Rules and Regulations. Correcting amendment

73,369 words·~333 min read·/register/2007/12/14/07-6059

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4830-01-M DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9366] RIN 1545-BG38 Notification Requirement for Tax-Exempt Entities Not Currently Required To File; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to temporary regulations (TD 9366) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64147) describing the time and manner in which certain tax-exempt organizations not currently required to file an annual information return under section 6033(a)(1) are required to submit an annual electronic notice including certain information required by section 6033(i)(1)(A) through (F).

DATES: The correction is effective December 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monice Rosenbaum at

(202)622-6070 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The temporary regulations (TD 9366) that are the subject of this correction are under section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the temporary regulations (TD 9366) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following amendment: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.6033-6T is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(vi) to read as follows: § 1.6033-6T Notification requirement for entities not required to file an annual information return under section 6033(a)(1) (taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006).

(b)* * *

(2)* * *

(vi)An organization described in section 501(c)(1); or LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-24114 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0040] RIN 1218-AC08 Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Department of Labor. ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: In this direct final rule, the Agency is removing several references to consensus standards that have requirements that duplicate, or are comparable to, other OSHA rules; this action includes correcting a paragraph citation in one of these OSHA rules. The Agency also is removing a reference to American Welding Society standard A3.0-1969 (“Terms and Definitions”) in its general-industry welding standards. This rulemaking is a continuation of OSHA's ongoing effort to update references to consensus and industry standards used throughout its rules. DATES: This direct final rule will become effective on March 13, 2008 unless significant adverse comment is received by January 14, 2008. Comments to this direct final rule (including comments to the information-collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this notice), hearing requests, and other information must be submitted by January 14, 2008. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. (See the following section titled ADDRESSES for methods you can use in making submissions.) ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing requests may be submitted as follows: • *Electronic.* Comments may be submitted electronically to *http://www.regulations.gov,* which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. • *Facsimile.* OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-1648; hard copies of these documents are not required. Instead of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters must submit these attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and docket number (i.e., OSHA-2007-0040) so that the Agency can attach them to the appropriate document. • *Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and messenger service.* Submit three copies of comments and any additional material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0040 or RIN No. 1218-AC08, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:

(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is

(877)889-5627.) Note that security-related problems may result in significant delays in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. • *Instructions.* All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0040). Comments and other material, including any personal information, are placed in the public docket without revision, and will be available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal information (either about themselves or others) such as social security numbers, birth dates, and medical data. OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this direct final rule. It also welcomes comments on its findings that there would be no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts of this direct final rule on the regulated community. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment, it will publish a **Federal Register** document confirming the effective date of this direct final rule and withdrawing the companion proposed rule. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical corrections to the document. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA views the date of confirmation of the effective date of this direct final rule as the date of issuance. However, if OSHA receives significant adverse comment on this direct final rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this rule and proceed with the proposed rule addressing the same standards published in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** . • *Docket.* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press inquiries contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:

(202)693-1999. For technical inquiries, contact Ted Twardowski, Office of Safety Systems, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:

(202)693-2070; fax:

(202)693-1663. Copies of this **Federal Register** notice are available from the OSHA Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1888. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice, as well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Direct Final Rulemaking II. Background III. Discussion of the Rulemaking IV. Procedural Determinations A. Legal Considerations B. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Federalism E. State-Plan States F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1910 Authority and Signature V. Amendment to Standards I. Direct Final Rulemaking An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it anticipates that a rule will be non-controversial. Examples include minor substantive revisions to regulations and direct incorporations of mandates from new legislation, and, as in this rulemaking, eliminating references to industry or consensus standards. In direct final rulemaking, the agency will publish the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** , along with an identical proposed rule. The **Federal Register** notice states that the direct final rule will go into effect unless it receives a significant adverse comment within a specified period. If the agency receives any significant adverse comments, it withdraws the direct final rule and treats the comments as responses to the proposed rule. For purposes of this direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains why the various amendments being made to OSHA's standards would be inappropriate. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of the direct final rule, the Agency will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. OSHA will not consider a comment recommending additional amendments to be a significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition. If timely significant adverse comments are received, OSHA will publish a notice of significant adverse comment in the **Federal Register** withdrawing this direct final rule no later than March 13, 2008. OSHA also is publishing a companion proposed rule along with this direct final rule. In the event OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant adverse comment, the Agency will proceed with the rulemaking by addressing the comment and publishing a new final rule. If OSHA receives a significant adverse comment regarding some actions taken in this direct final rule, but not others, it may

