53392 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices 

TA–W–57,501; Unifi, Inc., Textured 

Div., Reidsville Plant #2, Reidsville, 

NC: July 11, 2004. 

TA–W–57,479; Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 

Toccoa Div., Eastanollee, GA: June 

24, 2004. 

TA–W–57,466; Varco-Pruden Buildings, 

a subsidiary of Grupo IMSA, 

Memphis, TN: June 24, 2004. 

TA–W–57,539; Robert Bosch North 

America, Automotive Technology—

Chassis, including on-site leased 

workers of Staffmark, Securitas and 

Southern Universal, Gallatin, TN: 

July 12, 2004. 

TA–W–57,506; Viskase Corp., Kentland, 

IN: June 28, 2004. 

TA–W–57,455; Brand Mills, Ltd, Kaiboro 

Enterprises Corp., d/b/a Resource 

Payroll Co., Hackensack, NJ: June 

10, 2004. 

TA–W–57,390; Commemorative Brands, 

Inc., a div. of American 

Achievement Corp., El Paso, TX: 

June 13, 2004. 

TA–W–57,622; K and K Framing, LLC, 

Booneville, MS: July 23, 2004. 

TA–W–57,704; Sanmina-SCI Corp., 

Clinton, NC: August 4, 2004. 

TA–W–57,612; Warvel Products, Inc., 

Transolid Div., Linwood, NC: July 

19, 2004. 

TA–W–57,544; Husky Injection Molding 

Systems, Inc., Controls Div., Milton, 

VT: July 12, 2004. 

TA–W–57,713; L.A. T Sportswear, LLC, 

Cutting Facility and Corporate 

Office, Ball Ground, GA: August 8, 

2004. 

TA–W–57,676; Clayson Knitting Co., 

Inc., Red Springs, NC: August 1, 

2004. 

TA–W–57,660; Coto Division of KearneyNational, Inc., d/b/a Coto 

Technology, a subsidiary of DysonKissner-Moran Corp., including onsite leased workers of Talent Tree 

Staffing, Providence, RI: August 1, 

2004. 

TA–W–57,625; GST Autoleather, 

Williamsport, MD: July 26, 2004. 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the month of August 

2005. Copies of these determinations are 

available for inspection in Room C–

5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210 during normal business hours 

or will be mailed to persons who write 

to the above address. 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Terrance Clark, 

Acting Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E5–4883 Filed 9–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–56,203] 

Metalforming Technologies, Inc., 

Safety Systems Division, Including OnSite Leased Workers of Addeco, 

Burton, MI; Dismissal of Application 

for Reconsideration 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an 

application for administrative 

reconsideration was filed with the 

Director of the Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance for workers at 

Metalforming Technologies, Inc., Safety 

Systems Division, including on-site 

leased workers of Addeco, Burton, 

Michigan. The application contained no 

new substantial information which 

would bear importantly on the 

Department’s determination. Therefore, 

dismissal of the application was issued. 

TA–W–56,203; Metalforming Technologies, 

Inc. Safety Systems Division, Including 

On-Site Leased Workers of Addeco, 

Burton, Michigan (August 26, 2005) 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of 

August, 2005. 

Terrance Clark, 

Acting Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E5–4879 Filed 9–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–57,321] 

Reum Corporation, a Division of Reum 

Group, Waukegan, IL; Dismissal of 

Application for Reconsideration 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an 

application for administrative 

reconsideration was filed with the 

Director of the Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance for workers at 

Reum Corporation, a division of Reum 

Group, Waukegan, Illinois. The 

application contained no new 

substantial information which would 

bear importantly on the Department’s 

determination. Therefore, dismissal of 

the application was issued. 

TA–W–57,321; Reum Corporation, a division 

of Reum Group, Waukegan, Illinois 

(August 24, 2005) 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

August, 2005. 

