the YNP bison herd under the Act may be warranted throughout all or a significant part of its range. We will not initiate a status review in response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of the YNP bison herd or threats to it or its habitat at any time. This information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of the species. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 15, 2007. New information concerning this species may be submitted for our consideration at any time. ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this petition finding should be submitted to the Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 645, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. The petition finding and supporting information will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. The petition and finding are available on our Web site at *http://r6.fws.gov/mammals/bison* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Stempel, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 303-236-4253; facsimile 303-236-0027). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and information otherwise available in our files, and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. Mr. James Horsley of Moorhead, Minnesota, filed a petition dated January 5, 1999, with the Secretary of the Interior to list the “herd of buffalo at the Yellowstone National Park” “because it is endangered in a significant portion of its range.” Mr. Horsley requested that the Service list the herd as a subspecies or “distinct population group,” and to designate critical habitat in and adjacent to YNP. The Service received the petition on February 11, 1999. Action on this petition has been precluded until now because of higher priority listing actions. This finding does not consider critical habitat, which would only arise with a positive 12-month finding. Biology and Distribution The bison (also referred to as the American buffalo) is a member of the family Bovidae, which includes domestic cattle. Two subspecies of bison are currently recognized in North America—the plains bison ( *Bison bison bison* ) and the wood bison ( *Bison bison athabascae* ) (Boyd 2003, pp. 28-31). The species once ranged across central and western North America, but market hunting nearly extirpated the herds by the 1880s. Numerous Federal, State, and private bison herds currently exist in the United States, but YNP is the only area in the United States where bison have existed in the wild state since prehistoric times (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 92). Boyd (2003, p. 38) estimated the plains bison population in North America at 500,000, and identified 50 herds (containing approximately 19,200 head) currently being managed with clear conservation objectives. Many of the numerous bison herds currently extant in the United States and Canada were reconstituted from stock that was used to develop bison-cattle hybrids (Boyd 2003, p. 23). Research on 11 Federal herds revealed that the bison herd in YNP was 1 of 3 that showed no evidence of genetic introgression with cattle (Halbert 2003, pp. 86-87) based on the alleles examined. (Introgression occurs when the genes of one species infiltrate the genes of another through repeated crossings.) The other two herds were Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota and Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming (Halbert 2003, p. 87), although the Grand Teton sample size was small so confidence in the results is lower than that for Wind Cave. More recently, the bison herd at Sully's Hill National Game Preserve in North Dakota has been sampled and is not known to be introgressed, although the sample size was small (Roffe 2005). Halbert (2003, pp. 44-45) found only four of the Federal herds made positive contributions to overall bison genetic diversity (measured in terms of allelic richness and gene diversity). Those herds were: YNP, National Bison Range (Montana), Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge (Oklahoma), and Wind Cave. The winter 2005-2006 count of the YNP bison herd estimated the herd size at 3,546 bison (Geremia and Wallen 2006), and the most recent summer count estimated the herd size at 4,500 bison (Wallen 2007). Subspecies The bison in Yellowstone National Park are considered to be plains bison ( *Bison bison bison* ). As mentioned previously, Boyd (2003, p. 38) estimated the plains bison population in North America at 500,000, and identified 50 herds (containing approximately 19,200 head) currently being managed with clear conservation objectives. Given the abundance and management status of the subspecies, we have concluded that the petition has not presented substantial information indicating that its listing under the Act may be warranted. Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment The petitioner asked us to list the YNP bison herd as a “distinct population group.” We assume that the petitioner meant a Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

(DPS)for purposes of listing under the Act. Under section 3(15) of the Act, we may consider for listing any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa. In determining whether an entity constitutes a DPS, and is therefore listable under the Act, we follow the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Under our DPS Policy, we must address three analytical steps prior to listing a possible DPS:

(1)The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon;

(2)the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and

(3)the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing ( *i.e.* , is the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, endangered or threatened) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). This finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case that the petitioned population may be a DPS. Discreteness Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two conditions:

(1)It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or

(2)it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Information Provided in the Petition on Discreteness The petitioner asserts that the YNP bison “herd is the only wild, unfenced buffalo herd in the nation,” but no specific citations are provided to support this conclusion. Information in our files support the conclusion that the YNP bison population is the only herd in the United States that has remained in a wild state since prehistoric times (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 93). All other bison in the United States are reconstituted herds and are confined with fencing, or otherwise range restricted. Individuals from the Jackson bison herd in Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge have been known to migrate north into YNP, but this is a rare occurrence (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 109). Therefore, we find that the YNP bison herd may be discrete from other members of the taxon *Bison bison* because of physical distance and barriers. Significance Under our DPS Policy, in addition to our consideration that a population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited to:

(1)Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unique or unusual for the taxon;

(2)evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon;

(3)evidence that the population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and

(4)evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996). Information Provided in the Petition on Significance The petitioner asserts that the YNP bison herd is significant within the meaning of our DPS policy because it is the last wild, unfenced herd in the United States, and exhibits quasi-migratory behavior when members of the herd leave YNP during the winter in search of food. The petition also asserts that the herd may be a unique hybrid of the wood and plains bison, and the herd has historical and cultural significance to Native Americans. No citations are provided to substantiate these statements.

(1)*Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unique for the taxon* . The petitioner asserts that YNP is the only area in the lower 48 States where bison have existed in the wild state since prehistoric times. This statement is consistent with Gates *et al.* (2005, p. 245), and indicates that the YNP bison herd may exist in a unique ecological setting within the meaning of our DPS Policy. The petitioner's assertion that the YNP bison were important to Native Americans also is supported by Gates *et al.* (2005, p. 77) (e.g., “The Lamar Valley and the Yellowstone River Valley north to Livingstone was an important area for bison and Native peoples throughout the Holocene.”). We agree with the petitioner that the YNP bison herd has substantial cultural and historical value. However, the significance criteria in our DPS Policy are based on biological factors identified in the Act that show that the population is significant to the taxon, and not on human cultural or historical significance. Therefore, we did not evaluate cultural and historical significance in our DPS analysis, but rather relied solely on the scientific criteria in the DPS Policy. The petitioner asserts that the YNP is significant because of its “quasi-migratory behavior.” Gates *et al.* (2005, p. 160) concludes that YNP is a forage-limited system, and that, “Bison move beyond park boundaries in winter in response to forage limitation caused by interactions between population density, variable forage production (driven by spring/early summer precipitation), snow conditions, and herbage removal primarily by bison and elk.” Winter movement of large herbivores, such as bison and elk, in search of forage is normal behavior. The fact that bison and elk range outside the Park is not unusual. Based on this information, we would not consider the YNP bison herd movements to winter range outside the Park boundary as a unique behavior within the meaning of our DPS Policy.

(2)*Evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.* The petition alleges that the YNP bison herd is the only remaining wild, unfenced bison herd. As discussed under “Biology and Distribution,” there are 3 other Federal bison herds that show no evidence of introgression with domestic cattle, based on sampling done to date. Because of the limited number and extent of bison herds that show no evidence of introgression with domestic cattle, we find that loss of the YNP bison herd might result in a significant gap in the current range of the taxon.