(1)finalize those actions that did not receive significant adverse comment, and

(2)conduct further rulemaking under the companion proposed rule for the actions that received significant adverse comment. The comment period for the proposed rule runs concurrently with that of the direct final rule. Any comments received under the companion proposed rule will be treated as comments regarding the direct final rule. Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to the direct final rule will be considered as comments to the companion proposed rule; the Agency will consider such comments in developing a subsequent final rule. OSHA determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable for direct final rulemaking. First, OSHA's amendments to the standards do not compromise the safety of employees. As described below, these amendments will eliminate confusion and clarify employer obligations. Second, the amendments will not alter employers' substantive obligations under the existing OSHA standards and, therefore, will not result in additional costs to employers. For these reasons, OSHA does not anticipate receiving objections from the public. II. Background As discussed in a previous **Federal Register** notice (69 FR 68283), the Agency is undertaking a long-term project to update its standards to reflect the latest versions of consensus and industry standards. This project includes updating or revoking consensus standards incorporated by reference, and updating regulatory text of current rules that OSHA adopted directly from the language of outdated consensus and industry standards. This long-term project also includes updating a number of OSHA standards adopted in part from outdated consensus standards, such as rulemakings to update 29 CFR part 1910, subpart S (“Electrical”), 29 CFR part 1926, subpart V (“Electric Power Transmission, and Distribution”), 29 CFR 1910.109 (“Explosives and Blasting Agents”), and 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D (“Walking-Working Surfaces”). In this direct final rule, which is another step in this long-term project, the Agency is performing two main actions. First, it is removing a number of references to outdated consensus standards that have requirements that duplicate, or are comparable to, the requirements specified by other OSHA rules. The Agency believes these references are unnecessary, and only confuse employers about their compliance obligations. Second, the Agency is removing a reference to American Welding Society (“AWS”) standard A3.0-1969 (“Terms and Definitions”) in OSHA's general-industry welding standards. These actions are described more fully below. III. Discussion of the Rulemaking A. Removing or Replacing References to “Duplicative” Consensus Standards In this direct final rule, the Agency is removing from its standards references to consensus standards that duplicate, or are comparable to, requirements found in other OSHA rules. For example, OSHA's standard regulating manlifts requires guardrails with toeboards to meet the requirements of ANSI 12.1-1967 (Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings, and Toeboards). The provisions of this ANSI standard, however, are identical to the requirements found in 29 CFR 1910.23. Therefore, it is unnecessary for employers and employees to refer to the ANSI standard—which is 40 years old and difficult to obtain—when they could refer instead to another OSHA standard for the applicable requirements. Some of these “duplicative” references are also incorporated into the OSHA standards as non-mandatory sources of information, rather than mandatory requirements. For example, the provisions of OSHA's ventilation standard (29 CFR 1910.94) specify requirements for spray-finishing operations. See 29 CFR 1910.94(c). Some of these provisions cross-reference requirements in 29 CFR 1910.107 relating to spray-finishing and flammable and combustible liquids; they also include a non-mandatory reference to sections of a 1969 National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA)standard for “Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials.” Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the OSHA's ventilation standard, for instance, states: *Spray booth.* Spray booths are defined and described in § 1910.107(a). (See sections 103, 104, and 105 of the Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials, NFPA No. 33-1969, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6). The requirements in 29 CFR 1910.107(a) and Sections 103, 104, and 105 of NFPA No. 33-1969 are essentially identical. NFPA No. 33-1969 was the source standard for 29 CFR 1910.107, and OSHA referenced it to provide employers with additional, but non-mandatory, information on spray-finishing operations. As the OSHA requirements and the NFPA provisions are virtually identical, and because the reference to the NFPA standard is non-mandatory, it is unnecessary to reference the NFPA provisions in the OSHA standard. Retaining “duplicative” references is unnecessary, and may confuse the regulated community. In