Notices. Notice
12,052 words·~55 min read·
/register/2007/06/08/07-2859·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention:
Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, *e.g.* new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 1, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Postsecondary Education *Type of Review:* Reinstatement. *Title:* Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program Performance Report. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 57. *Burden Hours:* 570. *Abstract:* The information collected in the performance report ensures that State Education Agencies
(SEAs)are making scholarships available in accordance with the legislation and regulations that govern the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3304. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-11047 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, *e.g.* , “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, *e.g.* new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 1, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Title:* Federal Direct PLUS Loan Application and Master Promissory Note, and Endorser Addendum. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 254,375. *Burden Hours:* 127,188. *Abstract:* The Federal Direct PLUS Loan Master Promissory Note
(MPN)is the means by which an individual applies for and agrees to repay a Federal Direct PLUS Loan. If an applicant for a Federal Direct PLUS Loan is determined to have an adverse credit history and obtains an endorser, the Endorser Addendum is the means by which an endorser agrees to repay the loan if the borrower does not repay it. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3374. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-11048 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, *e.g.* , “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, *e.g.* new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 1, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Federal PLUS Loan Application and Master Promissory Note, Endorser Addendum, and School Certification. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 1,066,915. *Burden Hours:* 1,049,350. *Abstract:* The Federal PLUS Loan Application and Master Promissory Note is the means by which an eligible parent borrower applies for and agrees to repay a Federal PLUS Loan. If an applicant for a Federal PLUS Loan is determined to have an adverse credit history and obtains an endorser, the Endorser Addendum is the means by which the endorser agrees to repay the loan if the borrower does not pay it. The School Certification form is the means by which a school certifies a borrower's eligibility for a Federal PLUS Loan if the school does not certify eligibility electronically. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3375. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-11050 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 1, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Child Care Survey of Postsecondary Institutions. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 558. *Burden Hours:* 517. *Abstract:* Low-income students with children have the highest risk for failing to complete a four-year college degree. To increase the students' persistence in and graduation from college, the U.S. Department of Education's (the Department's) Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program provides grants to postsecondary institutions so that they can offer child care support tailored to the needs of specific student populations and local communities. The Department contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
(MPR)to evaluate the CCAMPIS program. The evaluation includes a comprehensive literature review, a survey of postsecondary institutions (“Child Care Survey”), a secondary data analysis, and the design of a student survey. The Child Care Survey is a web-based survey of approximately 350 CCAMPIS grantee institutions funded in 2001 or 2002 and 350 matched, non grantee institutions. The sample consists of Title IV, degree-granting institutions offering at least $350,000 in Pell Grant support in the 2000 or 2001 fiscal year. All institutions in the sample offer child care services to postsecondary students. The survey is being conducted in two phases. Phase I, a pilot with 10 percent of the sample, was completed in spring 2007. After the instrument is modified, Phase II will be conducted in fall 2007 with the remaining 90 percent of the sample. The Child Care Survey will provide a comprehensive picture of how grantees assist low-income students with child care. It will indicate whether and the extent to which grantees are better able than non grantees to provide critical child care services to low-income students. It will also examine child care directors' professional views on whether these services improve postsecondary persistence and graduation for low-income students. The data will be useful in several ways. Policymakers will be able to use the information in deciding how to fund child care services at postsecondary institutions. Postsecondary institutions may be encouraged to offer more child care services for low-income students. The data will also support additional research on child care services by others interested in improving persistence in and graduation from postsecondary institutions among low-income students with young children. Restricted-use data files from the study-submitted to the Department and disseminated accordingly-can be used for independent studies by researchers and the policy community. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3371. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-11063 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, *e.g.* , “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, *e.g.* new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 1, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Postsecondary Education *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Application for Grants under the Business and International Education
(BIE)Program. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 100. *Burden Hours:* 10,000. *Abstract:* This is an application to participate in the Title VI Business and International Education Program which provides grants to institutions of higher education to internationalize the business curriculum and to conduct outreach activities that will assist the local community in competing in the global arena. This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3369. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E7-11064 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8323-7] EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Request for Nominations of Candidates for the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Science Advisory Board AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA)Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office is soliciting nominations for consideration of membership on EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB or Board) and its Subcommittees. DATES: Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than July 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically as described below, may submit a paper copy by contacting Ms. Patricia L. Thomas, U.S. EPA SAB Staff Office (Mail Code 1400F), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 (FedEx/Courier address: U.S. EPA SAB, Suite 3600, 1025 F Street, NW., Washington DC 20004),
(202)343-9974 (telephone),
(202)233-0643 (fax), or via e-mail at *thomas.patricial@epa.gov.* General inquiries regarding the work of the CASAC and SAB may be directed to Dr. Anthony F. Maciorowski, Deputy Director, U.S. EPA SAB Staff Office,