(3)*Evidence that the population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range.* The petition provides no specific information to indicate that the YNP bison herd would meet this criterion. As noted above, Gates *et al.* (2005, p. 245) indicate that YNP is the only area in the lower 48 States where bison have existed in a wild state since prehistoric times. Bison originally ranged across western North America; because numerous herds have been reintroduced in the historic range, we have determined that the YNP herd is not the only surviving natural occurrence within its range. Additionally, the species is not more abundant elsewhere outside its historic range.

(4)*Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.* The petition alleges that the YNP bison herd may be a unique hybrid of the wood and plains bison. No citations are provided, but this conclusion was stated in Meagher (1973, pp. 14-16), who considered the “mountain” bison a separate species. This controversy has since been resolved, and YNP staff now considers the remnant population, as well as the introduced bison, as being of plains bison origin (Boyd 2003, pp. 182-183; Wallen 2006). Additional information in our files compiled after this petition was submitted indicates that the YNP bison herd is one of three Federal herds that do not display genetic introgression with cattle. Maintenance of genetic diversity is an important long-term goal for management of species populations. Halbert (2003, p. 94), concluded her study by stating: “In conclusion, this study has assessed levels of domestic cattle introgression in 10 federal bison populations and identified at least 2 populations, Wind Cave and YNP, which at this time do not have any evidence of domestic cattle introgression and also have high levels of unique genetic variation in relation to other federal populations. As such, these populations should be given conservation priority * * *” Thus, we conclude that the YNP bison herd satisfies this genetic criterion of significance under the DPS Policy. DPS Determination The Grand Teton National Park/National Elk Refuge bison herd is separate from the YNP herd (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 93), and there are less than a dozen other unconfined bison herds in the entire lower 48 States (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 2). Therefore, the YNP herd is discrete from other members of the taxon. Recent genetic research confirms that the YNP bison herd is significant because of a lack of nuclear domestic cattle introgression. Although 3 other Federal herds exhibit this characteristic, the YNP bison are the only remnant population that has remained in a wild state since prehistoric times and, therefore, is important to the management of bison genetic diversity. Halbert (2003, pp. 44-45) found only four Federal herds that were sufficiently unique to contribute significantly to overall bison genetic diversity. On the basis of the preceding discussion, we believe that there is substantial information to conclude that the YNP bison herd may be discrete and significant within the meaning of our DPS Policy, and therefore may constitute a DPS. According to our DPS Policy, if a population of a species is found to be both discrete and significant, we then evaluate the conservation status of the population in relation to the listing factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Our assessment of the conservation status of the YNP bison herd, based on the information provided in the petition and our files, is provided in the “Conservation Status” section below. Conservation Status Pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species of a taxon on the basis of any one of the following factors:

(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;

(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C)disease or predation;

(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E)other manmade or natural factors affecting its continued existence. Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petition asserts that the natural range of the YNP bison herd is being curtailed by the interruptions of its members' attempts to move out of the Park. The petitioner alleges that in 1996 the herd numbered approximately 3,000 head, and that over 1,000 of these bison were “slaughtered” outside YNP in the winter of 1996-1997, which threatened the “quasi-migratory” behavior of the herd. The petitioner is correct concerning the culling of YNP bison outside the Park in the winter of 1997. Since the 1920s, bison that venture out of YNP into Montana have been subject to various lethal and non-lethal measures to control brucellosis (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 83), which is a contagious, costly disease of ruminant (cud-chewing) animals, such as bison, cattle, and swine. Since 1934, there has been a national Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program, because the disease causes decreased milk production, weight loss in livestock, loss of young, infertility, and lameness ( *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/brucellosis/* ). Culling of bison in interior YNP for population and brucellosis control ceased in 1968 (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 87). However, the population data for the YNP bison herd do not support the petitioner's assertion that the 1997 bison mortality in Montana threatens the herd or its range. Since the winterkill and lethal brucellosis control actions in Montana during 1997, the YNP bison herd has continued to grow despite culling for population and brucellosis control, and currently numbers approximately 4,500 head (Wallen 2007). Additional information on culling is provided under Factor B. The petitioner's assertion that hazing and killing of bison outside the Park will affect the “quasi-migratory” behavior of the herd, and will result in a restriction of the range is not supported by information available in our files. Bison in YNP attempt to compensate for declining per capita food resources by range expansion (Gates *et al.* 2005, p. 131). In other words, bison move out of the Park in the winter in search of food, and this pattern has continued since implementation of the Joint Bison Management Plan (discussed in greater detail under Factor D) in 2000 (Clarke *et al.* 2005, p. 29). Therefore, the available information indicates that control actions have not affected the “quasi-migratory” ranging behavior of the YNP herd. Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes As mentioned under Factor A, the petitioner alleges that in 1996 the herd numbered approximately 3,000 head, and that over 1,000 of these bison were “slaughtered” outside YNP in the winter of 1996-1997. The petition claims that “Half the herd is now gone due to their slaughter.” However, as stated under Factor A, the population data for the YNP bison herd do no support the contention that half the herd is now gone due to lethal control. In fact, since the winterkill and lethal brucellosis control actions in Montana during 1996-97, the YNP bison herd has continued to grow, and currently numbers approximately 4,500 head (Wallen 2006). Breeding success has been steady for at least 100 years, in spite of culling for population and brucellosis control (Fuller 2003, pp. 21-28). As part of the Joint Bison Management Plan, variable numbers of bison may be removed from the herd to maintain optimal population size and for brucellosis control. In addition, the Joint Bison Management Plan establishes that when the population drops to 2,300 bison, measures to protect bison will be increased. Management mortality would cease if the herd drops to 2,100 head. The herd may stabilize at about 3,500 to 3,800 head, but could fluctuate over time based on the severity of winter weather (USDI and USDA 2000, pp. 51-52). Factor C. Disease or Predation The petitioner provides no information on this factor, and we have no information in our files to indicate that the current conservation status of the YNP bison herd is affected by disease or predation. Although brucellosis is endemic to the herd, the disease does not appear to be a threat because the population continues to grow at a rate of between 5 and 8 percent (Fuller 2006, pp. 21-24). The Joint Bison Management Plan provides a detailed set of procedures for managing the YNP bison herd in conjunction with the brucellosis control program in Montana. Gates *et al.* (2005, p. 51) concluded that predation may become increasingly important as reintroduced wolves learn how to kill bison, but there is no information in our files to indicate that predation is a threat at this time. Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petitioner implies that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ensure protection of the YNP bison herd because some animals are killed outside the Park. We are assuming that, based on the information in our files, the petitioner is referring to lethal control of bison in conjunction with Montana's brucellosis control program. During the 1990s, a Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and YNP (Joint Bison Management Plan) was developed. A Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on the plan was issued by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture on December 20, 2000 (available at *http://www.planning.nps.gov/document/yellbisonrod%2Epdf* ). The Joint Bison Management Plan provides a detailed set of procedures for managing the YNP bison herd in conjunction with the brucellosis control program in Montana. The Joint Bison Management Plan has a population target of greater than 2,100 bison (USDI and USDA 2000, pp. 51-52). The plan contains contingency measures to assure that the conservation status of the herd remains secure. If exigent circumstances arise during severe winters, the agencies agree to temporarily modify elements of the plan to mitigate total removal of bison. If the bison population declines to 2,300 within a single winter, the agencies will meet to evaluate modifications to the prevailing management prescriptions that could reduce the total management removal of bison from the population (USDI and USDA 2000, p. 52). If the bison population declines below 2,100 within a single winter, the agencies will, on a temporary basis for that winter, increase implementation of non-lethal management measures. One of the primary goals of the Joint Bison Management Plan is to provide for a “free-ranging bison herd” (USDI and USDA 2000, p. 6). The herd may stabilize at about 3,500 to 3,800 head, but could fluctuate over time based on the severity of winter weather (USDI and USDA 2000, pp. 51-52). This size range was identified by YNP staff as sufficient to protect the long-term status of the herd. The latest conservation genetics information indicates that a population in this range should be able to sustain the current level of genetic diversity indefinitely without the need for introducing immigrants from other populations (Wallen 2006). The Joint Bison Management Plan Status Review Team recently completed an analysis of the adaptive management elements of the plan (Clarke *et al.* 2005, pp. 28-29). With regard to YNP bison population abundance, the team found that the abundance of bison has grown steadily since the implementation of the Joint Bison Management Plan (see Figure 1). The population reached almost 4,900 head in the summer of 2005, and now numbers around 4,500. Winter weather conditions have been mild to average during the first 5 years, and the population has not dropped below 2,300 bison. The late winter population has been above the population target and management decision threshold of 3,000 head in 4 of the 5 years of implementation (Clarke *et al.* 2005, p. 28). Management-related mortality has resulted in greater than 200 bison removed during 3 of the 5 winters, but the population continues to expand (Clarke *et al.* 2005, p. 28). Based on this information we concur with the Status Review Team that the Joint Bison Management Plan is working with regard to successful management of the YNP bison herd. EP15AU07.000 Factor E. Other Manmade or Natural Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence The petitioner provided no information on this factor, and we have no information in our files to indicate that possible circumstances in this category affect the YNP bison herd. Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat factors to assess whether there is substantial information to indicate that the potential Yellowstone National Park