determining compliance obligations in OSHA standards that contain references to consensus standards, employers and employees must carefully examine the consensus standards to identify relevant provisions. Many of these consensus standards are difficult to locate. A number are over 30 years old, and, consequently, are no longer available for direct purchase from the standards-development organizations that issued them. For example, employers must submit a special request to the NFPA library to obtain a copy of NFPA No. 33-1969 (mentioned in the previous paragraph), while ANSI Z48.1-54 and Z48-54 (R 70), which address marking portable compressed-gas cylinders, are no longer available from ANSI and must be obtained from other vendors. While consensus standards incorporated by reference in OSHA standards are available for inspection at the Agency's docket office in Washington, DC, its regional offices, and the National Archives and Records Administration, these venues are not convenient for many employers and employees. Referencing these outdated consensus standards places an unnecessary burden on employers and employees when comparable provisions are readily accessible in other OSHA standards that will enable them to ascertain compliance obligations. Through this rulemaking, the Agency is removing references to the “duplicative” consensus standards altogether, or replacing them with cross-references to the existing OSHA standards that have requirements that are essentially identical to the consensus standards. Table 1 below lists: the OSHA standards that reference the consensus standards; the designations and titles of the consensus standards referenced by these OSHA standards and the OSHA standards that are comparable to the consensus standards; the action the Agency is taking in this direct final rulemaking (e.g., removing the consensus standard); and any comments about this action. Table 1 OSHA standards Reference consensus standards and comparable OSHA standards Action taken Comment 1910.68(b)(4) and (b)(8)(ii) ANSI A12.1-1967—Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings, and Toeboards 1910.23. Remove the reference to the ANSI standard in both OSHA standards The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. 1910.94(b)(5)(i)(a) ANSI B7.1-1970—Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection of Abrasive Wheels (Tables 5 and 6 contain structural-strength specifications for hoods) Remove the reference to the ANSI standard and replace it with a cite to 1910.215, Tables O-1 and O-9 The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. 1910.94(c)(1)(ii) NFPA No. 33-1969—Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (Sections 103, 104, and 105) 1910.107(a). Remove the reference to the NFPA standard The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. In addition, the reference to the consensus standard is non-mandatory. 1910.94(c)(3)(i) NFPA No. 33-196—Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (Sections 301-304, 306-310) 1910.107(b)(1)-(b)(4) and (b)(6)-(b)(10). Remove the reference to the NFPA standard Except for section 301 of the NFPA standard, the provisions in the OSHA standard and the NFPA standard are identical. Section 301 of the NFPA standard specifies that spray booths constructed of steel must use steel that is at least No. 18 gauge U.S., while 1910.107(b)(1) contains no such provision. However, both the OSHA standard and the NFPA standard require that spray booths be “substantially constructed” of steel. OSHA notes it is the usual and customary practice in the industry to use steel that is at least this thick. In addition, the reference to the consensus standard is non-mandatory. 1910.94(c)(3)(i)(a) NFPA No. 33-1969—Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (Section 310 and Chapter 4) 1910.107(b)(10) and (c). Remove the reference to the NFPA standard Except for a few minor differences between the provisions of Chapter 4 of the NFPA standard and the comparable OSHA standard, the provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. In addition, the reference to the consensus standard is non-mandatory. 1910.94(c)(3)(iii) NFPA No. 33-1969—Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (Sections 304 and 305) 1910.107(b)(4) and (b)(5). Remove the reference to the NFPA standard The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. In addition, the reference to the consensus standard is non-mandatory. 1910.94(c)(3)(iii)(a) NFPA No. 33-1969—Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (Section 305) 1910.107(b)(5). Remove the reference to the NFPA standard The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. In addition, the reference to the consensus standard is non-mandatory. 1910.94(c)(5)(i) NFPA No. 33-1969—Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (Chapter 5) 1910.107(d). Remove the reference to the NFPA standard The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical. In addition, the reference to the consensus standard is non-mandatory. 