58180 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 

in that the same manner or quantity as 

in the past 12 months; 

(3) All grain to be stored in such an 

alternative facility must be companyowned; and 

(4) All grain to be stored in such an 

alternative facility must be accounted 

for through inventory records. 

Proposals must include the following 

information: 

(1) Location of the storage site; 

(2) Description of alternative storage 

facility; 

(3) Quantity of grain stored in the 

alternative storage facility in the past 12 

months; 

(4) Quantity of corn or wheat to be 

stored in facility; 

(5) Information on the severity of 

storage congestion in the geographical 

area including any other facility within 

10 miles of such site; and 

(6) Dollar amount per bushel of 

incentive payment requested. 

Operators entering into agreements 

with CCC will be required to meet 

certain documentation and certification 

requirements. These requirements will 

allow CCC to verify the quantity of corn 

or wheat stored in the alternative 

storage facility. 

III. Transportation Differential 

CCC is seeking proposals on up to 

200,000 metric tons (MT, 2204.623 

pounds) for a transportation differential 

incentive on the movement of corn, 

wheat or soybeans through regions other 

than the Central Gulf. This is designed 

to reduce transportation demand on the 

Mississippi River system and alleviate 

costs associated with these alternative 

transportation modes and handling 

locations. The movement of corn, wheat 

or soybeans subject to the differential 

must be completed by November 1, 

2005. This incentive is intended to 

encourage new routes and is destination 

neutral. 

Re-direction of existing sales and new 

sales are eligible. There are no 

restrictions on flagging of ocean carriers 

or on the interested parties’ domicile. 

Transshipments are allowed if the 

eligible commodity has been shipped 

from the customs territory of the U.S. 

via Great Lakes coastal range and its 

identity has been preserved until 

shipped from Canada. Proposed 

transshipment routes must be included 

in the proposal. 

Interested parties must demonstrate: 

(1) Financial ability to perform; 

(2) Performance history in the 

movement of bulk grains; 

(3) Access to handling facilities 

through ownership, contractual or putthrough agreement, and 

(4) That they are not currently 

debarred, suspended or proposed for 

debarment from any Federally 

administered program. 

The proposal must include: 

(1) The commodity to be shipped; 

(2) Tonnage of the commodity 

(minimum 10,000 MT); 

(3) Final intended destination 

including transshipment routes if any; 

(4) Transportation mode; 

(5) Proposed rate of incentive per 

metric ton (MT) of the commodity; 

(6) Time-frame for completion; and 

(7) Explanation as to how the 

movement reduces transportation 

demand on the Mississippi River 

system. 

Interested parties may submit 

multiple proposals. 

IV. Proposal Evaluation Criteria and 

Award 

Proposals must be evaluated 

objectively in accordance with the 

regulations on ‘‘Competition in the 

awarding of discretionary grants and 

cooperative agreements’’ found at 7 CFR 

3015.158. The following criteria must be 

used equally in the evaluation: 

(1) Proposal’s cost in relation to 

current market values for both 

commodities and transportation; 

(2) Net positive impact on 

transportation logjams; and 

(3) Overall cost effectiveness of 

proposal. 

CCC will notify interested parties of 

approval of their proposals on October 

17, 2005. 

Signed at Washington, DC September 29, 

2005. 

Michael W. Yost, 

Executive Vice-President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 05–19999 Filed 9–30–05; 3:02 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Census Bureau 

Decennial Short Form Experiment 

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before December 5, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at DHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Elizabeth Martin, Census 

Bureau, Building 3, Room Number 3715, 

Washington, DC 20333, 301–763–4905 

(elizabeth.ann.martin@census.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

Introduction 

The Census Bureau plans to conduct 

an experimental mailing for the 

Decennial Short Form. The goal of this 

experiment is to improve the quality of 

data collected in the 2010 Census and 

the response to the mailed Short Form. 

The experiment will include 

treatment groups that encompass three 

objectives. The first objective of the test 

is to evaluate the effects of the wording 

of the instruction about whom to list as 

Person 1. The instruction used in 

Census 2000 caused confusion and 

errors by respondents in cognitive 

interviews. Consequently, the 

instruction was revised to try to correct 

the problems identified in cognitive 

testing. The revised version has been 

through two additional rounds of 

cognitive testing, and it seems to 

promote more accurate responses. The 

field test will provide empirical 

evidence that we will use to evaluate 

the success of the revised instruction. 