(YNP)bison herd DPS may be threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The first step in this assessment is to determine whether there is substantial information that the DPS may be threatened or endangered throughout all of its range. If this is the case, then we make a positive 90-day finding for the DPS in its entirety. If it is not the case, we must next consider whether there is substantial information that there may be any significant portions of its range that are in threatened or endangered. On the basis of our review of the petition and other information readily available in our files, we have concluded that the petition does not present substantial information that listing the potential YNP bison herd DPS as threatened or endangered throughout all of its range may be warranted. The petition is based primarily on the threat of excessive killing of bison that venture outside YNP in order to prevent the spread of brucellosis to domestic livestock. However, we found no information to indicate that brucellosis control efforts, either previous or ongoing, threaten the continued existence of the potential YNP bison herd DPS. A large number of bison did die during the severe winter of 1996-97 due to the combined effects of natural causes and human control efforts, but the herd itself was not threatened by this mortality. A Joint Bison Management Plan for the YNP bison herd (USDI and USDA 2000), completed and implemented approximately one year after the petition was provided to the Service, provides mechanisms to address the impacts of brucellosis control actions on the herd while maintaining a self-sustaining bison herd in and adjacent to YNP. In addition, the population data for the YNP bison herd indicate that, since the winterkill and lethal brucellosis control actions in Montana during 1996-97, the YNP bison herd has continued to grow despite culling for population and brucellosis control, and currently numbers approximately 4,500 head. Having determined that the potential YNP bison herd DPS does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered, we must next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range that where the herd is danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, “The Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its Range’ ” (USDI 2007). We have summarized our interpretation of that opinion and the underlying statutory language below. A portion of a species' range (in this case, “species” refers to the potential YNP bison herd DPS) is significant if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the species. The first step in determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range is to identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that

(i)the portions may be significant and

(ii)the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of the species, such portions will not warrant further consideration. If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient for the Service to address the significance question first, or the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is threatened or endangered there; if the Service determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant. The terms “resiliency,” “redundancy,” and “representation” are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of the range. Resiliency of a species allows the species to recover from periodic disturbance. A species will likely be more resilient if large populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed throughout the range of the species in such a way as to capture the environmental variability found within the range of the species. In addition, the portion may contribute to resiliency for other reasons—for instance, it may contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This does not mean that any portion that provides redundancy is a significant portion of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the range such that random perturbations in the system act on only a few populations. Therefore, each area must be examined based on whether that area provides an increment of redundancy is important to the conservation of the species. Adequate representation ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. Specifically, the portion should be evaluated to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides genetic diversity due to its location on the margin of the species' habitat requirements. Applying the process described above for determining whether a species is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we next addressed whether any portions of the range of the potential YNP bison herd DPS warranted further consideration. According to Gates *et al.* (2005), most bison in the YNP herd are confined within Yellowstone National Park for all or most of the year. Rut takes place within YNP from around mid-July to mid-August (Meagher, 1973) in one of three rutting areas—the largest rutting aggregation is in the Hayden Valley, the second largest in the eastern Lamar Valley, and a small aggregation occurs in small high elevation grasslands on the Mirror Plateau and Cache/Calfee Ridge (Gates *et al.* 2005). Most bison remain in YNP during winter, especially in the geothermally-influenced central portion of the Park. Calves are born in April-May on the winter range (Meagher 1973). For these reasons we have determined that there is substantial information that Yellowstone National Park may constitute a significant portion of the range for the potential YNP bison herd DPS. In late winter/early spring, varying numbers of bison may move outside the Park's boundaries into Montana near West Yellowstone and Gardiner looking for forage. Bison that move outside YNP usually return by late spring (YNP, 2007). The proportion of Yellowstone bison that move to winter ranges outside YNP varies from 3 to 30 percent per year, depending on conditions (YNP, 2007). Bison move beyond Park boundaries in late winter in response to forage limitation caused by interactions between population density, variable forage production, snow conditions, and grazing competition (Gates *et al.* 2005). The Gardiner basin has been considered important winter range for bison since at least the 1940s and is an important component of the Northern winter range; in contrast, the West Yellowstone area does not have unique ecological value as winter range according to Gates *et al.* (2005). For these reasons we believe there is substantial information that the Gardiner basin provides resiliency to the herd during harsh winters, and, therefore, may constitute a significant portion of the range for the potential YNP bison herd DPS. On the basis of our review of the petition and other information readily available in our files, we have concluded that the petition does not present substantial information that the Yellowstone bison herd may be threatened or endangered in either of the potentially significant portions of the range as outlined in the two previous paragraphs. Management of the Yellowstone bison herd is guided by a Joint Bison Management Plan for the YNP bison herd (USDI and USDA 2000). Management of bison within the Park is the responsibility of the National Park Service. Culling of bison in interior YNP for population and brucellosis management stopped in 1968 (Gates *et al.* 2005). Population data for the YNP bison herd indicate that, since the winterkill and lethal brucellosis control actions in Montana during 1996-97, the YNP bison herd has continued to grow despite culling for population and brucellosis control, and currently numbers approximately 4,500 animals. We therefore conclude that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the Yellowstone bison herd within YNP may be warranted. Outside YNP, management of bison is primarily the responsibility of the State of Montana (USDI and USDA 2000). Bison that leave YNP are subject to hazing and lethal control as a part of the brucellosis control program, but the Joint Bison Management Plan provides conservation measures that eliminate the control program as a threat to the continued existence of the herd. We therefore conclude that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the Yellowstone bison herd on the winter range outside YNP may be warranted. In summary, we have determined that the petition has not presented substantial information indicating that the potential YNP bison herd DPS may warrant listing as threatened or endangered throughout all or any significant portion of its range. Although we will not be initiating a status review in response to this petition, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of the YNP bison herd or threats to it or its habitat at any time. This information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of the species. References A complete list of all references cited herein is available on request from the Region 6 Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). Author The primary author of this document is Chuck Davis, Region 6 Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: August 6, 2007. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-16004 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 157 Wednesday, August 15, 2007 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance; Office of Food for Peace; Announcement of Draft Food for Peace P.L. 480 Title II Program Policies and Proposal Guidelines