1910.94(c)(5)(iii)(e) ANSI Z9.1-1951—Safety Code for Ventilation and Operation of Open Surface Tanks (Section 8.3.21) 1910.94(c)(5)(iii)(e). Remove the reference to the ANSI standard OSHA could find no Section 8.3.21 in the ANSI standard and, therefore, is removing the non-mandatory reference to ANSI Z9.1-1951 from 1910.94(c)(5)(iii)(e). 1910.103(b)(1)(i)(c), .110(b)(5)(iii), and .111(e)(1) ANSI Z48.1-1954—Method of Marking Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained (Section 3 specifies the means for marking gas cylinders) 1910.253(b)(1)(ii). Remove the reference to the ANSI standard and replace it with a cite to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of 1910.253 The requirements in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are virtually identical. Paragraph 3.2 of the ANSI standard requires that, when practical, “the marking shall be at the valve end and off the cylindrical part of the body,” while 1910.253(b)(1)(ii) identifies the shoulder as the location for the marking (when practical); these requirements describe the same cylinder location. Also, paragraph 3.3 of the ANSI standard specifies the height of the lettering; 1910.253(b)(1)(ii) contains no specific height requirements. The Agency has determined that the ANSI provision is unnecessary because the OSHA standard requires that the markings be “legible,” which ensures that employees can accurately identify the contents of the cylinders. 1910.144(a)(1)(ii) ANSI A10.2-1944—Safety Code for Building Construction (paragraph 1.6.2 addresses the use of red lights with barricades) 1910.144(a)(1)(ii). Remove the reference to the ANSI standard The OSHA standard and the referenced consensus standard have similar requirements. The OSHA standard requires that red lights be provided “at barricades and at temporary obstructions,” while paragraph 1.6.2 of the referenced ANSI standard requires employers to place red lights or flares on or about barricades after dark. OSHA has determined that removing the reference to the 60-year old ANSI standard is appropriate given the requirements of 1910.144(a)(1)(ii) and the usual and customary practice of the industry. 1910.243(d)(1)(i) ANSI A10.3-1970—Safety Requirements for Explosive-Actuated Fastening Tools (Section 3 specifies design requirements) 1910.243(d)(2). Remove the reference to the ANSI standard and replace it with a cite to the design requirements specified by 1910.243(d)(2) The provisions in the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical, except that paragraph (d)(2) of 1910.243 does not contain provisions for the construction of high-velocity tools, low-velocity piston tools, and hammer-operated piston tools specified in ANSI paragraphs 3.1.5, 3.2.5, and 3.3.5, respectively—i.e., that these tools must have adequate strength to withstand the stresses imposed by any commercially available load that will chamber in the tool. These provisions do not relate directly to guarding explosive-actuated tools, which is the purpose of the OSHA standard. Furthermore, OSHA notes it is the usual and customary practice in the industry to design tools with adequate strength to withstand the stresses imposed by commercially available loads. 1910.253(b)(1)(ii) ANSI Z48.1-1954—Method of Marking Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained 1910.253(b)(1)(ii). Remove the reference to the ANSI standard See the comments above under the entry for 1910.103(b)(1)(i)(c), .110(b)(5)(iii), and .111(e)(1). 1910.261(c)(15)(ii), (e)(4), (g)(13)(i), (h)(1), (j)(4)(iii), (j)(5)(i), (k)(6), (k)(13)(i), and (k)(15) ANSI A12.1-1967—Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings, and Toeboards 1910.23. Remove the reference to the ANSI standards in the OSHA standards and replace them with a cite to 1910.23 The provisions in the OSHA standard and consensus standard are identical. The Agency believes that removing these consensus standards, or replacing them with cross-references to other OSHA standards, will not alter existing compliance obligations or reduce employee protection. Employers need not alter their current practices as a result of this rulemaking action, and employees will receive the same level of protection they did prior to this rulemaking. The Agency welcomes comment from the public regarding the effects this rulemaking may have on employers' compliance obligations and employee protection. B. Technical Amendment In addition to the actions described above, OSHA is amending paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of its spray-finishing standard at 29 CFR 1910.107. This paragraph incorrectly refers to the requirements for powder-coating equipment in “paragraph (c)(1) of this section.” However, paragraph (l)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.107 specifies the requirements for powder-coating equipment. With this amendment, 29 CFR 1910.107(c)(1)(iv) will identify the correct provision for regulating powder-coating equipment. C. Welding Definitions In this direct final rule, OSHA also is removing the reference to American Welding Society (“AWS”) standard A3.0-1969 (“Terms and Definitions”) in paragraph