Timothy Sullivan 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E5–4882 Filed 9–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 05–16] 

Report on the Criteria and 

Methodology for Determining the 

Eligibility of Candidate Countries for 

Millennium Challenge Account 

Assistance in FY 2006 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

SUMMARY: This report to Congress is 

provided in accordance with Section 

608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act 

of 2003, 22 U.S.C.A. 7701, 7707(b) (the 

‘‘Act’’). The Act authorizes the 

provision of Millennium Challenge 

Account (‘‘MCA’’) assistance to 

countries that enter into compacts with 

the United States to support policies 

and programs that advance the 

prospects of such countries achieving 

lasting economic growth and poverty 

reduction. The Act requires the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

(‘‘MCC’’) to take a number of steps in 

determining the countries that, based on 

their demonstrated commitment to just 

and democratic governance, economic 

freedom and investing in their people, 

will be eligible for MCA assistance 

during Fiscal Year 2006. These steps 

include the submission of reports to the 

congressional committees specified in 

the Act and the publication of Notices 

in the Federal Register that identify: 

1. The countries that are ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ for MCA assistance during 

Fiscal Year 2006 based on their percapita income levels and their eligibility 

to receive assistance under U.S. law and 

countries that would be candidate 

countries but for legal prohibitions on 

assistance (Section 608(a) of the Act); 

2. The criteria and methodology that 

the Board of Directors of MCC (the 

‘‘Board’’) will use to measure and 

evaluate the relative policy performance 

of the candidate countries consistent 

with the requirements of Section 607 of 

the Act in order to select ‘‘eligible 

countries’’ from among the ‘‘candidate 

countries’’ (Section 608(b) of the Act); 

and 

3. The list of countries determined by 

the Board to be ‘‘eligible countries’’ for 

Fiscal Year 2006, including which of the 

eligible countries the Board will seek to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices 53393 

enter into MCA compacts (Section 

608(d) of the Act). 

This report sets out the criteria and 

methodology to be applied in 

determining eligibility for FY06 MCA 

assistance. 

Changes to the Criteria and 

Methodology for FY 2006 

MCC has received constructive input 

on the indicators since the 

announcement of FY05’s selection 

criteria and methodology. That input 

has been taken into account in creating 

the criteria and methodology for the 

selection of eligible countries for FY06. 

MCC has decided to make one change 

in the policy indicators for the FY06 

selection process. In the FY05 Report, 

we signaled our intention to consider 

additional measures of government 

policies to encourage entrepreneurship 

and private sector ownership. For FY06, 

MCC will substitute an additional 

indicator from the World Bank Group’s 

Doing Business report, Cost of Starting 

a Business, for a current indicator in 

this category, Country Credit Rating. 

MCC believes there are potentially 

significant gains from adopting this 

additional measure of the 

entrepreneurial environment. The 

proposed indicator meets all of our 

criteria for an indicator, including a 

strong empirical relationship to growth. 

Moreover, we believe there are 

potentially significant gains in terms of 

country reforms from adopting another 

indicator from the Doing Business 

report because the indicators in it tend 

to be highly actionable. For example, we 

are currently using the Days to Start a 

Business indicator and have seen 

significant improvements in the median 

score for low income countries: from 62 

days in 2002 to 45 days in 2005. 

According to the World Bank Group, 

80% of the business start-up reforms 

that they have observed are directly 

attributable to the incentive effect of the 

MCA. 

The strength of this new indicator is 

that countries can easily identify areas 

that require improvement and make 

quick administrative changes that 

produce immediate improvements. 

Governments can lower the cost of 

business start-up by creating single 

access points, making registration 

electronic, introducing temporary 

business licenses, eliminating statutory 

time limits and mandatory use of 

notaries and judges, standardizing 

paperwork, and eliminating nonessential fees, transfer taxes, stamp 

duties, as well as payments to property 

registries, notaries, public agencies and 

lawyers. In some cases a country can 

dramatically improve its score by 

simply reducing or eliminating notary 

fees that frequently are commensurate 

with the average citizen’s annual 

income. 

We are substituting Cost of Starting a 

Business for Country Credit Rating, a 

current indicator which we see as 

problematic. First, all of our indicators 

should be policy-linked and measure 

policies that a government can change. 