(202)343-9983 (telephone), or via e-mail at *maciorowski.anthony@epa.gov.* *Background:* Established by statute, the CASAC (42 U.S.C. 7409) and SAB (42 U.S.C. 4365) are chartered Federal Advisory Committees that provide independent scientific and technical peer review, consultation, advice and recommendations directly to the EPA Administrator on a wide variety of EPA science activities. As Federal Advisory Committees, the CASAC and SAB conduct business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(5 U.S.C. App. C) and related regulations. Generally, CASAC and SAB meetings are announced in the **Federal Register** , conducted in public view, and provide opportunities for public input during deliberations. Additional information about these Federal Advisory Committees may be found on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* Members of the CASAC, the SAB, and their Subcommittees constitute a distinguished body of non-EPA scientists, engineers, economists, and social scientists that are nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a period of three years, with the possibility of re-appointment to a second three-year term. This notice specifically requests nominations for the chartered CASAC, the chartered SAB and its Subcommittees. *Expertise Sought:* Established in 1977 under the Clean Air Act
(CAA)Amendments, the chartered CASAC reviews and offers scientific advice to the EPA Administrator on technical aspects of national ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. As required under the CAA section 109(d), CASAC will be composed of seven members, with at least *one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing State air pollution control agencies.* The SAB Staff office is specifically seeking nominations of experts for CASAC that fulfill one or more of the foregoing statutory requirements. The chartered SAB (or Board) was established in 1978 by the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act to provide independent advice to the Administrator on general scientific and technical matters underlying the Agency' policies and actions. All the work of the SAB is under the direction of the Board. The chartered Board provides strategic advice to the EPA Administrator on a variety of EPA science and research issues and programs, and reviews and approves all SAB Subcommittee and Panel reports. The chartered SAB consists of about thirty members. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts for the chartered Board in the following disciplines: *Environmental economics; behavioral and decision sciences; epidemiology and public health; bioengineering and alternative energy sources.* The SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC)provides scientific advice and recommendation to protect, sustain and restore the integrity of ecosystems. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations of experts for the EPEC in the following disciplines: *Landscape ecology; terrestrial ecology; and valuation of ecological systems and services.* The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
(EEAC)provides advice on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of EPA environmental programs. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations of experts for the EEAC in the following disciplines: *Environmental economics; cost-benefit analysis; uncertainty analysis; climate change mitigation; agricultural economics; marine resource economics; emissions trading; and market mechanisms and incentives.* The SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC)provides advice on environmental engineering, remediation, and control. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations of experts for the EEC in *environmental technology and sustainability.* The SAB Exposure and Human Health Committee
(EHHC)provides advice on the development and use of guidelines for human health effects, exposure assessment, and risk assessment. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations of experts for the EHHC in the following disciplines: *Carcinogenesis; reproductive and developmental effects; neurotoxicology; epidemiology; and public health.* The Radiation Advisory Committee
(RAC)provides advice on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations of experts for the RAC in the following disciplines: *Dose-response; risk assessment; radiological and biological modeling; medical physics; and risk communication pertinent radiation and public health.* *How to Submit Nominations:* Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to these chartered advisory committees and subcommittees. Individuals may self-nominate. Qualified nominees will demonstrate appropriate scientific education, training, and experience to evaluate basic and applied science issues addressed by these advisory committees. Successful nominees will have distinguished themselves professionally and be available to invest the time and effort in providing advice and recommendations on the development and application of science at EPA. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred) following the instructions for “Nominating Experts to a Chartered Advisory Committee or Standing Committee” provided on the SAB Web site. The form can be accessed through the SAB Nomination Form link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* To be considered, all nominations should include the information requested on that form. Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee(s) for which nominees would like to be considered. The nominating form requests contact information about: The person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vita; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background; research activities; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact Ms. Patricia L. Thomas as indicated above in this notice. Non-electronic submissions must follow the same format and contain the same information as the electronic form. The SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations. Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded at the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/epaform3110-48.pdf.* This form should not be submitted as part of a nomination. The SAB Staff Office seeks candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, and relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation) to adequately address scientific issues facing the Agency. The primary criteria to be used in evaluating potential nominees will be scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience. Additional criteria that will be used to evaluate technically qualified nominees will include: the absence of financial conflicts of interest; scientific credibility and impartiality; availability and willingness to serve; and the ability to work constructively and effectively on committees. The selection of new members will also include consideration of the collective breadth and depth of scientific perspectives; a balance of scientific perspectives; continuity of knowledge and understanding of EPA missions and environmental programs, and diversity factors ( *e.g.* , geographical areas and professional affiliations) for each of the chartered committees and subcommittees. Dated: June 1, 2007. Vanessa T. Vu, Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E7-11121 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6687-8] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements
(EISs)was published in FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156). Draft EISs EIS No. 20070085, ERP No. D-USN-K13000-GU, Kilo Wharf Extension (MILCON P-52), To Provide Adequate Berthing Facilities for Multi-Purpose Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship (the T-AKE), Apra Harbor Naval Complex, Mariana Island, GU *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to coral reef ecosystems and recommended additional mitigation for sedimentation impacts, evaluation of a less-damaging alternative, and selection of Sella Bay coral reef restoration as compensatory mitigation. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070091, ERP No. D-NPS-F65066-MN, Pipestone National Monument General Management Plan, Implementation, Pipestone County, MN *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about habitat, historic preservation, land use, threatened and endangered species, and noise. EPA suggested modifications to existing alternatives, and recommended green architectural features. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070109, ERP No. D-NGB-E11062-MS, Camp Shelby Joint Force Training Center, Implementation of Installation Mission Support Activities, Renewal of Special Use Permit, DeSoto National Forest, in portions of Forrest, George and Perry Counties, MS *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about wetland and water quality impacts associated with the proposed action. EPA supports a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that the ongoing impacts from military training are assessed and appropriately addressed/mitigated once identified. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070115, ERP No. D-FAA-E51052-FL, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Proposed Development and Extension of Runway 9R/27L and other Associated Airport Projects, Funding, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit and NPDES Permit, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, FL *Summary:* EPA expressed concern about aircraft noise impacts and air quality impacts related to PM2.5. EPA recommends that the final EIS discuss approaches to minimize and mitigate noise and air quality impacts. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070123, ERP No. D-IBR-K31019-CA, North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project, Construct and Operate a Recycled Water to Agricultural Lands, Sonona County, CA *Summary:* EPA expressed concern about air and water quality impacts. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070072, ERP No. DA-FHW-E40339-NC, NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge (Bridge No. 11) Revisions and Additions, over Oregon Inlet Construction, Funding, U.S. Coast Guard Permit, Special-Use-Permit, Right-of-Way Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permit, Dare County, NC *Summary:* EPA expressed concern about impacts to a national wildlife refuge and national seashore and questioned the long-term effects to water quality and migratory birds. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20070063, ERP No. DS-USN-D52000-00, Introduction of F/A 18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft, Updated Information, Construction and Operation of an Outlying Landing Field, Naval Air Station
(NAS)Oceana, VA; Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS)Cherry Point, NC *Summary:* EPA has concerns about the potential environmental impacts of locating an outlying landing field in close proximity to the nationally-significant Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. EPA recommends that the Navy reconsider other available alternatives. Rating EC2. FINAL EISs EIS No. 20070099, ERP No. F-SFW-K65313-CA, San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Program Habitat Conservation Plan, Application for Incidental Take Permits, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Kings, Kern Mariposa, Madera and Tulare Counties, CA *Summary:* No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20070148, ERP No. F-FHW-E40796-NC, U.S 64 Corridor Project, Transportation Improvements in the Vicinity of the City of Asheboro and Improved Access to the NC Zoological Park, Funding and COE Section 404 Permit, Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)Project No. R-2536, Randolph County, NC *Summary:* EPA continues to have environmental concerns about stream/wetland impacts, terrestrial forest impacts, and short-term air quality impacts. EPA requested additional interchange design considerations to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands. EIS No. 20070156, ERP No. F-NOA-K90031-CA, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) Project, Establishment of No-ake and Limited-Take Marine Zones, Protection of Sanctuary Biodiversity, CA *Summary:* No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20070161, ERP No. F-IBR-G39046-00, Upper Rio Grande Basin Water Operations Review, Preferred Alternative E-3, To Develop an Integrated Plan for Water Operations at the Existing Facilities, NM, CO and TX *Summary:* No formal comment letter was sent to the pareparing agency. EIS No. 20070162, ERP No. F-FRC-G03033-LA, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline Project, Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Construction and Operation, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Evangeline, Cameron, and Acadia Parishes, LA *Summary:* No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20070126, ERP No. FS-AFS-K65286-CA, Watdog Project, Preferred Alternative is B, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Butte and Plumas Counties, CA *Summary:* EPA has continuing concerns about cumulative impacts to watersheds and short-term impacts to old-forest species, and continues to recommend a less-intensive harvest alternative. Dated: June 5, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-11102 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6687-6] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information
(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/* Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements. Filed 05/28/2007 Through 06/01/2007. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20070220, Final EIS, BLM, WY, Casper Field Office Planning Area Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Natrona, Converse, Goshen, and Platte Counties, WY, Wait Period Ends: 07/09/2007, Contact: Linda Slone 307-261-7520 EIS No. 20070221, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, Butte Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deerlodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Silver Bow and Park Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: 09/06/2007, Contact: Tim LaMarr 406-533-7645 EIS No. 20070222, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, Grizzly Vegetation and Transportation Management Project, Proposes Timber Harvest, Prescribed Burning, Road Maintenance, and Transportation Management Actions, Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT, Comment Period Ends: 07/23/2007, Contact: Kathy Mohar 406-295-4693 EIS No. 20070223, Second Final Supplement, AFS, CA, Empire Vegetation Management Project, Reducing Fire Hazards, Harvesting of Trees Using Group-Selection
(GS)and Individual Trees Selection