(c)of 29 CFR 1910.251 (“Definitions”). Paragraph 29 CFR 1910.251(c) states “All other welding terms are used in accordance with American Welding Society—Terms and Definitions—A3.0-1969, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.” The purpose of the definitions is to assist employers and employees in understanding the technical terms used in these OSHA standards; sections 29 CFR 1910.252-255 specify the substantive obligations for employers to follow when performing welding, cutting, and brazing operations. OSHA analyzed the terms defined in the 1969 AWS standard, as well as the terms defined in the 2001 version of that standard. (OSHA placed this analysis in the docket for this rulemaking as Ex. OSHA-2007-0040-0002). Based on this analysis, the Agency determined that the terms defined in the 1969 AWS standard that are found in OSHA's welding standard are substantially similar to the definitions of these terms found in the 2001 AWS standard. Furthermore, the welding terms used are commonly understood in the industry. For example, some of the welding terms used are such basic technical terms as “arc welding,” “electrode,” “flux,” “flash welding,” “lead burning,” “inert gas,” and “oxygen cutting.” After over 35 years of experience with these terms, employers and employees performing welding, cutting, and brazing operations understand their meaning when applying the substantive requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252-1910.255. Continuing to reference the 1969 AWS standard is unnecessary, and OSHA is removing it from 29 CFR 1910.251. Employers and employees know the meaning of the terms used in the OSHA standard, and requiring employers to obtain and consult AWS 3.0-1969 places an unnecessary burden on them. Removing the reference will not affect employers' substantive obligations under 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q, nor will it compromise the safety of employees when they perform the welding, cutting, and brazing operations regulated under 29 CFR 1910.252-1910.255. In fact, removing the reference will bring the general industry standard in line with the standards regulating welding, cutting, and heating operations for the shipyard-employment industry (29 CFR part 1915, subpart D) and welding and cutting operations for the construction industry (29 CFR part 1926, subpart J). These standards do not define the technical welding terms used. OSHA is not aware of any employee-protection problems resulting from the absence of definitions in these standards. The Agency invites the public to comment on its findings regarding employers' obligations and employee safety. IV. Procedural Determinations A. Legal Considerations The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 654(b). A safety or health standard is a standard that “requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment.” 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. This direct final rule will not reduce the employee protections put into place by the standards being amended. In fact, it will enhance employee safety by eliminating confusing requirements and clarifying employer obligations. Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine significant risk, or the extent to which the rule would reduce that risk, as typically would be required by *Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO* v. *American Petroleum Institute,* 448 U.S. 607 (1980). B. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification This direct final rule is not economically significant within the context of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866 (58 FR 51735) or a “major rule” under Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”; 5 U.S.C. 804). The rule will impose no additional costs on any private- or public-sector entity, and does not meet any of the criteria for an economically significant rule or a major rule specified by E.O. 12866 or the relevant statutes. (While not economically significant, as part of OSHA's consensus standards update project, this direct final rule is classified as a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866.) This action simply