(FY08)Notice Pursuant to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 480, as amended), notice is hereby given that the Draft Food for Peace P.L. 480 Title II Program Policies and Proposal Guidelines (FY 08) are being made available to interested parties for the required thirty

(30)day comment period. Individuals who wish to receive a copy of these draft guidelines should contact: Office of Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International Development, RRB 7.06-136, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523-7600. The draft guidelines may also be found at *http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/.* Individuals who have questions or comments on the draft guidelines should contact both Juli Majernik (at the above address, by phone at

(202)712-4088, or by e-mail at *jmajernik@usaid.gov* ) and copy AMEX International, Inc., at *ffpdocs@amexdc.com.* The thirty-day comment period will begin on the date that this announcement is published in the **Federal Register** . Juli Majernik, Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-15979 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary [Docket Number: AMS-CN-07-0093; CN-07-007] Proposal To Reestablish the Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to reestablish the Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is proposing to reestablish the Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards (Committee). The Committee reviews official Universal Standards for American Upland cotton prepared by USDA and would make recommendations regarding the establishment or revision of standards. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224, telephone 202-720-2145, facsimile 202-690-1718, or e-mail at *darryl.earnest@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture is considering the reestablishment of the Advisory Committee, which would be composed of foreign and domestic representatives of the cotton industry. The purpose of the Committee would be to review official Universal Standards for U.S. Upland cotton prepared by USDA and make recommendations regarding establishment or revision of the standards established under the United States Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 *et seq.* ). The last Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards was established August 6, 2004. The Advisory Committee's term ended in 2006. Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, would be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee have taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership would include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Balanced committee membership would be attained domestically and internationally through the following Committee composition. Representation by Domestic Industry The U.S. cotton industry's committee membership would be comprised of 12 producers and ginners, 6 representatives of merchandising firms, and 6 representatives of textile manufacturers. These representatives would be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Each member would have one vote. Accordingly, voting privileges will be divided as follows:

(1)U.S. cotton producers and ginners—12 votes;

(2)U.S. merchandising firms—6 votes;

(3)U.S. textile manufacturers—6 votes. Representation by Foreign Signatory Associations There would be 2 committee members designated from each of the foreign signatory associations. These committee members would be designated by the respective associations. Voting privileges would be divided as follows:

(1)Foreign signatory merchant associations—6 votes;

(2)Foreign signatory spinner associations—6 votes. Domestic members selected for the committee shall serve without pay, but with reimbursement of travel expenses and per diem for attendance at the committee meeting. Dated: August 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-15950 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0102; LS-07-13] Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's

(AMS)intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection used to compile and generate the livestock and meat market reports for the Livestock and Grain Market News Branch of the Livestock and Seed Program. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 15, 2007 to be assured of consideration. *Additional Information or Comments:* Comments may be mailed to Jimmy A. Beard; Assistant to the Chief; Livestock and Grain Market News Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA; STOP 0252; Room 2619-S; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0252; Phone

(202)720-8054; Fax

(202)690-3732; e-mailed to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* , or e-mailed to *marketnewscomments@usda.gov* . State that your comments refer to Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0102; LS-07-13. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Warren Preston, Chief, Livestock and Grain Market News Branch, AMS, USDA, by telephone on 202/720-4846, or via e-mail at: *warren.preston@usda.gov* or Jimmy A. Beard, Assistant to the Chief, Livestock and Grain Market News Branch, AMS, USDA, by telephone on 202/720-8054, or e-mail at: *jimmy.beard@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Livestock and Meat Market Reports. *OMB Number:* 0581-0154. *Expiration Date of Approval:* 02-29-2008. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621, *et. seq.* ) directs and authorizes the collection and dissemination of marketing information including adequate outlook information, on a market area basis, for the purpose of anticipating and meeting consumer requirements aiding in the maintenance of farm income and to bring about a balance between production and utilization. Under this market news program, AMS issues market news reports covering the livestock and meat trade, which encompasses a wide range of industry contacts, including packers, processors, producers, brokers, and retailers. These reports are compiled on a voluntary basis, in cooperation with the livestock and meat industry. The information provided by respondents initiates market news reporting, which must be timely, accurate, unbiased, and continuous if it is to be meaningful to the industry. The livestock and meat industry requested that AMS issue livestock and meat market reports in order to assist them in making informed production and marketing decisions. In addition, several Government agencies that purchase meat for various Federal programs use this data in making their purchasing decisions. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at .08 hours per response. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, individuals or households, farms, and the Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,710. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 4,386,150. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 126. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 215,020 hours. Comments are invited on:

(1)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;

(2)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;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jimmy A. Beard, 1400 Independence Ave., Room 2619-S, Washington, DC 20250-0252. Comments can be submitted to: *http://www.regulations.gov* and viewed there as well. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address and on the Internet at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsmnpubs* . All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: August 9, 2007. Lloyd Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-15949 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-07-0036; FV-06-318] United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)is soliciting comments on its proposal to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples. The proposal would replace Tables I and II in the tolerances section with numerical tolerances and numerical application of tolerances. Decay tolerances would also be revised. The proposed revisions would make the United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples more uniform with other existing grade standards and would better serve the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; or fax

(202)720-8871. Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples are available through the Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch,