The existing literature on the 

determinants of country credit rating 

suggests that this metric is influenced 

not only by domestic policies (e.g., 

inflation, reserve holdings, current 

account deficits, export growth, debtGDP ratios, corruption, rule of law, and 

default risk) but also by many 

exogenous factors (e.g., initial income, 

international interest rates, growth rates 

in industrialized nations, commodity 

price fluctuations, export composition). 

It is therefore not clear how quickly and 

to what degree domestic policy changes 

will affect this variable. In addition, this 

indicator appears to have more of an 

income bias than other indicators MCC 

is using. 

Potential Future Changes Under 

Consideration: In addition to the change 

identified above, there are several 

potential future changes to the 

indicators that we will explore for the 

FY07 process. We are signaling these 

potential changes in order to solicit 

comments from the public and to 

provide countries an opportunity to 

evaluate their performance in these 

areas in advance of any such future 

changes in the selection process. 

We hope that by highlighting our 

intention to look for better and more 

comprehensive indicators we will 

stimulate interest in improving the 

available data. In assessing new 

indicators, we will favor those that: (1) 

Are developed by an independent third 

party, (2) utilize objective and highquality data, (3) are analytically rigorous 

and publicly available, (4) have broad 

country-coverage and are comparable 

across countries, (5) have a clear 

theoretical or empirical link to 

economic growth and poverty 

reduction, (6) are policy-linked, i.e. 

measure factors that governments can 

influence within a two to three year 

horizon, and (7) have broad consistency 

in results from year to year. 

A summary of the results of research 

undertaken throughout the past year 

and the identification of potential future 

changes to the selection criteria and 

methodology follows: 

Encouraging Economic Freedom: 

Trade Policy: In the FY05 Report, MCC 

signaled exploration of a more 

comprehensive measure of trade 

barriers. MCC has not identified a more 

comprehensive measure with good 

country coverage and which is publicly 

available and we will continue to 

research these issues for a possible 

change in FY07. 

Natural Resources Management: MCC 

has launched a public process led by 

MCC Board Member Christine Todd 

Whitman in search of a natural resource 

management indicator. MCC has sought 

broad input from the academic 

community, public and private sector 

practitioners, and researchers at think 

tanks and NGOs. We have consulted 

with environmental experts from across 

the country, who have provided 

extremely valuable guidance to MCC, 

and have published a public ‘‘request 

for ideas’’ for an indicator or index. We 

have enlisted the help of six experts to 

individually rate proposals and submit 

independent evaluations to MCC, and 

will discuss with the Board later this 

year whether we have succeeded in 

identifying a potential indicator for 

FY07. In the interim, MCC will provide 

the Board with quantitative and 

qualitative supplemental information in 

the natural resource management area. 

(Note: In FY05, we signaled MCC’s 

intention to consider a reduction in the 

threshold on the Inflation indicator from 

15% to 10% in FY06. However, we have not 

found credible evidence to support a further 

reduction, and MCC will continue to apply 

the 15% threshold.) 

Investing in People: Women’s and 

Children’s Health: In FY05, MCC 

signaled an interest in finding 

additional ways to measure investments 

in people, particularly with respect to 

women and children, in accordance 

with the legislation. In particular, we 

singled out Skilled Attendants at Birth 

(SBA) (a proxy for maternal mortality 

which measures births attended by 

medically-trained midwives, nurses or 

doctors) for potential use in FY06. After 

extensively reviewing the data, the 

methodology, and the literature on 

skilled birth attendants, we cannot 

adopt this indicator for inclusion as an 

indicator in the FY06 selection process 

due to poor data quality and lack of 

adequate country coverage. We remain 

interested in identifying measures of 

government policies that support 

women’s and children’s health, 

however, and will look for 

improvements in country coverage, 

frequency, definitional consistency, and 

data quality in the SBA indicator. MCC 

will continue to explore additional and 

better ways to measure investments in 

people, particularly with respect to 

women and children, for use in the 

selection criteria in future years. 