(1)removes, or replaces with cross-references, unnecessary references to consensus standards, and

(2)removes a reference to American Welding Society standard A3.0-1969 in OSHA's general-industry welding standards. The rulemaking does not impose any additional costs on employers. Therefore, OSHA certifies that it will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and that the Agency does not have to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The existing provisions of the OSHA standards addressed by this direct final rule do not contain collection-of-information requirements, nor do the amended provisions to the standards implemented by this rulemaking contain collection-of-information requirements. Therefore, this direct final rule does not impose remove or revise any information-collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and 5 CFR part 1320. Accordingly, the Agency does not have to prepare an Information Collection Request in association with this rulemaking. Members of the public who wish to comment on these determinations must send their written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AC08), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency encourages commenters to also submit their comments to the rulemaking docket, along with their comments on other parts of the direct final rule. For instructions on submitting these comments and accessing the docket, see the sections of this **Federal Register** notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES . However, no comment received on this paperwork determination will be considered by the Agency to be a “significant adverse comment” as specified above under Section I (“Direct Final Rulemaking”). To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2222. D. Federalism OSHA reviewed this direct final rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible. Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”; 29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ), Congress expressly provides for the preemption of State laws when OSHA promulgates occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement (“State-Plan State”). 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational safety and health standards developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for safety and health standards. This direct final rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress expressly provides for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and health rules in areas addressed by OSHA standards; in these States, this direct final rule limits State policy options in the same manner as all OSHA standards. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking does not significantly limit State policy options. E. State-Plan States When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent amendment to an existing standard, the 26 States and U.S. Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans (“State-Plan States”) must amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary, e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is “at least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). The State standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public (State and local government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State-Plan States are not required to amend their standards, although the Agency may encourage them to do so. The 26 States and U.S. Territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming; Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and local government employees only. With regard to this direct final rule, it will not impose any additional or more stringent requirements on employers compared to existing OSHA standards. Through this rulemaking, the Agency is removing several references to consensus standards that contain requirements that also are expressly included in other OSHA standards. The Agency also is removing a reference to an American Welding Society standard. Therefore, States and Territories with approved State-Plans do not need to adopt this rule or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary. However, to the extent these States and Territories have the same standards as the OSHA standards affected by this direct final rule, OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act OSHA reviewed this direct final rule according to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”; 2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ) and Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in Section IV.B (“Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification”) of this preamble, the Agency determined that this direct final rule imposes no additional costs on any private- or public-sector entity. Accordingly, this direct final rule requires no additional expenditures by either public or private employers. As noted above under Section IV.E (“State-Plan States”), the Agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments except in States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this direct final rule does not meet the definition of a “Federal intergovernmental mandate” (see Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this direct final rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year. List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1910 General industry, Health, Occupational safety and health, Safety, Welding. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this direct final rule. The Agency is issuing this rule under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC, on Friday, December 7, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. V. Amendments to Standards For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSHA is amending 29 CFR part 1910 to read as follows: PART 1910—[AMENDED] Subpart A—[Amended] 1. Revise the authority citation for subpart A of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable. Section 1910.6 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993). 2. In § 1910.6: a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(5), (e)(62), and (e)(63), and (i)(1).; and b. Revise paragraphs (e)(15), (e)(49), and (q)(3) to read as follows: § 1910.6 Incorporation by reference.

(e)* * *

(15)ANSI B7.1-70 Safety Code for the Use, Care and Protection of Abrasive Wheels, IBR approved for §§ 1910.215(b)(12) and 1910.218(j).

(49)ANSI Z9.1-51 Safety Code for Ventilation and Operation of Open Surface Tanks, IBR approved for 1910.261(a)(3)(xix), (g)(18)(v), and (h)(2)(i).

(q)* * *

(3)NFPA 33-1969 Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Material, IBR approved for § 1910.94(c)(2). Subpart F—[Amended] 3-4. Revise the authority citation for subpart F of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911. 5. Revise paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(8)(ii) of § 1910.68 to read as follows: § 1910.68 Manlifts.

(b)* * *

(4)*Reference to other codes and subparts.* The following codes and subparts of this part are applicable to this section: Safety Code for Mechanical Power Transmission Apparatus, ANSI B15.1-1953 (R 1958); Safety Code for Fixed Ladders, ANSI A14.3-1956; and subparts D, O, and S. The preceding ANSI standards are incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.

(8)* * *

(ii)*Construction.* The rails shall be standard guardrails with toeboards meeting the provisions of § 1910.23. Subpart G—[Amended] 6. Revise the authority citation for subpart G of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911. Section 1910.94 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. 7. Revise paragraphs (b)(5)(1)( *a* ), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(3)(i) introductory text, (c)(3)(i)( *a* ), (c)(3)(iii) introductory text, (c)(3)(iii)( *a* ), (c)(5)(i) introductory text, and (c)(5)(iii)( *e* ) of § 1910.94 to read as follows: § 1910.94 Ventilation.

(b)* * *

(5)* * * (i)( *a* ) It is the dual function of grinding and abrasive cutting-off wheel hoods to protect the operator from the hazards of bursting wheels, as well as to provide a means for the removal of dust and dirt generated. All hoods shall be not less in structural strength than specified in Tables O-1 and O-9 of § 1910.215.

(c)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)*Spray booth.* Spray booths are defined and described in § 1910.107(a).

(3)* * *

(i)Spray booths shall be designed and constructed in accordance with § 1910.107(b)(1) through (b)(4) and (b)(6) through (b)(10). For a more detailed discussion of fundamentals relating to this subject, see ANSI Z9.2-1960, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6. ( *a* ) Lights, motors, electrical equipment, and other sources of ignition shall conform to the requirements of § 1910.107(b)(10) and (c).