The second goal of the field test is to 

evaluate an additional question series 

that is designed to alleviate respondent 

confusion about what constitutes a 

completed form. The additional 

question will provide respondents with 

a clear stopping point, which is 

currently lacking. (Respondents in 

previous cognitive interviews spent 

considerable time trying to figure out 

when and where they are supposed to 

stop.) The final question series will 

collect the respondent’s name, phone 

number, and proxy status. (In some 

cases, someone outside the household 

completes the questionnaire—e.g., a 

child of an elderly individual. This type 

of respondent is a ‘‘proxy’’ respondent 

for the household.) This information 

will be used to evaluate the effect of the 

revised instruction on the frequency 

with which respondents erroneously 

leave themselves off the form. An 

experimental version will further ask 

respondents to make sure that the forms 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58181 

are complete before they mail them 

back. 

The third goal of the field test is to 

evaluate how a compressed mailing 

schedule with a ‘‘due date’’ on the form 

impacts the rate and speed of response. 

By ‘‘compressed’’ we mean that the 

mailing schedule will differ from the 

standard 2000 Census approach, where 

the Short Form is mailed 2 weeks before 

‘‘Census Day.’’ In the compressed 

approach, we will time the mailing so 

that households receive the 

questionnaire a few days before ‘‘Census 

Day.’’ ‘‘Census Day’’ for this test will be 

approximately one month after we 

receive OMB approval. 

Background 

Research by Dillman, Parsons, and 

Mahon-Taft (2004) revealed that the 

instruction used in Census 2000 caused 

serious confusion and errors by 

respondents in cognitive interviews. 

Almost half (13 of 30) of the 

respondents expressed confusion about 

whom to list as Person 1, and 13 percent 

left themselves or someone else off the 

form entirely. Misunderstanding this 

instruction may cause coverage errors 

since subsequent questions ask for each 

person’s relationship to Person 1—the 

householder. Respondents who list the 

wrong person as Person 1 will be 

reporting relationship incorrectly for the 

members of their households. 

Another challenge in the current 

questionnaire is that some respondents 

are unclear what constitutes a 

completed form. Respondents in recent 

cognitive interviews spent considerable 

time trying to figure out when and 

where they are supposed to stop. While 

this may not affect the quality of the 

data, it does increase respondent burden 

and may also delay return of the form. 

Finally, the mail back response rate 

and the speed with which households 

return their questionnaires is highly 

correlated with the cost of the Decennial 

Census. The current form does not 

provide households with any indication 

of the questionnaire due date. This fact 

may delay response, and therefore 

increase the number of contacts 

(followup mailings and in-person 

contacts) necessary to obtain a 

completed questionnaire. 

Based on these issues, we have 

designed a field test to evaluate new 

methods to address these concerns. 

There are three objectives of this special 

mailout test: 

1. Evaluate the effects of the wording 

of the instruction about who to list as 

Person 1. 

2. Evaluate the proportion of 

respondents who forget to enumerate 

themselves by asking them to provide 

their personal information at the end of 

the form. 

3. Evaluate how a compressed 

schedule with a fixed due date impacts 

unit response patterns. 

In order to assess these treatments, the 

Census Bureau has proposed the 

following design: 

• Group 1. Housing units in this 

treatment group will receive 

questionnaires with the same wording 

for the Person 1 instruction that we used 

in the Census 2000 questionnaire. In the 

Final Question, respondents will be 

asked to provide their name, telephone 

number and proxy information. The 

mail out schedule will be the 

conventional schedule. The 

questionnaire will be mailed two weeks 

before ‘‘Census Day’’, and there will be 

no explicit deadline. 

• Group 2. Housing units in this 

treatment group will receive 

questionnaires with the revised wording 

for the Person 1 instruction. In the Final 

Question, respondents will be asked to 

provide their name, telephone number 

and proxy information. The mailout 

schedule will be the conventional 

schedule. The questionnaire will be 

mailed two weeks before ‘‘Census Day’’

and there will be no explicit deadline. 