(ITS)Methods, Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 07/09/2007, Contact: Gary Rotta 530-283-0555 EIS No. 20070224, Final EIS, BLM, CA, Sierra Resource Management Plan, Provide Direction for Managing Public Lands, Several Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: 07/09/2007, Contact: Sandra McGinnis 916-985-4474 EIS No. 20070225, Fifth Final Supplement, AFS, 00, Northern Spotted Owl Management Plan, Removal or the Modification to the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measures, Standards and Guidelines (to the Northwest Forest Plan) New Information to Address Three Deficiencies Final Supplemental EIS (2004), Northwest Forest Plan, OR, WA, and CA , Wait Period Ends: 07/09/2007 Contact: Alan Christensen 503-808-2922 EIS No. 20070226, Final Supplement, AFS, MT, Frenchtown Face Ecosystem Restoration Project, Additional Information Maintenance and Improvement of Forest Health, Risk Reduction of Damage Insects and Disease, Lolo National Forest, Ninemile Ranger District, Missoula County, MT, Wait Period Ends: 07/09/2007, Contact: Gary Edson 406-626-5201 EIS No. 20070227, Draft EIS, NPS, CA, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Proposed Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and Management Plan, Implementation, Marin County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/07/2007, Contact: Steve Ortega 415-561-4841 EIS No. 20070228, Final EIS, AFS, NM, Canadian River Tamarisk Control, Proposes to Control the Nonnative Invasive Species Tamarisk (also Known as salt cedar) Cibola National Forest, Canadian River, Harding and Mora Counties, New Mexico, Wait Period Ends: 07/09/2007, Contact: Keith Baker 505-346-3820 EIS No. 20070229, Draft EIS, AFS, 00, Nebraska and South Dakota Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Management, To Mange Prairie Dog Colonies in an Adaptive Fashion, Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, Including Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 3, Dawes, Sioux, Blaines Counties, NE and Custer, Fall River, Jackson, Pennington, Jones, Lyman, Stanley Counties, SD, Comment Period Ends: 07/23/2007, Contact: Michael E. McNeill 605-745-4107 EIS No. 20070230, Draft EIS, FHW, NY, NYS Route 17 at Exit 122 Interchange Project, To Improve the Safety and Operation, Right-of-Way Acquisition, Town of Wallkill, Orange County, NY, Comment Period Ends: 07/25/2007, Contact: Robert Arnold 518-431-4127 EIS No. 20070231, Draft EIS, UAF, 00, Common Battlefield Airmen Training
(CBAT)Program, Proposes to Implement the CBAT Program at One of Three Installations: Moody Air Force Base (AFB), near Valosta, GA; Barkdale AFB in Bossier City, LA; and Arnold AFB near Manchester, TN , Comment Period Ends: 07/27/2007, Contact: Debra Harkiewicz 210-652-3959 Dated: June 5, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-11104 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8322-2] Availability of FY 06 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 15 Local Agencies, and FY 05 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for Four Local Agencies AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability of Clean Air Act, section 105 grantee performance evaluation reports. SUMMARY: EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and 15 local programs (City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County Department of Health, AL; Broward County Environmental Protection Department, FL; City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL; Palm Beach County Health Department, FL; Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, FL; Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, TN; Memphis-Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Public Health Department, TN). The 23 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' FY 06 performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports for each agency identified above and these reports are now available for public inspection. The evaluation for the remaining local government (Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, KY) will be published at a later date. In addition, EPA performed end-of-year evaluations in FY 05 of four local air pollution control programs (Broward County Environmental Protection Department, FL; Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, FL; Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, KY; and Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, TN). EPA has prepared reports for these evaluations and these reports are now available for public inspection. ADDRESSES: The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Persinger
(404)562-9048 for information concerning the state and local agencies of Alabama; Miya Smith
(404)562-9091 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Russandra Brown
(404)562-9064 for the state agency of Mississippi and the state and local agencies of Kentucky; Mary Echols
(404)562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia, and for the state and local agencies of North Carolina; and Marilyn Sabadaszka
(404)562-9001 for the state agency of South Carolina and for the state and local agencies of Tennessee. They may be contacted at the above Region 4 address. Dated: May 25, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-11103 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8323-8] Science Advisory Board Staff Office EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Notification of Public Advisory Committee Meeting of the CASAC Panel for Review of EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting
(LRRP)Activities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Panel for Review of EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting
(LRRP)Activities (CASAC Panel) to conduct a peer review of EPA's *Draft Approach for Estimating Changes in Children's IQ from Lead Dust Generated During Renovation, Repair, and Painting in Residences and Child-Occupied Facilities* (Draft LRRP Activity IQ-Change Methodology, June 2007) and the *Draft Final Report on Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities* (OPPT Dust Study, January 2007). DATES: The meeting dates are Monday and Tuesday, July 9 and 10, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Standard). *Location:* The meeting will take place at the Marriott at Research Triangle Park, 4700 Guardian Drive, Durham, NC 27703, telephone: 919-941-6200. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes to submit a written or brief oral statement (five minutes or less) or wants further information concerning this meeting must contact Mr. Fred Butterfield, Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Mr. Butterfield may be contacted at the EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or via telephone/voice mail: 202-343-9994; fax: 202-233-0643; or e-mail at: *butterfield.fred@epa.gov.* General information concerning the CASAC can be found on the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* Information concerning EPA technical contacts appears below in this **Federal Register** notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC Panel consists of the seven CASAC members supplemented by subject-matter-experts. The CASAC Panel provides advice and recommendations to EPA concerning the Agency's proposed rule for LRRP activities. The Panel complies with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. On February 5, 2007, the CASAC Panel conducted a consultation on EPA's *Draft Assessment to Support the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting*