(202)720-2185. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is proposing to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised July 5, 1990. Background On September 21, 2006, AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 55160) soliciting comments for the possible revision of the United States Standards for Pineapples. In response to this notice, AMS received two comments supporting the proposed revision. The comments are available by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm* as well as *http://www.regulations.gov.* One comment was from a pineapple producer and the second comment was from a trade association representing wholesale receivers. The first commenter supported changing the tables in the tolerance section to numerical tolerances. They also suggested revising the “Definitions” and “Classification of Defects” sections of the standard, which they felt would make pineapple inspections more representative of the new hybrid clones. In order to account for new varieties and/or hybrids, AMS continuously updates all of its inspection handbooks, and believes that revising the pineapple inspection handbook to include definitions and classification of certain defects, would allow for new hybrids/varieties to be represented as they are produced and introduced into the marketing chain. Therefore, AMS will review the commentor's suggestions and address any needed revisions in future handbook updates and not in this action. The second commenter also felt the proposed revision would be beneficial to the industry. The commenter also submitted the following tolerances which they felt would be appropriate for pineapples: Shipping Point: Total Defects 8 percent, Serious Damage 4 percent, Decay 1/2 of 1 percent. En Route or At Destination: Total Defects 12 percent, Permanent Defects 8 percent, Serious Damage 6 percent, Decay 2 percent. After reviewing the commentor's proposed tolerances, it was determined that the proposed shipping point decay tolerance was too restrictive and taking into account current marketing practices not practicable to achieve required level of quality compared to the current tables in the standards. Therefore, AMS has modified the commentor's proposed language and tolerances in reference to the shipping point decay tolerance. The following language and tolerances are being proposed: *Tolerances:* In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling in each of the foregoing grades, the following tolerances, by count are provided as specified: U.S. Fancy and U.S. No. 1 Shipping Point: 8 percent for fruit which fails to meet the requirements of the specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than the following percentages shall be allowed for the defects listed: 4 percent for defects causing serious damage, including in the later amount not more than 1 percent for decay. En Route or At Destination: 12 percent for fruit which fails to meet the requirements of the specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than the following percentages shall be allowed for the defects listed: 8 percent for permanent defects; 6 percent for defects causing serious damage; including therein not more than 4 percent for serious damage by permanent defects and not more than 2 percent decay. U.S. No. 2 Shipping Point: 8 percent for fruit which fails to meet the requirements of the specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than 1 percent for decay. En Route or At Destination: 12 percent for fruit which fails to meet the requirements of the specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than the following percentages shall be allowed for the defects listed: 8 percent for permanent defects; and not more than 2 percent for decay. *Application of Tolerances:* Individual samples shall have not more than double a specified tolerance except that at least two defective specimens may be permitted in any container: *Provided* , That no more than one specimen affected by decay be permitted in any container, and provided further, that the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grades. AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revision to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Pineapples. The official grades of pineapples covered by these standards are determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (7 CFR 51.1 to 51.61). This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on changes to the standards. AMS is seeking comments regarding how marketing of pineapples will be effected with this revision. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621—1627. Dated: August 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-15951 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Meeting of the Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2. The meeting agenda includes the following:

(1)Welcome/Introductions.

(2)Presentation on Environmental Education.

(3)Group Discussion on *Last Child in the Woods,* a book by Richard Louv.

(4)Review of the draft Recommendation on Strategic Plan for Environmental Education at Land Between The Lakes. The meeting is open to the public. Written comments are invited and may be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Written comments must be received at Land Between The Lakes by August 30, 2007, in order for copies to be provided to the members at the meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested at a future meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on September 6, 2007, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., CDT. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Land Between The Lakes Administrative Building, Golden Pond, Kentucky, and will be open to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211, 270-924-2002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. Dated: July 20, 2007. William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes. [FR Doc. E7-15991 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business—Cooperative Service Request for Proposals: Fiscal Year 2007 Funding Opportunity for Research on the Economic Impact of Cooperatives AGENCY: Rural Business—Cooperative Service, USDA. ACTION: Initial Notice of request for proposals. SUMMARY: Rural Business—Cooperative Service programs are administered through USDA Rural Development. USDA Rural Development announces the availability of approximately $500,000 in competitive cooperative agreement funds for fiscal year

(FY)2007 to conduct research on the national economic impact of all types of cooperatives. USDA Rural Development hereby requests proposals from institutions of higher education interested in applying for a competitively awarded cooperative research agreement. This funding is a follow on to funding awarded in FY 2006, the intent of which was to encourage research on the critical issue of the economic value of cooperatives. Funding for FY 2007 is expected to replicate and expand upon research undertaken with FY 2006 funds. DATES: Interested parties may submit completed applications for the cooperative agreement on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than September 7, 2007, to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Electronic copies must be received by September 7, 2007, to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 funding. ADDRESSES: Applicants may obtain application forms, guides, and materials for the cooperative agreement at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/reic.htm* or by contacting USDA Rural Development at

(202)690-0368, (TDD:

(800)877-8339, Federal Information Relay Service) and ask for the cooperative research agreement application kit. Submit completed paper applications for a cooperative agreement to USDA Rural Development's Cooperative Programs, Attn: Cooperative Research, Mail STOP 3250, Room 4016-South, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3250. The phone number that should be used for FedEx packages is

(202)720-7558. Submit electronic applications at *http://www.grants.gov,* following the instructions found on this Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit the program Web site at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/reic.htm,* which contains application guidance, including an Application Guide and application forms. Or you may contact USDA Rural Development at

(202)690-0368 (TDD:

