15126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

(4) Other proof of mailing or delivery 

acceptable to the Secretary. 

If the paper documents are sent 

through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 

not accept either of the following as 

proof of mailing: (1) A private metered 

postmark, or (2) a mail receipt that is 

not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. An 

institution should note that the U.S. 

Postal Service does not uniformly 

provide a dated postmark. Before 

relying on this method, an institution 

should check with its local post office. 

All institutions are encouraged to use 

certified or at least first-class mail. 

The Department accepts hand 

deliveries from commercial couriers 

between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern 

time, Monday through Friday except 

Federal holidays. 

Sources for Detailed Information on 

These Requests 

A more detailed discussion of each 

request for funds or waiver is provided 

in a specific ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter, 

which is posted on the Department’s 

IFAP Web site (http://www.ifap.ed.gov) 

at least 30 days before the established 

deadline date for the specific request. 

Information on these items is also found 

in the Federal Student Aid Handbook. 

Applicable Regulations: The 

following regulations apply to these 

programs: 

(1) Student Assistance General 

Provisions, 34 CFR part 668. 

(2) General Provisions for the Federal 

Perkins Loan Program, Federal WorkStudy Program, and Federal 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity 

Grant Program, 34 CFR part 673. 

(3) Federal Perkins Loan Program, 34 

CFR part 674. 

(4) Federal Work-Study Programs, 34 

CFR part 675. 

(5) Federal Supplemental Educational 

Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 

676. 

(6) Institutional Eligibility under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended, 34 CFR part 600. 

(7) New Restrictions on Lobbying, 34 

CFR part 82. 

(8) Governmentwide Requirements for 

Drug-Free Workplace (Financial 

Assistance), 34 CFR part 84. 

(9) Governmentwide Debarment and 

Suspension (Nonprocurement), 34 CFR 

part 85. 

(10) Drug and Alcohol Abuse 

Prevention, 34 CFR part 86. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherlene McIntosh, Director of CampusBased Systems and Operations Division, 

U.S. Department of Education, Federal 

Student Aid, 830 First Street, NE., 

Union Center Plaza, room 64A3, 

Washington, DC 20202–5453. 

Telephone: (202) 377–3242 or via the 

Internet: sherlene.mcintosh@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other documents of this 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1–888–

293–6498; or in the Washington, DC 

area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087aa et 

seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.; and 20 U.S.C. 

1070b et seq. 

Dated: March 27, 2007. 

Theresa S. Shaw, 

Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid. 

[FR Doc. E7–5925 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Technical Assistance on Data 

Collection—General Supervision 

Enhancement Grants 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes three funding 

priorities under the Technical 

Assistance on State Data Collection 

program. The Assistant Secretary may 

use these priorities for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years. We 

take this action to focus attention on an 

identified national need to provide 

technical assistance to improve the 

capacity of States to meet data 

collection requirements relating to their 

State academic assessment systems. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before June 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

these proposed priorities to Larry 

Wexler, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4053, 

Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 

20204–2700. If you prefer to send your 

comments through the Internet, use the 

following address: larry.wexler@ed.gov. 

You must include the term ‘‘Data 

Collection Priorities’’ in the subject line 

of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Wexler. Telephone: (202) 245–

7571. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding these proposed priorities. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

priority that each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities. Please let us 

know of any further opportunities we 

should take to reduce potential costs or 

increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these proposed priorities in room 

4019, 550 12th Street, SW., Potomac 

Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Eastern time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid, such as a reader or 

print magnifier, to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15127 

record for these proposed priorities. If 

you want to schedule an appointment 

for this type of aid, please contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

We will announce the final priorities 

in a notice in the Federal Register. We 

will determine the final priorities after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing or funding 

additional priorities, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use any of these proposed priorities, we 

invite applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. When inviting applications 

we designate the priority as absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications that 

meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: Under a 

competitive preference priority, we give 

competitive preference to an application by 

either (1) awarding additional points, 

depending on how well or the extent to 

which the application meets the competitive 

preference priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); 

or (2) selecting an application that meets the 

competitive preference priority over an 

application of comparable merit that does not 

meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an invitational 

priority, we are particularly interested in 

applications that meet the invitational 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the invitational 

priority a competitive or absolute preference 

over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Note: The Secretary is proposing three 

separate funding priorities addressing data 

collected under Part B and Part C of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 

as amended (IDEA). Although these are being 

proposed in one notice, we anticipate these 

priorities would be funded through separate 

competitions. Eligible entities must submit 

separate applications under each of the 

priorities for which they wish to apply. 