(LRRP)Rule (1st Draft LRRP Assessment, January 2007). Detailed summary information on this CASAC consultation is contained in a previous EPA **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 1988, January 17, 2007). The CASAC's final letter from this consultation on the 1st Draft LRRP Assessment (EPA-CASAC-07-004, dated April 3, 2007) is posted on the SAB Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-07-004.pdf.* In support of this rule-making activity, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), within the Agency's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), has requested that the CASAC conduct a peer review on EPA's Draft LRRP Activity IQ-Change Methodology and the OPPT Dust Study. *Technical Contacts:* Any questions concerning the Agency's Draft LRRP Activity IQ-Change Methodology should be directed to Dr. Jennifer Seed, OPPT, at telephone: 202-564-7634, or e-mail: *seed.jennifer@epa.gov* ; or to Ms. Cathy Fehrenbacher, OPPT, at telephone: 202-564-8551, or e-mail: *fehrenbacher.cathy@epa.gov.* Any questions concerning the Agency's OPPT Dust Study should be directed to Ms. Jackie Mosby, OPPT, at telephone: 202-566-2228, or e-mail: *mosby.jackie@epa.gov.* *Availability of Meeting Materials:* On or about June 11, 2007, the Draft LRRP Activity IQ-Change Methodology will be posted on EPA's “Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil: Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program” Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/casac.htm.* The OPPT Dust Study is available both on the aforementioned Web site and the Agency's “Lead Safe Work Requirements to Protect Children During Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities” Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm#info.* In addition, a copy of the draft agenda and other materials for this CASAC Panel meeting will be posted on the SAB Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casac_adv_tech_assessment_lrrp.htm* prior to the meeting. *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for this CASAC Panel to consider during the advisory process. *Oral Statements:* In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of one hour for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Mr. Butterfield, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail), by Monday, July 2, 2007, at the contact information noted above, to be placed on the list of public speakers for this meeting. *Written Statements:* Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by Thursday, July 5, 2007, so that the information may be made available to the CASAC Panel for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature (optional), and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). *Accessibility:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Butterfield at the phone number or e-mail address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: June 1, 2007. Anthony F. Maciorowski, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E7-11118 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0282; FRL-8324-4] EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Clean Water Act Jurisdiction after Rapanos AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are today issuing agency guidance, effective immediately, regarding Clean Water Act
(CWA)jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases *Rapanos* v. *United States* and *Carabell* v. *United States* (“Rapanos”). The agencies are issuing this guidance to ensure that jurisdictional determinations, administrative enforcement actions, and other relevant agency actions being conducted under the CWA are consistent with the *Rapanos* decision and provide effective protection for public health and the environment. The agencies are concurrently providing a six-month public comment period to solicit input on early experience with implementing the guidance. The agencies, within nine months from the date of issuance, will either reissue, revise, or suspend the guidance after carefully considering the public comments received and field experience with implementing the guidance. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0282, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov.* Include the docket number, EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0282 in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0282. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell L. Kaiser, Regulatory Community of Practice (CECW-CO), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314; telephone number:
(202)761-7763: fax number:
(202)761-5096; e-mail address: *Rapanos.Comments@usace.army.mil.* Donna M. Downing, Office of Water (4502T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)566-1783; e-mail address: *CWAwaters@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are issuing agency guidance, effective immediately, regarding Clean Water Act
(CWA)jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases *Rapanos* v. *United States* and *Carabell* v. *United States* (126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006)) (“ *Rapanos* ”). Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” One of the mechanisms adopted by Congress to achieve that purpose is a prohibition on the discharge of any pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into “navigable waters” except in compliance with other specified sections of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1362(12)(A)). In most cases, this means compliance with a permit issued pursuant to CWA section 402 or section 404. The CWA defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source[,]”(33 U.S.C. 1362(12)(A)) and provides that “[t]he term ‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas[,]” (33 U.S.C. 1362(7); 33 CFR 328.3(a) and 40 C.R 230.3(s)). In *Rapanos,* the Court addressed where the Federal government can apply the CWA, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a “water of the United States.” The justices issued five separate opinions in *Rapanos* (one plurality opinion, two concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions), with no single opinion commanding a majority of the Court. During the first six months implementing the guidance, the agencies invite public comment and case studies on early experience with implementing the guidance. The agencies, within nine months from the date of issuance, will either reissue, revise, or suspend the guidance after carefully considering the public comments received and field experience with implementing the guidance. A copy of the guidance can be found on EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html and on the Corps' Web site at http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/.* The Court's split decision is causing uncertainty among agency field personnel and the general public regarding the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the CWA's section 404 program. As a result, many jurisdictional determinations and their associated permitting actions have been delayed. For this reason, the agencies believe it is imperative that the guidance be issued immediately, so that agency field personnel can address the backlog of pending jurisdictional determinations. At the same time, the agencies appreciate that the public has considerable interest in the issues addressed in this guidance. The agencies are particularly interested in hearing from the public regarding their actual experience with implementing the guidance. For this reason, we are providing a six month public comment period, which will allow us to address the backlog of pending jurisdictional determinations, while encouraging the public to provide comments, case studies, and experiences with the use of this guidance. To assure the public of our commitment to carefully consider their comments, and to address issues that may unexpectedly arise during implementation of the guidance, the agencies will within nine months from the date of issuance either reissue, revise, or suspend the guidance. Dated: June 5, 2007. Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. [FR Doc. E7-11123 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1267] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Illustrations of Consumer Information for Nontraditional Mortgage Products AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS); and National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA)(collectively, the Agencies). ACTION: Final guidance “ Illustrations of Consumer Information for Nontraditional Mortgage Products. SUMMARY: The Agencies are publishing three documents that set forth Illustrations of Consumer Information for Nontraditional Mortgage Products. The illustrations are intended to assist institutions in implementing the consumer protection portion of the Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Product Risks (Interagency NTM Guidance) adopted on October 4, 2006. 71 FR 58609 (Oct. 4, 2006). The illustrations are not model forms and institutions may choose not to use them in providing information to consumers on nontraditional mortgage products as recommended in the Interagency NTM Guidance. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *OCC:* Michael Bylsma, Director, Stephen Van Meter, Assistant Director, or Kathryn Ray, Special Counsel, Community and Consumer Law Division,