(800)877-8339 Federal Information Relay Service). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et. seq.,* OMB must approve all “collections of information” by USDA Rural Development. The Act defines “collection of information” as a requirement for “answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *.” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)) Because the RFP will receive less than 10 respondents, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Business—Cooperative Service. *Funding Opportunity Title:* Research on the Economic Impact of Cooperatives. *Announcement Type:* Initial announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 10.778 *Dates:* You may submit completed applications for the cooperative agreement on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than September 7, 2007, to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 funding. Electronic copies must be received by September 7, 2007, to be eligible for FY 2007 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2007 funding. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13): There is no public reporting burden associated with this notice. I. Funding Opportunity Description This solicitation is issued pursuant to the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5) directing funds “for a cooperative research agreement with a qualified academic institution to conduct research on the national economic impact of all types of cooperatives.” The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the program's administration to USDA Rural Development. The primary objective of this cooperative research agreement program is to facilitate university research on the national economic impact of cooperatives. The research program will need to develop a web-based methodology to enable cooperatives to enter financial and other impact data on a periodic basis; apply the methodology to collect data updates estimates of economic impact of cooperatives; analyze the impact of cooperatives on local wealth creation and retention, and analyze the total returns to investment in cooperatives. The cooperative agreement proposal must address how the following deliverables will be provided: 1. An analysis of how and the extent to which cooperatives facilitate the creation and retention of wealth within the local communities they serve. The analysis should include the identification of cooperative models and practices that could enhance cooperative contribution to local wealth creation. An estimate of cooperative wealth creation should be made for the U.S. and for each of the following four categories or classes of cooperatives: i. Commercial sales or marketing—includes farm supply and marketing, grocery and consumer goods, business-to-business, the emerging ethanol and biofuels related industry, and manufacturing. ii. Social and public services—includes housing, health care, day care/elder care, transportation, and educational services. iii. Financial services—includes credit unions, banks, and mutual insurance. iv. Utilities—includes electric, telephone, water, waste, and other regulated utilities. 2. An analysis of the total returns to investment in cooperatives, including returns to the cooperative businesses at the enterprise level as well as the impact of cooperative returns and services to the cooperatives' members at their enterprise levels. Total returns to investment should be analyzed using the same classification scheme as described in Deliverable #1 above. 3. The development of web-based systems for the collection and assembly of basic impact data on a periodic basis. These systems should facilitate the direct entry of financial and economic impact data by individual cooperatives. This methodology will need to account for cooperative organizational complexity, such as a single organization's several local, regional, and national locations, as well as sector differences. 4. The application of the web-based systems, coupled with other available data, to provide an update of data on the economic impact of cooperatives estimated under the FY 2006 funding. This update should cover the calendar year two years after the year for which estimates were made under the FY 2006 research. As final output of the FY 2006 research will likely not be available before January 2009, USDA Rural Development will arrange for the winner of this competition to obtain updates and preliminary data from the University of Wisconsin, the FY 2006 award recipient, as progress is being made on the FY 2006 research. Data items to be collected/measured must include: • Number and headquarters location of cooperatives, • Volume measures appropriate for each sector (revenues, dollar value, and other appropriate size indicators), • Number of persons impacted by the cooperative (members, patrons, or investors), and; • Number of full-time equivalent jobs and other economic impact variables. • North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (if multiple apply, use code that corresponds to highest revenue). Sectors for which summary data should be prepared include: • Housing, • Health Care, • Daycare/Elder Care, • Financial Services, • Grocery/Consumer Retail, • Business-to-Business (Wholesaling, Manufacturing), • Agricultural Marketing (Including Organic and Conventional), • Agricultural Supplies and Services, • Public Services (Including Transportation and Education), • Renewable Energy, and • Utilities. 5. The population of a database for individual cooperative and summary data collected. The database is to be delivered to USDA Rural Development. USDA Rural Development will work with the grantee to integrate data from this deliverable into existing database applications. 6. The performance of subcontracting services, oversight, and financial controls for the overall project. 7. The submission of quarterly progress reports and quarterly financial reports to USDA Rural Development; and 8. The preparation and submission of publishable quality written reports for Deliverables 1, 2 and 4 to USDA Rural Development. USDA Rural Development will competitively award one cooperative agreement to fund the collection and analysis of data to determine the national economic impact of cooperatives. An institution of higher education may subcontract or collaborate with others on the research and data collection. A formal consortium of academic institutions is allowed. Definitions The definitions at 7 CFR 3019.2 are incorporated by reference. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY 2007. *Approximate Total Funding:* $500,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 1. *Approximate Average Award:* $500,000. *Floor of Award Range:* None. *Ceiling of Award Range:* $500,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* September 21, 2007. *Budget Period Length:* 36 months. *Project Period Length:* 36 months. III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants Applicants must be institutions of higher education. Proposals may be submitted by public or private colleges or universities, research foundations maintained by a college or university, or private nonprofit organizations funded by a group of colleges or universities. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)) which engages in lobbying activities, is not eligible to apply. B. Cost Sharing or Matching Matching funds are not required but are highly encouraged. Applicants must verify in their applications that matching funds are available for the time period of the agreement if the matching funds are required to complete the project. Matching funds must be provided by either the applicant or by a third party in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. Matching funds must be spent on eligible expenses and must be from eligible sources. C. Other Eligibility Requirements *Indirect Cost Eligibility:* Public Law 110-5, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007” continues the provision which states “No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties.” Indirect costs in excess of 10 percent of the direct cost, therefore, will be ineligible for funding. *Activity Eligibility:* A cooperative agreement reflects a relationship between the United States Government and an eligible recipient where the principal purpose of the relationship is the transfer of money, property, services, or anything of value to the eligible recipient to carry out the desired research; and substantial involvement is anticipated between USDA Rural Development acting for the United States Government and the eligible recipient during the performance of the research in the agreement. A cooperative agreement is not a grant. Therefore, the project proposed must include a description of USDA Rural Development's substantial participation. USDA Rural Development may subsequently negotiate the nature of its participation before the cooperative agreement is executed. Applicants that propose budgets that include more than 10 percent of total project costs that are ineligible for the program will be ineligible, and the application will not be considered for funding. However, if an application with 10 percent or less of ineligible costs is selected for funding, all ineligible costs must be removed from the project and replaced with eligible activities or the amount of the award will be reduced accordingly. *Cooperative Agreement Period Eligibility:* Applications that have a timeframe of more than 36 months will be considered ineligible and will not be considered for funding. Applications that request funds for a time period ending after September 30, 2010, will not be considered for funding. *Completeness Eligibility:* Applications without sufficient information to determine eligibility will not be considered for funding. Applications that are missing any required elements (in whole or in part) will not be considered for funding. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address To Request Application Package If you plan to apply using a paper application, you can obtain the application package for this funding opportunity at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/reic.htm.* If you plan to apply electronically, you must visit *http://www.grants.gov* and follow the instructions. B. Content and Form of Submission You may submit your application in paper or in an electronic format. You may view the Application Guide at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/reic.htm.* If you submit your application in paper form, you must submit one signed original of your complete application along with two additional copies. If you submit your application electronically, you must follow the instructions given at *http://www.grants.gov.* Applicants are advised to visit the site well in advance of the application deadline if they plan to apply electronically to insure that they have obtained the proper authentication and have sufficient computer resources to complete the application. An application must contain all of the following elements. Any application that is missing any element or contains an incomplete element will not be considered for funding: 1. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” In order for this form to be considered complete, it must contain the legal name of the applicant, the applicant's Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number, the applicant's complete mailing address, the name and telephone number of a contact person, the employer identification number (EIN), the start and end dates of the project, the Federal funds requested, other funds that will be used as matching funds, an answer to the question, “Is applicant delinquent on any Federal debt?”, the name and signature of an authorized representative, the telephone number of the authorized representative, and the date the form was signed. Other information requested on the form may be applicable, but the above-listed information is required for an application to be considered complete. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by accessing *http://www.dnb.com/us/* or calling