53394 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices 

Criteria and Methodology 

The Board will select eligible 

countries based on their overall 

performance in relation to their peers in 

three broad policy categories: Ruling 

Justly, Encouraging Economic Freedom, 

and Investing in People. Section 607 of 

the Act requires that the Board’s 

determination of eligibility be based ‘‘to 

the maximum extent possible, upon 

objective and quantifiable indicators of 

a country’s demonstrated commitment’’

to the criteria set out in the Act. For 

FY06, there will be two groups of 

candidate countries—low-income 

countries and lower-middle income 

countries. Low-income candidate 

countries refer to those countries that 

have a per capita income equal to or less 

than $1575 and are not ineligible to 

receive United States economic 

assistance under part I of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 by reason of the 

application of any provision of the 

Foreign Assistance Act or any other 

provision of law. Lower-middle income 

candidate countries are those that have 

a per capita income between $1,575–

$3,255 and are not ineligible to receive 

United States economic assistance. 

The Board will make use of sixteen 

indicators to assess policy performance 

of individual countries (specific 

definitions of the indicators and their 

sources are set out in Annex A). These 

indicators are grouped for purposes of 

the assessment methodology under the 

three policy categories as follows: 

Ruling Justly: Encouraging economic freedom: Investing in people: 

1. Civil Liberties 

2. Political Rights 

3. Voice and Accountability 

4. Government Effectiveness 

5. Rule of Law 

6. Control of Corruption 

1. Cost of Starting a Business 

2. 1-year Consumer Price Inflation 

3. Fiscal Policy 

4. Trade Policy 

5. Regulatory Quality 

6. Days to Start a Business 

1. Public Expenditures on Health as Percent 

of GDP. 

2. Immunization Rates: DPT3 and Measles. 

3. Public Primary Education Spending as Percent of GDP. 

4. Girls Primary Education Completion Rate. 

In making its determination of 

eligibility with respect to a particular 

candidate country, the Board will 

consider whether a country performs 

above the median in relation to its peers 

on at least half of the indicators in each 

of the three policy categories and above 

the median on the corruption indicator. 

One exception to this methodology is 

that the median is not used for the 

Inflation indicator. Instead, to pass the 

Inflation indicator a country’s inflation 

rate needs to be under a fixed ceiling of 

15%. The indicator methodology will be 

the predominant basis for determining 

which countries will be eligible for 

MCA assistance. In addition, the Board 

may exercise discretion in evaluating 

and translating the indicators into a 

final list of eligible countries. In this 

respect, the Board may also consider 

whether any adjustments should be 

made for data gaps, lags, trends, or other 

weaknesses in particular indicators. 

Likewise, the Board may deem a 

country ineligible if it performs 

substantially below the median on any 

indicator and has not taken appropriate 

measures to address this shortcoming. 

Where necessary, the Board may also 

take into account other quantitative and 

qualitative information to determine 

whether a country performed 

satisfactorily in relation to its peers in 

a given category. As provided in the 

Act, the CEO’s report to Congress setting 

out the list of eligible countries and 

identifying which of those countries the 

MCC will seek to enter into Compact 

negotiations with will include a 

justification for such eligibility 

determinations and selections for 

Compact negotiation. 

There are elements of the criteria set 

out in the Act for which there is either 

limited quantitative information (e.g., 

rights of people with disabilities) or no 

well-developed performance indicator 

(e.g., sustainable management of natural 

resources). Until such data and/or 

indicators are developed, the Board may 

rely on supplemental data and 

qualitative information to assess policy 

performance. For example, the State 

Department Human Rights report 

contains qualitative information to make 

an assessment on a variety of criteria 

outlined by Congress, such as the rights 

of people with disabilities, the treatment 

of women and children, worker rights, 

and human rights. Similarly, as 

additional information in the area of 

corruption, the Board may consider how 

a country scores on Transparency 

International’s Corruption Perceptions 

Index as well as on the defined 

indicator. 