(202)874-5750. *Board:* Kathleen C. Ryan, Counsel, or Jamie Z. Goodson, Attorney, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs,
(202)452-3667. For users of Telecommunication Device for Deaf only, call
(202)263-4869. *FDIC:* April Breslaw, Acting Associate Director, Compliance Policy & Exam Support Branch, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection,
(202)898-6609; or Richard Foley, Counsel, Legal Division,
(202)898-3784. *OTS:* Montrice G. Yakimov, Assistant Managing Director, Compliance and Consumer Protection Division,
(202)906-6173; or Glenn Gimble, Senior Project Manager, Compliance and Consumer Protection Division,
(202)906-7158. *NCUA:* Cory Phariss, Program Officer, Examination and Insurance,
(703)518-6618. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 29, 2005, the Agencies published the Interagency NTM Guidance for comment. 70 FR 77249 (Dec. 29, 2005). After carefully reviewing and considering all comments received, the Agencies published the Interagency NTM Guidance (applicable to all banks and their subsidiaries, bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries, savings associations and their subsidiaries, savings and loan holding companies and their subsidiaries, and credit unions) in final form on October 4, 2006. 71 FR 58609 (Oct. 4, 2006). The Interagency NTM Guidance sets forth recommended practices to ensure that consumers have clear and balanced information about nontraditional mortgages prior to making a mortgage product choice, such as when lenders provide promotional materials about nontraditional mortgages or during face-to-face meetings when consumers are shopping for a mortgage. The guidance also recommends that any monthly statements given with payment option adjustable rate mortgages
(ARMs)provide information to enable consumers to make informed payment choices. Several commenters on the proposed guidance, including industry trade associations, encouraged the Agencies to include model or sample disclosures or other descriptive materials as part of the Interagency NTM Guidance. In response, the Agencies determined that illustrations of consumer information would be useful to institutions as they seek to implement the consumer information recommendations. Therefore, on the same day the Interagency NTM Guidance was published in the **Federal Register** , the Agencies published for comment proposed Illustrations of Consumer Information for Nontraditional Mortgage Products (Proposed Illustrations). 71 FR 58673 (Oct. 4, 2006). The three Proposed Illustrations consisted of
(1)A narrative explanation of nontraditional mortgage products,
(2)a chart comparing interest only
(IO)loans and payment option ARMs to fixed rate and traditional adjustable rate loans, and
(3)a table that could be included with any monthly statement for a payment option ARM providing information on the impact of various payment options on the loan balance. The Agencies noted that there would be no Agency requirement or expectation that institutions use the illustrations in their communications with consumers. Instead, the Agencies intended to illustrate the type of information that the Interagency NTM Guidance contemplates. Institutions would be able to determine whether or not to use the illustrations and whether and how to tailor them to their own circumstances. The Agencies requested comment on all aspects of the Proposed Illustrations. Specifically, they requested commenters to address whether the illustrations, as proposed, would be useful to institutions, including community banks, seeking to implement the “Communications with Consumers” portion of the Interagency NTM Guidance, or whether changes should be made. The Agencies also encouraged specific comment on whether the illustrations, as proposed, would be useful in promoting consumer understanding of the risks and material terms of nontraditional mortgage products, as described in the Interagency NTM Guidance, or whether changes should be made. Finally, the Agencies sought comment on whether other illustrations relating to nontraditional mortgages, in addition to those proposed, would be useful to institutions and consumers. After considering the comments received, the Agencies are now issuing final illustrations of consumer information for nontraditional mortgage products. The Interagency NTM Guidance recommends that promotional materials and other product descriptions provide consumers with information about the costs, terms, features, and risks of nontraditional mortgage products that can assist consumers in their product selection decisions. This includes information about potential payment shock and negative amortization and, where applicable, information about prepayment penalties and the costs of reduced documentation loans. Institutions seeking to follow the recommendations set forth in the Interagency NTM Guidance may, at their option, elect to: • Use the illustrations; • Provide information based on the illustrations, but expand, abbreviate, or otherwise tailor any information in the illustrations as appropriate to reflect, for example: • The institution's product offerings, such as by deleting information about loan products and loan terms not offered by the institution and by revising the illustrations to reflect specific terms currently offered by the institution; • The consumer's particular loan requirements; • Current market conditions, such as by changing the loan amounts, interest rates, and corresponding payment amounts to reflect current local market circumstances; • Other information, consistent with the Interagency NTM Guidance, such as the payment and loan balance information for statements discussed in connection with Illustration No. 3 or information about when a prepayment penalty may be imposed; and • The results of consumer testing of such forms; or • Provide the information described in the Interagency NTM Guidance, as appropriate, in an alternate format. To assist institutions that wish to use the illustrations, the Agencies will be posting each of the illustrations on their respective websites in a form that can be downloaded and printed for easy reproduction. In addition, in response to concerns that the interest rates used in Illustration No. 2 may become outdated with changes in market interest rates—and consistent with the Agencies’ intention, expressed above, that the illustrations may be modified to reflect, among other things, current market conditions—the Agencies also will be posting on their respective websites a template that can be used by institutions that wish to modify the information presented in Illustration No. 2 to reflect more current interest rates (and corresponding payment amounts). Illustration No. 2 itself reflects typical interest rates for prime borrowers in today's environment, rounded to the nearest whole number to enhance simplicity. 