Priorities 

Background of Proposed Priority A—

Modified Academic Achievement 

Standards 

On December 15, 2005, the Secretary 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register (70 

FR 74624) requesting public comment 

on proposed regulations under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended by the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The 

proposed regulations would provide 

States with flexibility regarding State, 

local educational agency (LEA), and 

school accountability for the 

achievement of a group of students with 

disabilities who can make significant 

progress, but may not reach grade-level 

achievement standards within the same 

time frame as other students. 

The proposed regulations would 

permit States to develop modified 

academic achievement standards (and 

assessments that measure achievement 

based on those standards) that are 

aligned with grade-level content 

standards. States and LEAs would be 

permitted to include the proficient and 

advanced scores from assessments based 

on modified academic achievement 

standards in adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) determinations, subject to a cap 

of 2.0 percent at the district and State 

levels based on the total number of 

students in the grades assessed. 

The Secretary anticipates issuing final 

regulations in the near future. We 

further anticipate that, once these 

regulations become effective, many 

States will need support in developing, 

enhancing, or redesigning their 

assessment systems to include 

assessments that are aligned with 

modified academic achievement 

standards. 

Proposed Priority A—Modified 

Academic Achievement Standards 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for grants to support 

States with one or more of the following 

activities: (1) Development of modified 

academic achievement standards which 

must be based on the State’s academic 

content standards for the grade in which 

a student is enrolled; (2) development of 

State assessments based on modified 

academic achievement standards; and 

(3) development of clear and 

appropriate guidelines for 

individualized education program (IEP) 

Teams to use in determining which 

students should be assessed based on 

modified academic achievement 

standards, and the development and 

implementation of training on those 

guidelines. 

Assessments based on modified 

academic achievement standards must 

be designed to generate valid scores that 

can be used for AYP accountability 

purposes under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). These 

data also will be part of the data 

required by the Part B State Performance 

Plans and Annual Performance Reports 

on the performance and participation of 

children with disabilities on State 

assessments under section 616 of the 

Individuals With Disabilities Education 

Act. 

Applicants must include information 

in their application on how they will 

work with experts in large-scale 

assessment and special education to 

ensure that they are designing modified 

academic achievement standards, and 

assessments based on those standards, 

that: (1) Address the needs of students 

with disabilities; (2) validly, reliably, 

and accurately measure student 

performance; and (3) result in high 

quality data for use in evaluating the 

performance of schools, districts, and 

States. The experts selected should 

represent the range of skills needed to 

develop assessments based on modified 

academic achievement standards for 

students with disabilities that will meet 

the peer review guidelines for 

assessments published by the 

Department in the spring of 2004 that 

are available at http://www.ed.gov/ 

policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf. 

Skill sets for experts must include 

experience with one or more of the 

following: (1) Large scale assessment; (2) 

standards-setting techniques; (3) 

assessment and measurement of 

children with disabilities; (4) 

accommodations and supports to assess 

grade-level content; (5) working with 

States to develop assessments; (6) 

development of criterion referenced 

tests and instruments; (7) psychometric 

evaluation; (8) conducting studies of the 

technical adequacy of assessment 

instruments; and (9) research and 

publishing in the area of assessment and 

psychometrics. 

Projects funded under this priority 

also must—

(a) Budget to attend a three-day 

Project Directors’ meeting; 

(b) If the project maintains a Web site, 

include relevant information and 

documents in a format that meets a 

government or industry-recognized 

standard for accessibility; and 

(c) Provide a written assurance that 

the State’s Assessment Office (e.g., the 

office that addresses accountability 

under the ESEA, as amended by the 

NCLB) was given the opportunity to 

contribute to the formulation of the 

application. 

Background of Proposed Priority B—

Alternate Academic Achievement 

Standards 

The Department’s Title I regulations 

in 34 CFR part 200 regarding children 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities permit a State to develop 

alternate academic achievement 

standards for students with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities and to 

include those students’ proficient and 

advanced scores on alternate 

assessments based on alternate 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
15128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

achievement standards in measuring 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) at the 

State and district levels, subject to a cap 

of 1.0 percent of the total number of 

students in the grades assessed. 

Alternate assessments based on 

alternate achievement standards, as 

permitted by the Title I regulations, also 

are recognized as an appropriate 

assessment method in section 612(a)(16) 

of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). 