The Board’s assessment of a country’s 

commitment to economic policies that 

promote the sustainable management of 

natural resources may make use of 

quantitative and qualitative information 

such as access to sanitation, 

deforestation, conservation of land and 

marine resources, land tenure 

institutions, and protection of 

threatened and endangered species. 

MCC has launched a public process to 

identify a suitable potential indicator. 

Relationship to Legislative Criteria 

Within each policy category, the Act 

sets out a number of specific selection 

criteria. As indicated above, a set of 

objective and quantifiable policy 

indicators is being used to establish 

eligibility for MCA assistance and 

measure the relative performance by 

candidate countries against these 

criteria. The Board’s approach to 

determining eligibility ensures that 

performance against each of these 

criteria is assessed by at least one of the 

sixteen objective indicators. Most are 

addressed by multiple indicators. The 

specific indicators used to measure each 

of the criteria set out in the Act are as 

follows: 

Section 607(b)(1:) Just and democratic 

governance, including a demonstrated 

commitment to—

(A) Promote political pluralism, 

equality, and the rule of law; 

Indicators—Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, Voice and Accountability and 

Rule of Law 

(B) Respect human and civil rights, 

including the rights of people with 

disabilities; Indicators—Political Rights 

and Civil Liberties 

(C) Protect private property rights; 

Indicators—Civil Liberties, Regulatory 

Quality and Rule of Law 

(D) Encourage transparency and 

accountability of government; and 

Indicators—Political Rights, Civil 

Liberties, Voice and Accountability, and 

Government Effectiveness 

(E) Combat corruption. 

Indicators—Civil Liberties and Control 

of Corruption 

Where necessary the Board will also 

draw on supplemental data and 

qualitative information, including the 

State Department’s Human Rights 

Report and Transparency International 

Corruption Perception’s Index. 

Section 607(b)(2): Economic freedom, 

including a demonstrated commitment 

to economic policies that—

(A) Encourage citizens and firms to 

participate in global trade and 

international capital markets; 

Indicators—Fiscal Policy, Inflation, 

Trade Policy, and Regulatory Quality 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices 53395 

(B) Promote private sector growth and 

the sustainable management of natural 

resources; Indicators—Inflation, Days to 

Start a Business, Cost of Starting a 

Business, Fiscal Policy, and Regulatory 

Quality 

(C) Strengthen market forces in the 

economy; and Indicators—Fiscal Policy, 

Inflation, and Regulatory Quality 

(D) Respect worker rights, including 

the right to form labor unions. 

Indicators—Civil Liberties 

Where necessary the Board will also 

draw on supplemental data and 

qualitative information including the 

State Department’s Human Rights 

Report, access to sanitation, 

deforestation, conservation of land and 

marine resources, land tenure 

institutions, and protection of 

threatened and endangered species. 

Section 607(b)(3): Investments in the 

people of such country, particularly 

women and children, including 

programs that—

(A) Promote broad-based primary 

education; and 

Indicators—Girls’ Primary Education 

Completion Rate and Public Spending 

on Primary Education. 

(B) Strengthen and build capacity to 

provide quality public health and 

reduce child mortality. Indicators—

Immunization and Public Spending on 

Health. 

Annex A: Indicator Definitions 

The following 16 indicators will be 

used to measure candidate countries’

adherence to the criteria found in 

Section 607(b) of the Act. The indicators 

are intended to assess the degree to 

which the political and economic 

conditions in a country serve to promote 

broad-based sustainable economic 

growth and thus provide a sound 

environment for the use of MCA funds. 

The indicators are not goals in 

themselves; rather, they measure 

policies that are necessary conditions 

for a country to achieve broad-based 

sustainable economic growth. The 

indicators were selected based on their 

relationship to growth and poverty 

reduction, the number of countries they 

cover, their transparency and 

availability, and their relative 

soundness and objectivity. Where 

possible, the indicators rely on indices 

of performance developed by 

independent sources. 

Ruling Justly 

(1) Civil Liberties: A panel of 

independent experts rates countries on: 

freedom of expression, association and 

organizational rights, rule of law and 

human rights, and personal autonomy 

and economic rights. Source: Freedom 

House. 