• Group 3. Housing units in this 

treatment group will receive 

questionnaires with the revised wording 

for the Person 1 instruction. In the Final 

Question, respondents will be asked to 

check over their answers before 

considering the survey complete. The 

mailout schedule will be the 

conventional schedule. The 

questionnaire will be mailed two weeks 

before ‘‘Census Day’’ and there will be 

no explicit deadline. 

• Group 4. Housing units in this 

treatment group will receive 

questionnaires with the revised wording 

for the Person 1 instruction. In the Final 

Question, respondents will be asked to 

check over their answers before 

considering the survey complete. The 

mailout schedule will be compressed, so 

that the survey is received closer to 

‘‘Census Day’’ and an explicit due date 

will be provided. 

II. Method of Collection 

The Census Bureau will select a 

national sample of households for the 

Short Form Mail Experiment. The 

sample will be drawn from the U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) Delivery 

Sequence File (DSF), which contains all 

delivery point addresses serviced by the 

USPS. The USPS list sometimes misses 

new housing, includes vacant units, 

excludes addresses where the addressee 

has requested removal from the list, and 

may have limited information for 

individuals who live in apartments or 

who have post office boxes and rural 

route addresses. Even so, it is the most 

cost effective approach available for the 

test. We do not anticipate that the 

limitations of the address list will have 

a substantial impact on the results of the 

experiment. 

In order to obtain completed surveys 

from 10,000 households, we plan to 

draw an initial sample of 24,000 

households. (Since previous Census 

Bureau mailout tests have obtained 

response rates of 40 to 50 percent, we 

have assumed a response rate of 45 

percent and an undeliverable rate of 7 

percent.) The sample will be allocated 

proportionately across the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. 

We will mail the following 

independent mailing pieces to 

households at all sampled addresses: An 

advance letter, an original questionnaire 

with postage-paid return envelope, and 

a reminder card. A replacement 

questionnaire with postage-paid return 

envelope will be mailed to those who 

request them. All mailing pieces will be 

delivered by the USPS via first class 

postage. 

The advance letter will be delivered 

approximately three weeks after we 

receive approval from OMB to conduct 

the test. This letter will inform 

respondents that they will soon receive 

a census form. About a week later, each 

sampled address will receive a mailing 

package that includes the questionnaire 

(English only) and a return envelope. 

Approximately one week after the initial 

questionnaires have been delivered, the 

USPS will deliver a reminder post card 

to each address. This postcard—which 

will be mailed seven days following the 

mailing of the questionnaire—will serve 

as a thank-you for respondents who 

have mailed back the questionnaire and 

will be a reminder for those who have 

not. A second postcard, which will be 

mailed approximately 10 days later, will 

be sent only to non-respondents. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: None. 

Form Number: D–61A. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Affected Public: Individuals. 

Maximum Number of Respondents: 

24,000 housing units. 

Estimated Time Per Response: All 

questionnaires will require 

approximately 10 minutes for response. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: A maximum burden of 4,000 

hours 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is 

no cost to respondents except for their 

time to respond. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

58182 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 

1The EAR, which are currently codified at 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2005), are issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. app. 2401–2420) (2000) (the ‘‘Act’’). From 

August 21, 1994 through November 12, 2000, the 

Act was in lapse. During that period, the President, 

through Executive Order 12,924, which had been 

extended by successive Presidential Notices, the 

last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR 200 Comp. 

397 (2001)), continued the EAR in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1707 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 

13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and it remained 

in effect through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 

2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, 

through Executive Order 13,222 of August 17, 2001 

(3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the 

Notice of August 2, 2005, (70 FR 45,273 (Aug. 5, 

2005)), continued the Regulations in effect under 

the IEEPA. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 of the United 

States Code, sections 141 and 193. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–19894 Filed 10–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Ghashim Group, Inc.; Mazen Ghashim; 

MNC Group International, In the Matter 

of: Ghashim Group, Inc., d.b.a. KZ 

Results, 3334 Walnut Bend Land, 

Houston, Texas 77042, and Mazen 

Ghashim, 10734 Overbrook Lane, 

Houston, Texas 77042, Respondents, 

and MNC Group International, Inc., 

d.b.a. Wearform, d.b.a. Sports Zone, 

d.b.a. Soccer Zone, 3334 Walnut Bend 

Lane, Houston, Texas 77042; Related 

Person 

Order Renewing Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’),1 the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’), U.S. Department of 

Commerce, through its Office of Export 

Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), has requested 

that I renew for 180 days an Order 

temporarily denying the export 

privileges under the EAR of: Ghashim 

Group, Inc. doing business as (‘‘d.b.a.’’) 