(866)705-5711. 2. Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the applicant must fill out sections A, B, C, and D. The applicant must include both Federal and any matching funds to be included. 3. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the form must be signed by an authorized official and include the title, name of applicant, and date. 4. *Title Page.* The title page must include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information. The length should not exceed one page. 5. *Table of Contents.* For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents immediately following the title page. 6. *Executive Summary.* A summary of the proposal, not to exceed one page, must briefly describe the project, including goals, tasks to be completed, and other relevant information that provides a general overview of the project. In the event an applicant submits more than one page for this element, only the first page submitted will be considered. 7. *Eligibility Discussion.* A detailed discussion, not to exceed four pages, will describe how the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. In the event that more than four pages are submitted, only the first four pages will be considered. i. *Applicant Eligibility.* The applicant must first describe how it meets the definition of an institution of higher education. ii. *Purpose Eligibility.* The applicant must describe how the project purpose is eligible for funding. The project purpose is comprised of two components. First, the applicant must describe how the proposed project consists of activities needed to determine the national economic impact of all types of cooperatives. Second, the applicant must demonstrate that the combined activities are sufficient to estimate the national economic impact of all types of cooperatives. 8. *Proposal Narrative.* The narrative must include the following information: i. *Project Title.* The title of the proposed project must be brief, not to exceed 75 characters, yet describe the essentials of the project. It should match the project title submitted on the SF-424. The project title does not need to appear on a separate page. It can be included on the title page and/or on the information sheet. ii. *Information Sheet.* A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the evaluation criteria referenced in this funding announcement followed by the page numbers of all relevant material contained in the proposal that address or support each criterion. iii. *Goals of the Project.* A clear statement of the ultimate goals of the project must be included. There must be an explanation of how economic benefit will be measured. iv. *Workplan.* The narrative must contain a description of the project and set forth the tasks involved in reasonable detail. The description should specify the activity, who will perform the activity, during what timeframe the activity will take place, and the cost of the activity. Please note that one of the proposal evaluation criteria evaluates the workplan and budget. Applicants should only submit the workplan and budget once, either in this section or as part of the workplan/budget evaluation criterion discussion. v. *Proposal Evaluation Criteria.* Each of the proposal evaluation criteria referenced in this funding announcement must be addressed, specifically and individually, in narrative form. 9. *Certification of Judgment.* Applicants must certify that the United States has not obtained a judgment against them. No Federal funds shall be used to pay a judgment obtained by the United States. It is suggested that applicants use the following language for the certification. “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained a judgment against it.” A separate signature is not required. 10. *Verification of Matching Funds.* Applicants must provide a budget to support the workplan showing all sources and uses of funds during the project period. Applicants will be required to verify any and all matching funds, both cash and in-kind. All proposed matching funds must be specifically documented in the application. If the matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind contribution from the applicant, the application must include a signed letter from an authorized representative of the applicant verifying the goods or services to be donated, when the goods and services will be donated, and the value of the goods or services. Applicants should note that only goods or services for which no expenditure is made can be considered in-kind. If the applicant is paying for goods and services as part of the matching funds contribution, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and should be verified as such. If the matching funds are to be provided by a third party in cash, the application must include a signed letter from that third party verifying how much cash will be donated and when it will be donated. Verification for funds donated outside the proposed time period of the cooperative agreement will not be accepted. If the matching funds are to be provided by a third party in-kind donation, the application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying the goods or services to be donated, when the goods and services will be donated, and the value of the goods or services. Verification for in-kind contributions donated outside the proposed time period of the cooperative agreement will not be accepted. Verification for in-kind contributions that are over-valued will not be accepted. The valuation process for the in-kind funds does not need to be included in the application, especially if it is lengthy, but the applicant must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was achieved at the time of notification of tentative selection for the award. If the applicant cannot satisfactorily demonstrate how the valuation was determined, the award may not be made. If matching funds are in cash, they must be spent on goods and services that are eligible expenditures for this cooperative agreement program. If matching funds are in-kind contributions, the donated goods or services must be considered eligible expenditures for this program. The matching funds must be spent or donated during the agreement period. (See 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019 for funds use eligibility rules.) If acceptable verification for all proposed matching funds is missing from the application by the application deadline, the application will receive zero points for the Funding Match part of the evaluation criteria. C. Submission Dates and Times *Application Deadline Date:* September 7, 2007. *Explanation of Deadlines:* Paper applications must be postmarked by the deadline date (see section IV.F. for the address). Final electronic applications must be received by *http://www.grants.gov* by the deadline date. If your application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be considered for funding. You will be notified whether or not your application was received on time. D. Intergovernmental Review of Applications Executive Order

(EO)12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, does not apply to this program. E. Funding Restrictions Funding restrictions apply to both Federal funds and matching funds. Funds may only be used for activities related to determining the economic impact of cooperatives. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to: 1. Pay for the preparation of the cooperative agreement application; 2. Pay expenses not directly related to the funded project; 3. Fund political or lobbying activities; 4. Fund any activities prohibited by 7 CFR parts 3015 or 3019; 5. Duplicate current services or replace or substitute support previously provided; 6. Pay costs of the project incurred prior to the date of agreement approval; or 7. Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States. F. Other Submission Requirements You may submit your paper application for a cooperative agreement to USDA Rural Development's Cooperative Programs, Attn: Cooperative Research, Mail STOP 3250, Room 4016-South, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-3250. The phone number that should be used for FedEx packages is