Alternate assessments that are used by 

States and local educational agencies 

(LEAs) under Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), must 

be designed to generate valid data that 

can be used for purposes of determining 

AYP. Alternate assessments also must 

meet the requirements in 34 CFR 200.2 

(State Responsibilities for Assessment) 

and 34 CFR 200.3 (Designing State 

Academic Assessment Systems), 

including the requirements relating to 

validity, reliability, and high technical 

quality; and fit coherently in the State’s 

overall assessment system under 34 CFR 

200.2. The alternate assessment must, 

among other things: (1) Be valid and 

reliable for the purposes for which the 

assessment system is used; (2) be 

consistent with relevant, nationallyrecognized professional and technical 

standards; and (3) be supported by 

evidence from test publishers or other 

relevant sources that the assessment 

system is of adequate technical quality 

for each purpose required under the 

ESEA, as amended by NCLB. States 

must include alternate assessment data 

in their State Performance Plan and 

Annual Performance Reports relative to 

performance and participation of 

children with disabilities on State 

assessments under the IDEA. 

The Department proposes the 

following priority because many States 

need assistance in: (1) Developing 

alternate academic achievement 

standards aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards; (2) 

developing high-quality alternate 

assessments that measure the 

achievement of students with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities based 

on those standards; and (3) reporting on 

the participation and performance of 

students with disabilities on alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards. 

Proposed Priority B—Alternate 

Academic Achievement Standards 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for grants to support 

States with one or more of the following 

activities: (1) Develop alternate 

academic achievement standards 

aligned with the State’s academic 

content standards; (2) develop highquality alternate assessments that 

measure the achievement of students 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities based on those standards; 

and (3) report on the participation and 

performance of students with 

disabilities on alternate assessments 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards. 

Applicants must include information 

in their applications on how they will 

work with experts in large-scale 

assessment and special education to 

ensure that they are designing alternate 

academic achievement standards, and 

assessments based on those standards, 

that: (1) Address the needs of students 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities; (2) validly, reliably, and 

accurately measure student 

performance; and (3) result in high 

quality data for use in evaluating the 

performance of schools, districts, and 

States. The experts selected should 

represent the range of skills needed to 

develop assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities that will meet the 

peer review guidelines for assessments 

published by the Department in the 

spring of 2004 that are available at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ 

saaprguidance.pdf. Skill sets for experts 

must include experience with one or 

more of the following: (1) Large scale 

assessment; (2) standards-setting 

techniques; (3) assessment and 

measurement of children with 

disabilities; (4) accommodations and 

supports to assess grade-level content; 

(5) working with States to develop 

assessments; (6) development of 

criterion-referenced tests and 

instruments; (7) psychometric 

evaluation; (8) conducting studies of the 

technical adequacy of assessment 

instruments; and (9) research and 

publishing in the area of assessment and 

psychometrics. 

Projects funded under this priority 

also must—

(a) Budget to attend a three-day 

Project Directors’ meeting; 

(b) If the project maintains a Web site, 

include relevant information and 

documents in a format that meets a 

government or industry-recognized 

standard for accessibility; and 

(c) Provide a written assurance that 

the State’s Assessment Office (e.g., the 

office that addresses accountability 

under the ESEA, as amended by the 

NCLB) was given the opportunity to 

contribute to the formulation of the 

application. 

Background of Proposed Priority C—

Outcome Measures 

The cornerstone of any accountability 

system is the development of outcome 

indicators against which progress can be 

measured. State performance reports, 

self-assessments, and other extant data 

show that most States and Lead 

Agencies as defined under Part C of the 

IDEA (Section 635(a)(10)), as well as 

their local educational agencies and 

Early Intervention Service programs, do 

not have well developed systems for 

measuring the progress of infants, 

toddlers, and young children with 

disabilities and their families served 

under Part B and Part C of IDEA or 

methods to collect and analyze Part B 

and Part C outcome indicator data. 

Therefore, most States lack the capacity 

to collect sufficient data to determine 

the impact of early intervention and 

special education services for these 

children. 

Proposed Priority C—Outcome 

Measures 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

proposes a priority for projects that 

address the needs of States for technical 

assistance to improve their capacity to 

meet Federal data collection 

requirements in one or both of two focus 

areas. 

Focus Area One. This Focus Area 

supports the development or 

enhancement of Part B State systems for 

collecting, analyzing, and reporting 

preschool outcome indicator data. 