1 1 Illustration No. 2 also embodies assumptions about other product features that are typical in the current market: for example, the illustration assumes that the payment option ARM provides for a cap on increases in the minimum monthly payment equal to 7.5 percent per year for the first 5 years of the loan. Thus, the illustration shows the minimum monthly payment increasing over this time period from $739 (in Year 1) to $987 (in Year 5). II. Overview of the Comments Collectively, the Agencies received letters from over 30 commenters on the proposal, including comments from two financial institutions, 12 consumer advocates and community organizations, 12 trade organizations, two individuals, and three state regulatory organizations. Most commenters generally approved of the illustrations and expressed appreciation for the Agencies’ efforts to demonstrate ways lenders could advance the consumer communication goals outlined in the Interagency NTM Guidance. Generally, commenters stated that the proposed illustrations would be useful to financial institutions—including community banks—seeking to develop their own disclosures to help consumers understand the risks of nontraditional mortgage products. Commenters also suggested that the illustrations provided helpful guidance on the Agencies' expectations and would help reduce implementation costs. Most financial institutions and trade organizations supported the voluntary nature of the illustrations. These commenters stated that the flexibility afforded them by the Agencies would allow them to convey information to their customers in a format most suited to customers' needs. Additionally, having the flexibility to develop their own disclosures would allow financial institutions to tailor their disclosures to take into account specific product offerings and market conditions. However, a smaller group of commenters that included 8 consumer groups and one industry group disagreed, and suggested that consumer education efforts should be mandatory. The trade group noted that providing for voluntary use of the illustrations makes unclear the degree to which the illustrations will be used, when they will be used, and how they will assist consumers. This commenter suggested that the Agencies propose model forms and provide lenders with a safe harbor when they use the model forms. Several financial institutions, trade organizations, and community organizations suggested that the illustrations should be made part of the Board's revisions to Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act. These commenters suggested that making the illustrations part of Regulation Z would ensure more widespread industry use. Additionally, some commenters expressed concern that issuing guidance on consumer information materials applicable only to federally-supervised institutions would put those institutions at a competitive disadvantage. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators (AARMR), and the National Association of Consumer Credit Administrators (NACCA) commented that they believe the illustrations also could be used by state-licensed entities subject to state-issued guidance that parallels the Interagency NTM Guidance. A number of commenters expressed concern that the illustrations were difficult to follow and would be confusing to consumers, and should be simplified. A few industry trade groups and a consumer group advised the Agencies to engage in consumer testing or hire consultants to determine how to improve the illustrations. A number of commenters provided very specific suggestions aimed at making the illustrations easier to understand. Several industry commenters requested that the Agencies add language explaining how a consumer could benefit from nontraditional mortgage products. Further, one trade organization stated that lenders should be able to implement the consumer information recommendations of the Interagency NTM Guidance by providing consumers with the interagency publication titled, “Interest-Only Mortgage Payments and Payment-Option ARMs—Are They for You?” 2 2 “Interest-Only Mortgage Payments and Payment-Option ARMs—Are They for You?” available at: *http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/mortgage_interestonly/mortgage_interestonly.pdf* . Finally, two commenters suggested that the Agencies include in these illustrations information about two additional products—2/28 and 3/27 adjustable rate mortgages. These are “hybrid” ARMs that start with a fixed interest rate for two or three years, respectively, and then reset to a variable rate, which generally will be higher than the introductory fixed rate. Because the Interagency NTM Guidance does not cover fully-amortizing mortgage products such as hybrid ARMs, the Agencies are not including information on these products in the NTM illustrations. However, when the Agencies finalize the “Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending,” which was proposed on March 8, 2007, and which provides guidance concerning hybrid ARM products, we expect to issue for public comment disclosure illustrations appropriate for that guidance. 3 3 72 FR 10533 (March 8, 2007). III. Final Illustrations After carefully considering all of the comments received, the Agencies have decided to publish the proposed illustrations, with some modifications. The Agencies have determined that illustrations of the type of information contemplated in the Interagency NTM Guidance are needed now. Additionally, the Agencies believe that issuing the materials as nonmandatory illustrations will provide institutions with the flexibility needed to tailor the materials to their own circumstances and customer needs. Some commenters asserted that use of the illustrations may place entities subject to the Interagency NTM Guidance at a competitive disadvantage. In this regard, we note that the Interagency NTM Guidance, which includes the consumer disclosure recommendations, is already in effect for these entities, and also has been adopted for state-regulated mortgage brokers and companies by over 30 state agencies and the District of Columbia. 4 The illustrations will be helpful to those institutions that prefer not to incur the costs and burdens of developing their own consumer information documents to implement the recommendations in the Interagency NTM Guidance. Additionally, as previously noted, CSBS, AARMR, and NACCA stated their belief that the illustrations also could be used by state-licensed entities subject to state-issued guidance that parallels the Interagency NTM Guidance. 4 See *www.csbs.org/Content/NavigationMenu/RegulatoryAffairs/ FederalAgencyGuidanceDatabase/State_Implementation.htm* . The Agencies agree with the commenters who urged simplification of the Proposed Illustrations, particularly Proposed Illustration No. 2. The specific changes made in response to these comments are detailed below. The Agencies opted not to include additional text in the illustrations that would discuss the benefits of nontraditional mortgage products, to ensure that the materials focus on an objective description of material terms, risks, and features of such products. Institutions are not precluded, of course, from providing factual information concerning the features of their products to consumers. One commenter asked whether the consumer information brochure entitled “Interest-Only Mortgage Payments and Payment-Option ARMs—Are They for You?” could be used in place of the illustrations to provide information to consumers. The information contemplated by the Interagency NTM Guidance serve a different purpose than this brochure. This detailed, multi-page publication includes valuable in-depth information, but it does not represent the more concise and focused consumer information contemplated by, and recommended in, the Interagency NTM Guidance. Illustrations 1 and 2, by contrast, are