(202)720-7558. You may also choose to submit your application electronically at *http://www.grants.gov* . Final applications may not be submitted by electronic mail, facsimile, or by hand-delivery. Each application submission must contain all required documents in one envelope, if by mail or express delivery service. V. Application Review Information A. Criteria All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria and maximum point allowances. Failure to address any one of the following criteria by the application deadline will result in a determination of incomplete and the application will not be considered for funding. The total points available for the set of criteria are 100. 1. Relevance of the project proposal (30 points). Proposals will be evaluated on how directly they address the stated objective of demonstrating economic impact of all types of cooperatives in the United States. Factors to be weighed by evaluators in scoring a proposal's relevance will include the: • Definition of clear and objective measures of impact; • Definition of specific measurement strategies for obtaining impact measures from each major cooperative sector and each category of persons impacted by cooperatives; and • Description of sound data collection and analysis methodology. 2. Quality of Workplan (30 points). The quality evaluation criterion will be based on whether the proposal outlines a sound plan of work that will meet the objectives in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Factors to be weighed by evaluators in scoring a proposal's workplan will include: • How well the steps for carrying out the work are defined; • The logic of the sequence of proposed steps and the likelihood they will achieve their intended result; • The establishment of clear benchmarks and timetables to measure the progress of the project; • The detail, accuracy, and reasonableness of the project's proposed budget; and • The ability to replicate measures from the 2006 funding cycle. 3. Quality of personnel and management plan (20 points). The quality of the management plan and the personnel involved in carrying out the proposed project will evaluate the capabilities of the individuals and institutions to implement the work plan in an effective manner. Factors to be weighed by evaluators in scoring a proposal's personnel and management plan will include the: • Experience of project leaders and the lead institution in managing complex research projects; • Demonstration of a clear understanding of business models and general economic development; • Management controls, progress measurements, and reporting systems within a structured project management plan; and • Experience and relevant skills of researchers, consultants, and subcontractors assigned to carry out specific roles in the project. 4. Funding match and cooperative community support (20 points). Points will be awarded on the basis of the percentage match provided by the applicant and the level of support for the proposal from the cooperative community as evidenced by contribution of resources to the match and other indications of support. • Up to 20 points will be awarded for matching funds provided by or arranged for by the applicant. Two points will be awarded for each 5 percent match, up to a maximum of 20 points for a 50 percent match. B. Review and Selection Process Each application will be initially reviewed by Rural Development personnel for eligibility and to determine whether all required elements are complete. A list of required elements follows: • SF-424. • SF-424A. • SF-424B. • Title Page. • Table of Contents. • Executive Summary. • Applicant Eligibility Discussion. • Purpose Eligibility Discussion. • Project Title. • Information Sheet. • Goals of the Project. • Work Plan. • Proposal Evaluation Criterion 1. • Proposal Evaluation Criterion 2. • Proposal Evaluation Criterion 3. • Proposal Evaluation Criterion 4. • Certification of Judgment. • Verification of any Matching Funds. Any incomplete or ineligible applications will not be further evaluated or considered for funding. All eligible and complete proposals will be evaluated by a team of at least three reviewers based on criteria 1 through 4 described in paragraph A of this section. Reviewers will represent the Rural Development broad mission area, and will include at least three employees of USDA. Once the scores for criteria 1 through 4 have been independently completed by the three reviewers, the scores will be used to rank the proposals. If the three reviewers rank the best proposal differently then, with the aid of a facilitator, the three reviewers will develop a consensus ranking. If the three reviewers cannot reach a consensus, two additional reviewers will review the proposals and be added to the rankings. A final ranking will be obtained based on the consensus rankings of the three member review panel, or, if appointed, the average of the five reviewers' rankings. Final award recommendation will be sent to the Under Secretary for Rural Development for final selection concurrence. After the award selection is made, all applicants will be notified of the status of their applications by mail. The awardee must meet all statutory and regulatory program requirements in order to receive their award. In the event that an awardee cannot meet the requirements, the award will be withdrawn. C. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates *Award Date:* The announcement of award selection is expected to occur on or about September 21, 2007. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices The successful applicant will receive a notification of tentative selection for funding from USDA Rural Development. The applicant must sign a mutually agreed to cooperative agreement and comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and this notice before the award will receive final approval. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification, including mediation procedures and appeal rights, by mail. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements This award is subject to 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019. These regulations may be accessed at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1.* The following additional documentation requirements apply to the awardee selected for this program: • Agency Approved Cooperative Agreement. • Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.” • Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.” • Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.” • Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).” • Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement.” • Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” Additional information on these requirements can be found at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/reic.htm.* *Reporting Requirements:* You must provide USDA Rural Development with an original or an electronic copy that includes all required signatures of the following reports. The reports should be submitted to the Agency contact listed on your Cooperative Agreement. Failure to submit satisfactory reports on time may result in suspension or termination of your award. 1. Form SF-269 or SF-269A. A “Financial Status Report,” listing expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories, on a quarterly basis. Reporting periods end each December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends. 2. Quarterly performance reports that compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal. Identify all tasks completed to date and provide documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the workplan is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds should be discussed. Reporting periods end each December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends. Supporting documentation must also be submitted for completed tasks. The supporting documentation for completed tasks include, but are not limited to, questionnaire or interview guides, publications of research findings, summaries of data collected, and any other documentation related to how funds were spent. 3. Final Project performance reports that compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal. Identify all tasks completed and provide documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the workplan was not met, the report must discuss the problems or delays that affected completion of the project. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds should be discussed. Supporting documentation for completed tasks must also be submitted. The supporting documentation for completed tasks include, but are not limited to, publications of research findings, summaries of data collected, documentation of data and software delivered to USDA Rural Development, and any other documentation related to how funds were spent. The final performance report is due within 90 days of the completion of the project. VII. Agency Contacts For general questions about this announcement and for program technical assistance, please contact the USDA Rural Development's Cooperative Programs, Mail STOP 3250, Room 4016-South, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3250, Telephone:

(202)690-0368 (TDD:

(800)877-8339 Federal Information Relay Service), e-mail: *cpgrants@wdc.usda.gov.* VIII. Non-Discrimination Statement USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call

(800)795-3272 (voice), or

(202)720-6382 (TDD). “USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Dated: August 9, 2007. Leann M. Oliver, Acting Administrator, Rural Business—Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E7-15959 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Notice of Meeting AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Meeting notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration

(ITA)would like to raise awareness about the importance of identity management to innovation, economic growth, and international trade. Toward that end, ITA will host a roundtable discussion on identity management and international business competitiveness on Tuesday, September 18, 2007. The roundtable is intended to facilitate a candid discussion of individual views by a representative group of experts on this important issue. DATES: September 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Inquiries about participation in the roundtable should be addressed to the contact below, and received by close of business on Monday, August 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paulette Hernandez, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4324, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: 202-482-0399; Fax: 202-482-5834; e-mail: *paulette.hernandez@mail.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The roundtable discussion on identity management and international business competitiveness will look at:

(1)The need for improvements in existing identity management practices;

(2)the impact of identity management on business competitiveness and the ability of businesses to use electronic commerce to enhance international trade;

(3)industry best practices in identity management and challenges associated with promulgating these best practices;

(4)the trade-related implications of identity management; and

(5)ways to create an identity management landscape that balances the needs of consumers, industry, and government and enables the growth of e-commerce. ITA will host a group of twenty experts in the field of identity management to hold this discussion. In addition, we intend to include up to thirty additional individuals to participate as part of the audience. Space is limited for both panelists and audience participants. ITA will select panelists and audience participants with a view to ensuring broad representation from industry, government, academia, and civil society. This roundtable will be closed to the press. Dated: August 10, 2007. Robin Layton, Director, Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce. [FR Doc. E7-16048 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Membership of the Office of the Secretary Performance Review Board AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of membership on the Office of the Secretary Performance Review Board. SUMMARY: In accordance with 5 U.S.C., 4314(c)(4), Department of Commerce

(DOC)announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of the Office of the Secretary

(OS)Performance Review Board (PRB). The OS PRB is responsible for reviewing performance Ratings, pay adjustments and bonuses of Senior Executive Service

(SES)members. The term of the new members of the OS PRB will expire December 31, 2009. *Effective Date:* The effective date of service of appointees to the Office of the Secretary Performance Review Board is upon publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise A. Yaag, Director, Office of Executive Resources, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of the Director, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-3600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The names, position titles, and type of appointment of the members of the OS/PRB are set forth below by organization: Office of the Secretary 2007-2009 Performance Review Board Membership Office of the Secretary Tracey S. Rhodes, Director, Executive Secretariat. Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration Fred Fanning, Director for Administrative Services. Barbara Retzlaff, Director, Office of Budget (Alternate). Bureau of Industry and Security Mark M. Foulon, Deputy Under Secretary for Industry and Security. National Institute of Standards and Technology W. Todd Grams, Chief Financial Office for NIST. Office of the General Counsel Michael A. Levitt, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation. Joan Maginnis, Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation (Alternate). Dated: July 20, 2007. Denise A. Yaag, Director, Office of Executive Resources. [FR Doc. 07-3990 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code