Projects funded under this Focus Area 

must focus on improving the capacity of 

the State to provide information that 

could be used to determine the 

following: 

(a) The outcomes associated with 

preschool children with disabilities 

participating in State Part B programs. 

(b) If the State has standards for 

preschool disability outcomes, whether 

preschool children with disabilities are 

meeting those standards. 

(c) Trend data on outcomes associated 

with preschool children with 

disabilities and the extent to which 

preschool children with disabilities are 

meeting State standards. 

Focus Area Two. This Focus Area 

supports the development or 

enhancement of Part C systems for 

collecting, analyzing, and reporting 

outcome indicator data. Projects funded 

under this Focus Area must focus on 

improving the capacity of the State to 

provide information that could be used 

to determine the following: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15129 

(a) The outcomes associated with 

infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and their families participating in State 

Part C programs. 

(b) If the State has standards for early 

intervention outcomes, whether infants 

and toddlers with disabilities are 

meeting those standards. 

(c) Trend data on outcomes associated 

with infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families and the 

extent to which infants and toddlers 

with disabilities are meeting State 

standards. 

Projects funded under this priority 

also must—

(a) Budget to attend a three-day 

Project Directors’ meeting; 

(b) If the project maintains a Web site, 

include relevant information and 

documents in a format that meets a 

government or industry-recognized 

standard for accessibility; and 

(c) Provide a written assurance that 

the State’s Assessment Office (e.g., the 

office that addresses accountability 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended by 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) 

was given the opportunity to contribute 

to the formulation of the application. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice of proposed priorities has 

been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this regulatory action are those resulting 

from statutory and regulatory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this regulatory action, 

we have determined that the benefits of 

the proposed regulatory action justify 

the costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive Order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

Order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.htm 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.373X Technical Assistance on 

Data Collection—IDEA General Supervision 

Enhancement Grant) 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 

1416(i)(2). 

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

John H. Hager, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. E7–5930 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records—Impact Evaluation of 

Mandatory-Random Student Drug 

Testing 

AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of a new system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended 

(Privacy Act), the Department of 

Education (Department) publishes this 

notice of a new system of records 

entitled ‘‘Impact Evaluation of 

Mandatory-Random Student Drug 

Testing’’ (18–13–16). This evaluation 

was commissioned by the National 

Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance at the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES). It 

will be conducted under a contract that 

was awarded by IES in July 2005. IES 

has been collaborating with the 

Department’s Office of Safe and DrugFree Schools (OSDFS) to coordinate the 

study of mandatory-random drug testing 

interventions in schools. 

The study will address the following 

questions: 

(1) Do high school students who are 

subject to mandatory-random drug 

testing (e.g., athletes, participants in 

competitive extra-curricular activities, 

etc.) report less use of tobacco, alcohol, 

and illicit substances compared to 

comparable students in high schools 

without mandatory-random drug testing 

policies? 

(2) Do students in high schools with 

mandatory-random drug testing 

policies, but who are not subject to such 

testing (e.g., non-athletes, students who 

do not participate in competitive extracurricular activities, etc.), report less use 

of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit 

substances compared to comparable 

students in high schools without 

mandatory-random drug testing 

policies? 

The system will contain information 

about two cohorts of approximately 200 

high school students in each of (i) 26 

high schools operating the mandatoryrandom drug testing program, and (ii) 26 

high schools that will not operate the 

program but that will serve as control 

high schools for the purposes of this 

evaluation. The total number of high 

school students included in this system 

of records will be approximately 10,400 

for each of school years 2006–07 and 

2007–08. The 52 participating high 

schools will be from school districts that 

are recipients of the Mandatory-Random 

Drug Testing Program grants that were 

announced in September 2006 by 

OSDFS. The system of records will 

include information about the high 

school students participating in the 

evaluation, including the students’

names; addresses; demographic 

information such as race/ethnicity, 

gender, age, educational background; 

and attitudes and beliefs concerning 

substance use, and substance use itself. 

DATES: The Department seeks comment 

on the new system of records described 

in this notice, in accordance with the 

requirements of the Privacy Act. We 

must receive your comments on the 

proposed routine uses for the system of 

records referenced in this notice on or 

before April 30, 2007. 

The Department filed a report 

describing the new system of records 

covered by this notice with the Chair of 

the Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, the 

Chair of the House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, and 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES