69992 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 

purposes is not necessary for the proper and 

efficient administration of a state’s UC law, 

the costs of collecting those taxes may not be 

charged to Title III grants. 

Departmental regulations at 29 CFR 

97.22(b) provide that, for purposes of 

determining allowable costs under a grant to 

a state (including the Title III grant), the 

Department will follow the cost principles in 

OMB Circular A–87. Section C.3 of 

Attachment A of the Circular provides that—

(a) A cost is allocable to a particular cost 

objective if the goods or services involved are 

chargeable or assignable to such cost 

objective in accordance with relative benefits 

received. 

* * * 

(d) Where an accumulation of indirect 

costs will ultimately result in charges to a 

Federal award, a cost allocation plan will be 

required. * * * 

Applying these principles to Title III 

grants, a cost allocation plan must be 

developed whenever a state UC agency 

incurs costs for a ‘‘cost objective’’ unrelated 

to the administration of the UC program. 

Collection of a tax that is not used entirely 

for Title III (that is, UC) purposes is such a 

cost objective. 

5. Application. 

a. In general. Whenever a state UC agency 

collects a tax that is not used entirely for UC 

purposes, the state must obtain the cognizant 

Federal agency’s approval of its plan for 

allocating the costs of assessing, processing, 

and collecting the tax. The following 

indicates whether Title III grants may be used 

to collect a tax and whether collection of the 

particular tax requires a plan for allocating 

costs: 

• Title III grants may be used to administer 

a tax when all revenues from the tax are (1) 

deposited in the state’s unemployment fund 

to be used for the payment of compensation, 

(2) used to pay interest on advances under 

Title XII, SSA, or (3) used for the 

administration of the UC program. No cost 

allocation plan is required. 

• Title III funds may not be used for any 

costs of collecting a tax that is used entirely 

for non-UC purposes, such as administering 

other workforce programs (including 

providing employment services to UC 

claimants), job training, economic 

development, temporary disability payments, 

health related benefits, or state income tax. 

A cost allocation plan is required. 

• Title III grants may be used in proportion 

to the benefit received by the UC program if 

a portion of the revenues of a tax are used 

for UC purposes and a portion for non-UC 

purposes. A cost allocation plan is required. 

Cost allocation plans addressing taxes will 

generally be included with the state’s annual 

submission of its Indirect Cost Rate Proposal. 

However, in some cases (such as newly 

enacted taxes that are assessed immediately 

after enactment), it will be necessary to 

submit the tax plan as soon as possible to 

assure proper allocation of costs. 

b. Taxes which might be used for UC 

purposes. Many state UC agencies collect 

taxes which permit (but do not require) the 

revenues, or a part thereof, to be used for UC 

purposes. As a result, there is no guarantee 

that the UC program will receive any benefit 

from these taxes. For any year in which such 

taxes are collected, the state’s cost allocation 

plan will need to address, to the extent 

possible and taking into account prior history 

regarding the tax’s revenues, whether any of 

the revenues will be used for UC purposes. 

c. Penalty mail. When a UC agency collects 

a tax that is not solely restricted to UC 

purposes, penalty mail, as defined in 39 

U.S.C. 3201(1), must not be used for any 

mailing related to the tax, whether or not the 

mailing also includes UC material. When a 

state UC agency collects a tax (or taxes) for 

other than UC purposes, the allocation of 

postage costs between the programs 

supported by the tax (or taxes) must be 

addressed in the state’s cost allocation plan. 

d. Use of non-UC grants and state 

financing. Funds granted for administering 

the Wagner-Peyser Act and the Workforce 

Investment Act are restricted to activities in 

support of the specific purposes set forth in 

those Acts. Unlike Federal UC law, these 

Acts do not authorize the collection of taxes, 

even if tax revenues enhance program 

activities performed under either of these 

Acts. As a result, funds granted under these 

Acts may not under any circumstances be 

used to collect any tax revenues. Aside from 

any Federal limitations on the use of granted 

funds, states are otherwise free to determine 

how to finance the costs of collecting non-UC 

or mixed-use taxes. States may use state 

general revenues or deduct the costs of 

collection from the revenues generated by the 

non-UC or mixed-use tax. 

e. Identification of taxes for FUTA credit 

purposes. States must assure that employers 

are aware that only contributions deposited 

in the state’s unemployment fund may be 

used to obtain credit against the Federal 

unemployment tax. See UIPL 25–92. (This 

matter does not need to be addressed in the 

cost allocation plan.) 

6. Action required. Administrators should 

distribute this advisory to appropriate staff. 

7. Inquiries. Please direct questions to the 

appropriate Regional Office. 

[FR Doc. E5–6387 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting of the Board of 

Directors 

Amended Notice; Technical Correction 

to the Agenda 

Notice 

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) 

is announcing a technical amendment to 

the notice of a meeting of the Board of 

Directors. The amendment is being 

made to reflect a technical correction to 

the meeting Agenda. There are no other 

changes. 

Specifically, the following correction 

has been made to the agenda. 

• The language at item 2 has been 

corrected to read: ‘‘Consider and act on 

Board of Directors’ response to the LSC 

Inspector General’s Semiannual Report 

to Congress for the period of April 1, 

2005 through September 30, 2005.’’

[Emphasis added.] 

TIME AND DATE: November 28, 2005 at 12 

p.m. (e.s.t.). 

LOCATION: The Legal Services 

Corporation, 3333 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC, 3rd Floor. 

STATUS OF MEETING: Open. 

Amended Agenda 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session 

1. Approval of the agenda. 

2. Consider and act on Board of 

Directors’ response to the LSC Inspector 

General’s Semiannual Report to 

Congress for the period of April 1, 2005 

through September 30, 2005. 

3. Consider and act on other business. 

4. Public comment. 

5. Consider and act on adjournment of 

meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia D. Batie, Manager of Board 

Operations, at (202) 295–1500. 

Special Needs: Upon request, meeting 

notices will be made available in 

alternate formats to accommodate visual 

and hearing impairments. Individuals 

who have a disability and need an 

accommodation to attend the meeting 

may notify Patricia D. Batie, at (202) 

295–1500. 

Dated: November 16, 2005. 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General 

Counsel & Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–23034 Filed 11–16–05; 3:13 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 05–19] 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2006 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

SUMMARY: Section 608(d) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. 

L. 108–199 (Division D) requires the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation to 

publish a report that lists the countries 

determined by the Board of Directors of 

the Corporation to be eligible for 

assistance for Fiscal Year 2006. The 

report is set forth in full below. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 69993 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2006 

Summary 

This report is provided in accordance 

with Section 608(d)(2) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. 

L. 108–199, Division D, (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The Act authorizes the provision of 

Millennium Challenge Account 

(‘‘MCA’’) assistance under Section 605 

of the Act to countries that enter into 

Compacts with the United States to 

support policies and programs that 

advance the progress of such countries 

in achieving lasting economic growth 

and poverty reduction and are in 

furtherance of the Act. The Act requires 

the Millennium Challenge Corporation 

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

determine the countries that, based, to 

the maximum extent possible, on their 

demonstrated commitment to just and 

democratic governance, economic 

freedom and investing in their people, 

will be eligible to receive MCA 

assistance for a fiscal year. These steps 

include the submission of reports to 

appropriate congressional committees 

and the publication of notices in the 

Federal Register that identify, among 

other things: 

1. The ‘‘candidate countries’’ for MCA 

assistance for a fiscal year and all 

countries that would be candidate 

countries if they met the requirement of 

Section 606(a)(1)(B) (Section 608(a) of 

the Act); 

2. The eligibility criteria and 

methodology that the MCC Board of 

Directors (the ‘‘Board’’) will use to select 

‘‘eligible countries’’ from among the 

‘‘candidate countries’’ (Section 608(b) of 

the Act); and 

3. The countries determined by the 

Board to be ‘‘eligible countries’’ for a 

fiscal year, the countries on the list of 

eligible countries with which the Board 

will seek to enter into MCA ‘‘Compacts’’

and a justification for the decisions 

regarding eligibility and selection for 

negotiation (Section 608(d)(1) of the 

Act). 

This is the third of the abovedescribed reports by MCC. This report is 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (‘‘FY06’’). It 

identifies countries determined by the 

Board to be eligible under Section 607 

of the Act for FY06 and those that the 

Board will seek to enter into MCA 

Compacts under Section 609 of the Act, 

and the justification for such decisions. 

Eligible Countries 

The Board met on November 8, 2005, 

to select countries that will be eligible 

for MCA assistance under Section 607 of 

the Act for FY06. The Board determined 

the following countries as eligible for 

such assistance for FY06: Armenia, 

Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape 

Verde, East Timor, El Salvador, The 

Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, 

Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, 

Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, 

Nicaragua, Senegal, Sri Lanka, 

Tanzania, and Vanuatu. 

In accordance with the Act and with 

the ‘‘Report on the Criteria and 

Methodology for Determining the 

Eligibility of Candidate Countries for 

Millennium Challenge Account 

Assistance in FY 2006’’ submitted to the 

Congress on September 6, 2005, 

selection was based primarily on a 

country’s overall performance in 

relation to three broad policy categories: 

Ruling Justly, Encouraging Economic 

Freedom, and Investing in People. The 

Board relied on sixteen publicly 

available indicators to assess policy 

performance and demonstrated 

commitment in these three areas, to the 

maximum extent possible, for 

determining which countries would be 

eligible for assistance. In determining 

eligibility, the Board considered if a 

country performed 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 

corruption and, if the country 

performed substantially below the 

median on any indictor, whether it is 

taking appropriate action to address the 

shortcomings. 

The Board also considered whether 

any adjustments should be made for 

data gaps, lags, trends, recent events 

since the indicators were published, and 

strengths or weaknesses in particular 

indicators. Where appropriate, the 

Board took into account additional 

quantitative and qualitative information, 

such as evidence of a country’s 

commitment to fighting corruption and 

promoting democratic governance, its 

economic policies to promote the 

sustainable management of natural 

resources, and the rights of people with 

disabilities. In addition, the Board 

considered the opportunity to reduce 

poverty, promote economic growth and 

have a transformational impact in a 

country in light of the overall context of 

the information available to it as well as 

the availability of appropriated funds. 

Sixteen of the countries selected as 

eligible for MCA assistance for FY06 

were in the low income category and 

were previously selected as eligible in 

FY04 and/or FY05: Armenia, Benin, 

Bolivia, Ghana, Georgia, Honduras, 

Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, 

Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, 

Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Vanuatu. On 

November 8, 2005, the Board re-selected 

these countries based on their continued 

performance since their prior selection, 

most notably in the areas outlined in 

MCC’s Report on the Selection of MCA 

Eligible Countries for FY 2004 and FY 

2005, previously submitted to Congress 

on May 7, 2004 and November 12, 2004, 

respectively. The Board also determined 

that no material change has occurred in 

the performance of these countries on 

the selection criteria since the FY05 

selection that would justify not 

including them in the FY06 eligible 

country list. 

Six new countries were selected for 

the first time in FY06, which included 

(i) Four in the ‘‘low income’’ category 

under Section 606(a) of the Act: Burkina 

Faso, East Timor, Tanzania and The 

Gambia and (ii) two in the ‘‘lower 

middle income’’ category under Section 

606(b) of the Act: El Salvador and 

Namibia. Each of these countries (i) 

Performed above the median in relation 

to their peers on at least half of the 

indicators in each of the three policy 

categories, (ii) performed above the 

median on corruption and (iii) in cases 

where they performed substantially 

below the median on an indicator, there 

was either evidence that the data did 

not adequately reflect their policy 

performance or that the government was 

taking corrective action to address the 

problem. The Board also selected Cape 

Verde in the lower middle income 

category. Cape Verde was selected as a 

low income eligible country in FY04 but 

was not a candidate in FY05 because it 

exceeded the per capita income 

threshold for that year. Although Cape 

Verde ‘‘passes’’ only two of the six 

indicators in the ‘‘Economic Freedom’’

category, this was because the 

International Finance Corporation does 

not yet include Cape Verde in its Doing 

Business survey. As a result, there was 

no data for Cape Verde on two 

indicators: ‘‘Cost of a Business’’ and 

‘‘Days to Start a Business.’’ Based on 

supplemental information available to 

MCC, we believe that, had this data 

been collected, Cape Verde would have 

‘‘passed’’ this category and, indeed, 

have been one of the highest performing 

of the lower middle income countries. A 

number of countries that performed well 

on the quantitative elements of the 

selection criteria (i.e., on the policy 

indicators) were not chosen as eligible 

countries for FY06. As discussed above, 

the Board considered a variety of factors 

in addition to the country’s performance 

on the policy indicators in determining 

whether they were appropriate 

candidates for assistance (e.g., the 

country’s commitment to fighting 

corruption and promoting democratic 

governance; the availability of 

69994 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 

appropriated funds; and in which 

countries MCC would likely have the 

best opportunity to reduce poverty, 

generate economic growth and have a 

transformational impact). 

Selection for Compact Negotiation 

The Board also authorized MCC to 

seek to negotiate an MCA Compact, as 

described in Section 609 of the Act, 

with each of the eligible countries 

identified above that develops a 

proposal that justifies beginning such 

negotiations. MCC will initiate the 

process by inviting newly eligible 

countries to submit program proposals 

to MCC (previously eligible countries 

will not be asked to submit another 

proposal for FY06 assistance). MCC has 

posted guidance on the MCC Web site 

(www.mcc.gov) regarding the 

development and submission of MCA 

program proposals. Submission of a 

proposal is not a guarantee that MCC 

will finalize a Compact with an eligible 

country. Any MCA assistance provided 

under Section 605 of the Act will be 

contingent on the successful negotiation 

of a mutually agreeable Compact 

between the eligible country and MCC, 

approval of the Compact by the Board, 

and availability of funds. 

Dated: November 14, 2005. 

Jon A. Dyck, 

Vice President and General Counsel, 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 05–22840 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9210–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Draft NARA Guidance for 

Implementing Section 207(e) of the EGovernment Act of 2002; Request for 

Comment; Correction 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

document; request for comment; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: NARA published a notice in 

the November 14, 2005, Federal 

Register [70 FR 69165] seeking public 

comment on the draft NARA Guidance 

for Implementing Section 207(e) of the 

E-Government Act of 2002. The DATES

paragraph was incorrect. Comments are 

due no later than November 30, 2005. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 30, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Allard at 301–837–1477 or via email at. nancy.allard@nara.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

05–22527 appearing in the third column 

on page 69165, the DATES paragraph is 

corrected to read: 

Dates: Comments must be received by 

November 30, 2005. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

Nancy Y. Allard, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 05–22974 Filed 11–16–05; 11:05 

am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB 

Review 

Summary: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad 

Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 

the following proposal(s) for the 

collection of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

approval. 

Summary of Proposal(s) 

(1) Collection title: Evidence of 

Marital Relationship—Living with 

Requirements. 

(2) Form(s) submitted: G–124, G–124a, 

G–237, G–238, and G–238a. 

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0021. 

(4) Expiration date of current OMB 

clearance: January 31, 2006. 

(5) Type of request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

(6) Respondents: Individuals or 

households. 

(7) Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 1,100. 

(8) Total annual responses: 1,100. 

(9) Total annual reporting hours: 196. 

(10) Collection description: Under the 

RRA, to obtain a benefit as a spouse of 

an employee annuitant or as the 

widow(er) of the deceased employee, 

applicants must submit information to 

be used in determining if they meet the 

marriage requirements for such benefits. 

The collection obtains information 

supporting claimed common-law 

marriage, termination of previous 

marriages and residency requirements. 

Additional Information or Comments: 

Copies of the forms and supporting 

documents can be obtained from 

Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance 

officer (312–751–3363) or 

Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov. 

Comments regarding the information 

collection should be addressed to 

Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement 

Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 

Illinois, 60611–2092 or 

Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov and to the 

OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10230, New Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

Charles Mierzwa, 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–22833 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB 

Review 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad 

Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 

the following proposal(s) for the 

collection of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

approval. 

Summary of Proposal(s) 

(1) Collection title: Annual Earnings 

Questionnaire for Annuitants in Last 

Pre-Retirement Non-Railroad 

Employment. 

(2) Form(s) submitted: G–19L. 

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0179. 

(4) Expiration date of current OMB 

clearance: February 28, 2006. 

(5) Type of request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

(6) Respondents: Individuals or 

households. 

(7) Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 300. 

(8) Total annual responses: 300. 

(9) Total annual reporting hours: 75. 

(10) Collection description: Under 

section 2(e)(3) of the Railroad 

Retirement Act, an annuity is not 

payable for any month in which the 

beneficiary works for a railroad or earns 

more than the prescribed amounts. The 

collection obtains earnings information 

needed by the Railroad Retirement 

Board to determine possible reductions 

in annuities because of earnings. 

Additional Information or Comments: 

Copies of the forms and supporting 

documents can be obtained from 

Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance 

officer (312–751–3363) or 

Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov. 

Comments regarding the information 

collection should be addressed to 

Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement 

Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 

Illinois, 60611–2092 or 

Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov and to the 

OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the 

Office of Management and Budget,