KZ Results, 3334 Walnut Bend Lane, 

Houston, Texas 77042 (‘‘Ghashim 

Group’’) and Mazen Ghashim, 10734 

Overbrook Lane, Houston, Texas 77042 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

the ‘‘Respondents’’); and related person 

MNC Group International, Inc. d.b.a. 

Wearform, d.b.a. Sports Zone, and d.b.a. 

Soccer Zone, 3334 Walnut Bend Lane, 

Houston, Texas 77042 (‘‘MNC’’). 

On April 7, 2005, I found that 

evidence presented by BIS 

demonstrated that the Respondents 

conspired to commit acts that violated 

the EAR, that such violations had been 

deliberate and covert, and that there was 

a strong likelihood of future violations, 

particularly given the nature of the 

transactions and the elaborate steps 

taken by Respondents to avoid detection 

by the U.S. Government while knowing 

that their actions were in violation of 

the EAR. 70 FR 17,645 (Apr. 7, 2005). 

This finding was based on evidence that 

indicated that Respondents had 

conspired with others to cause 

computers, which are subject to the EAR 

and controlled for national security and 

anti-terrorism reasons, to be illegally 

exported to Syria. The evidence also 

indicated that, after learning of the EAR 

requirements governing the export of 

computers to Syria, Respondents 

developed and implemented a scheme 

to avoid these requirements by causing 

computers to be exported to Syria 

through the United Arab Emirates with 

knowledge that violations of the EAR 

would occur. 

I also found that MNC was a Related 

Person pursuant to 15 CFR 766.23 

because it is owned and operated by 

Mazen Ghashim, who is the President of 

Ghashim Group, and it is operated out 

of the same facilities as Ghashim Group. 

The evidence showed Ghashim and 

MNC conspired to export garment 

samples, items that are subject to the 

EAR, from the United States to Syria 

without the required BIS export licenses 

in violation of the Regulations. 

BIS believes that all of the facts found 

in the original Order continue to justify 

the renewal of the Order, particularly 

given the nature of the transactions and 

the steps that have been taken by 

Respondents to avoid detection by the 

U.S. Government while knowing their 

actions were in violation of the EAR. 

BIS believes that the evidence described 

in its initial Temporary Denial Order 

request supports this Order. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

BIS, I find that renewal of the Order 

naming Respondents and the Related 

Person is necessary, in the public 

interest, to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. A copy of the 

request for renewal of this Order was 

served upon Respondents and the 

Related Person in accordance with the 

requirements of 15 CFR 766.24 of the 

EAR, and no responses were received in 

opposition to this request within the 

applicable time period described in that 

section. 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that the Respondents, Ghashim 

Group, Inc. D.B.A. KZ Results, 3334 

Walnut Bend Lane, Houston, Texas 

77042, its successors or assigns, and 

when acting for or on behalf of Ghashim 

Group, Inc., its officers, representatives, 

agents, or employees; Mazen Ghashim 

10734 Overbrook Lane, Houston, Texas 

77042, and, when acting for or on behalf 

of Mazen Ghashim, his representatives, 

agents, assigns or employees; and 

Related Person MNC Group 

International, Inc. d.b.a. Wearform, 

d.b.a. Sports Zone, and d.b.a. Soccer 

Zone, 3334 Walnut Bend Lane, Houston, 

Texas 77042, its successors or assigns, 

and when acting for or on behalf of 

MNC Group International, Inc., its 

officers, representatives, agents, or 

employees (collectively, the ‘‘Denied 

Persons’’), may not, directly or 

indirectly, participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject 

to the EAR, including, but not limited 

to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, License Exception, or 

export control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the EAR, or in any other 

activity subject to the EAR; or 

C. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaciton involving any item exported