designed to be concise and focused so they can be quickly referenced by consumers during the mortgage shopping process. While, as explained in detail above, institutions are not required to use the illustrations, and may elect to provide the information contemplated in the Interagency NTM Guidance in a modified or alternate format, delivering this more detailed publication to consumers would not serve this same purpose or provide the information as recommended in the guidance. The Agencies' changes to each Proposed Illustration are discussed below. A. Proposed Illustration No. 1 Although most commenters stated that Illustration No. 1 would be useful in helping consumers understand the risks of nontraditional mortgage products, several suggested that the Agencies make the illustration more user-friendly by using simpler language and larger fonts. Most trade organization and financial institution commenters generally agreed that Illustration No. 1 would be helpful. Consumer groups, on the other hand, expressed their desire that the illustrations strongly communicate the risks of nontraditional mortgage products and add language clarifying that making the minimum payments on a payment option mortgage could lead to a reduction in a borrower's equity. Several consumer groups recommended that the illustration not suggest that consumers should request information orally from a lender, because consumers should be encouraged to review written information rather than rely on oral representations. To address the commenters' concerns, the Agencies have simplified Illustration No. 1, deleted text where possible to shorten the length of the illustration, and made formatting changes to improve readability. Additionally, the Agencies have included language clarifying that making the minimum payments on a payment option mortgage could lead to a reduction in a borrower's equity. The Agencies have also added language advising consumers that if they do not understand the terms of a particular loan, they should not sign any loan contracts, and may want to consider other types of loans. B. Proposed Illustration No. 2 Many commenters found proposed Illustration No. 2 confusing. Specifically, several commenters said the footnotes and the explanation of the minimum monthly payment row for years one through five of a payment option ARM would confuse consumers. A few commenters suggested that Illustration No. 2 would be most helpful to consumers if a loan officer or credit counselor reviewed it with them. Additionally, one financial institution suggested that Illustration No. 2 should emphasize the risks of payment shock and negative amortization. One industry trade group stated that assuming borrowers make minimum payments is unrealistic. This commenter added that the interest rates in the examples should represent a typical interest rate environment in which a fixed rate loan would have a higher rate than an adjustable rate loan. However, one financial institution suggested that the illustration should use the same interest rates for all the products to make comparison easier. One trade group stated that the rates for interest-only and payment option ARM loans should be higher to reflect the terms offered to non-prime borrowers. Two commenters stated that the illustration should use a $100,000 loan amount that would be easier for consumers to compare to their loan amounts than the $180,000 amount used in the proposed illustration. A few commenters warned against using any assumptions that could become dated. Instead, one industry group suggested that payment amounts and interest rate information in Illustration No. 2 should be left blank so that loan officers and consumers could fill out the numbers themselves as they discuss and consider loan options. Another commenter suggested that the Agencies create a Web site where consumers could input their own specific information into different mortgage structures and get accurate and easy-to-understand cost alternatives. To address commenter concerns, and to maintain consistency with the Interagency NTM Guidance, the Agencies have simplified Illustration No. 2 by reducing the number of products for which information is provided. The simplified illustration eliminates the need for footnotes or similar explanations. Additionally, the Agencies made formatting changes to draw consumers' attention to the important points the chart seeks to illustrate. The Agencies agreed with commenters that a sample loan amount of $180,000 could make it more difficult for consumers to estimate their own payment amounts. The Agencies, therefore, have adopted a representative loan amount of $200,000, which is closer to the national median price for a single family home than the $100,000 loan amount suggested by some commenters. C. Proposed Illustration No. 3 The Agencies received the fewest specific comments on Illustration No. 3. Moreover, commenters did not express concern that consumers would have difficulty understanding Illustration No. 3. Several commenters, however, asked the Agencies to make clear that lenders will have flexibility with regard to how and when to provide the information contemplated by the third illustration. One trade group stated that the third illustration could be burdensome for lenders that do not provide monthly statements. Similarly, another trade group asked the Agencies to state that lenders could provide the third illustration less frequently than monthly, or through an explanation on the lender's Web site. In contrast, another trade group stated that the Agencies should encourage lenders to provide monthly statements. One financial institution recommended that the illustration include the resulting loan balance with each payment choice so that the consumer can see how their choice affects the loan on a monthly basis. However, one financial institution and one trade group commenter stated that providing specific payment information would be burdensome and that lenders would require implementation time to make system changes. After reviewing and considering the comments, the Agencies decided not to make substantial changes to Illustration No. 3. The Interagency NTM Guidance recommends that if institutions provide monthly statements to consumers on payment option mortgages, those monthly statements should provide information that enables consumers to make informed payment choices, including an explanation of each payment option available and the impact of that choice on loan balances. Illustration No. 3 shows one way in which this information could be presented. Financial institutions retain the flexibility to provide the information in a format best suited to their customer's needs. Moreover, it is important to note this illustration is not intended to set forth all of the information lenders could provide that may be useful, such as the current loan balance, an itemization of the payment amount devoted to interest and to principal, and whether the loan balance has increased. The final illustrations appear below. EN08JN07.014 EN08JN07.015 EN08JN07.016 Dated: May 30, 2007. John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 29, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC, the 8th day of May, 2007. By order of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Assistant Executive Secretary. Dated: May 30, 2007. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John Reich, Director. Dated: May 31, 2007. By the National Credit Union Administration. JoAnn M. Johnson, Chairman. [FR Doc. 07-2859 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 8
Traces to 8 documents
1 reference not yet in our index
- 40 CFR 1506.9
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Cite40 CFR 1506.9
Cites 9Cited by 0 across 0 sources