(2) Political Rights: A panel of 

independent experts rates countries on: 

the prevalence of free and fair elections 

of officials with real power; the ability 

of citizens to form political parties that 

may compete fairly in elections; 

freedom from domination by the 

military, foreign powers, totalitarian 

parties, religious hierarchies and 

economic oligarchies; and the political 

rights of minority groups. Source: 

Freedom House. 

(3) Voice and Accountability: An 

index of surveys that rates countries on: 

ability of institutions to protect civil 

liberties, the extent to which citizens of 

a country are able to participate in the 

selection of governments, and the 

independence of the media. Source: 

World Bank Institute. 

(4) Government Effectiveness: An 

index of surveys that rates countries on: 

The quality of public service provision, 

civil services’ competency and 

independence from political pressures, 

and the government’s ability to plan and 

implement sound policies. Source: 

World Bank Institute. 

(5) Rule of Law: An index of surveys 

that rates countries on: the extent to 

which the public has confidence in and 

abides by rules of society; incidence of 

violent and non-violent crime; 

effectiveness and predictability of the 

judiciary; and the enforceability of 

contracts. Source: World Bank Institute. 

(6) Control of Corruption: An index of 

surveys that rates countries on: The 

frequency of ‘‘additional payments to 

get things done,’’ the effects of 

corruption on the business 

environment, ‘‘grand corruption’’ in the 

political arena and the tendency of 

elites to engage in ‘‘state capture.’’

Source: World Bank Institute. 

Encouraging Economic Freedom 

(1) Cost of Starting a Business: The 

Private Sector Advisory Service of the 

World Bank Group works with local 

lawyers and other professionals to 

examine specific regulations that impact 

business investment. One of their 

studies measures the cost of starting a 

new business as a percentage of per 

capita income. Source: World Bank 

Group. 

(2) Inflation: The most recent 12 

month change in consumer prices as 

reported in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics or in another public 

forum by the relevant national monetary 

authorities. Source: Multiple. 

(3) Fiscal Policy: The overall budget 

deficit divided by GDP, averaged over a 

three-year period. The data for this 

measure is being provided directly by 

the recipient government and will be 

cross checked with other sources and 

made publicly available to try to ensure 

consistency across countries. Source: 

National Governments and IMF WEO. 

(4) Days to Start a Business: The 

Private Sector Advisory Service of the 

World Bank Group works with local 

lawyers and other professionals to 

examine specific regulations that impact 

business investment. One of their 

studies measures how many days it 

takes to open a new business. Source: 

World Bank Group. 

(5) Trade Policy: A measure of a 

country’s openness to international 

trade based on average tariff rates and 

non-tariff barriers to trade. Source: The 

Heritage Foundation’s Index of 

Economic Freedom. 

(6) Regulatory Quality Rating: An 

index of surveys that rates countries on: 

the burden of regulations on business, 

price controls, the government’s role in 

the economy, foreign investment 

regulation and many other areas. 

Source: World Bank Institute. 

Investing in People 

(1) Public Expenditure on Health: 

Total expenditures by government at all 

levels on health divided by GDP. 

Source: National Governments. 

(2) Immunization: The average of 

DPT3 and measles immunization rates 

for the most recent year available. 

Source: The World Health Organization 

WHO. 

(3) Total Public Expenditure on 

Primary Education: Total expenditures 

by government at all levels of primary 

education divided by GDP. Source: 

National Governments. 

(4) Girls’ Primary Completion Rate: 

The number of female students 

completing primary education divided 

by the population in the relevant age 

cohort. Source: World Bank and 

UNESCO. 

Dated: September 2, 2005. 

Jon A. Dyck, 

Vice President & General Counsel, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 05–17793 Filed 9–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9210–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act; Meeting 

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National 

Science Board; Audit and Oversight 

Committee. 

DATE AND TIME: September 14, 2005, 11 

a.m.–12 noon (e.t.). 

PLACE: National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 

22230, Public Meeting Room 220.