(iii)Baffles, distribution plates, and dry-type overspray collectors shall conform to the requirements of § 1910.107(b)(4) and (b)(5). ( *a* ) Overspray filters shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of § 1910.107(b)(5), and shall only be in a location easily accessible for inspection, cleaning, or replacement.

(5)* * *

(i)Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with provisions of § 1910.107(d), and in accordance with the following:

(iii)* * * ( *e* ) Inspection or clean-out doors shall be provided for every 9 to 12 feet of running length for ducts up to 12 inches in diameter, but the distance between cleanout doors may be greater for larger pipes. A clean-out door or doors shall be provided for servicing the fan, and where necessary, a drain shall be provided. Subpart H—[Amended] 8. Revise the authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119, 1910.120, and 1910.122 through 1910.126 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1910.119 also issued under Section 304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note. Section 1910.120 also issued under Section 126, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553. 9. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(i)( *C* ) of § 1910.103 to read as follows: § 1910.103 Hydrogen.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)* * * ( *c* ) Each portable container shall be legibly marked with the name “Hydrogen” in accordance with the marking requirements set forth in § 1910.253(b)(1)(ii). Each manifolded hydrogen supply unit shall be legibly marked with the name “Hydrogen” or a legend such as “This unit contains hydrogen.” 10. Revise paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of § 1910.107 to read as follows: § 1910.107 Spray finishing using flammable and combustible materials.

(c)* * *

(1)* * *

(vi)Powder-coating equipment shall conform to the requirements of paragraph (l)(1) of this section. 11. Amend paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of § 1910.110 to read as follows: § 1910.110 Storage and handling of liquid petroleum gases.

(b)* * *

(5)* * *

(iii)When LP-Gas and one or more other gases are stored or used in the same area, the containers shall be marked to identify their content. Marking shall conform to the marking requirements set forth in § 1910.253(b)(1)(ii). 12. Revise paragraph (e)(1) of § 1910.111 to read as follows: § 1910.111 Storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia.

(e)* * *

(1)*Conformance.* Cylinders shall comply with DOT specifications and shall be maintained, filled, packaged, marked, labeled, and shipped to comply with 49 CFR chapter I and the marking requirements set forth in § 1910.253(b)(1)(ii). Subpart J—[Amended] 13. Revise the authority citation for subpart J of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable. Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. 14. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of § 1910.144 to read as follows: § 1910.144 Safety color code for marking physical hazards.

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)*Danger.* Safety cans or other portable containers of flammable liquids having a flash point at or below 80° F, table containers of flammable liquids (open cup tester), excluding shipping containers, shall be painted red with some additional clearly visible identification either in the form of a yellow band around the can or the name of the contents conspicuously stenciled or painted on the can in yellow. Red lights shall be provided at barricades and at temporary obstructions. Danger signs shall be painted red. Subpart P—[Amended] 15. Revise the authority citation for subpart P of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1910.243 also issued under 29 CFR part 1910. 16. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(i) of § 1910.243 to read as follows: § 1910.243 Guarding of portable powered tools.

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)Explosive-actuated fastening tools that are actuated by explosives or any similar means, and propel a stud, pin, fastener, or other object for the purpose of affixing it by penetration to any other object shall meet the design requirements specified by paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This requirement does not apply to devices designed for attaching objects to soft construction materials, such as wood, plaster, tar, dry wallboard, and the like, or to stud-welding equipment. Subpart Q—[Amended] 17. Revise the authority citation for subpart Q of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. § 1910.251 [Amended] 18. Remove paragraph

(c)of § 1910.251. 19. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of § 1910.253 to read as follows: § 1910.253 Oxygen-fuel gas welding and cutting.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)Compressed gas cylinders shall be legibly marked, for the purpose of identifying the gas content, with either the chemical or the trade name of the gas. Such marking shall be by means of stenciling, stamping, or labeling, and shall not be readily removable. Whenever practical, the marking shall be located on the shoulder of the cylinder. Subpart R—[Amended] 20. Revise the authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 21. Revise paragraphs (c)(15)(ii), (e)(4), (g)(13)(i), (h)(1), (j)(4)(iii), (j)(5)(i), (k)(6), (k)(13)(i), and (k)(15) of § 1910.261 to read as follows: § 1910.261 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.

(c)* * *

(15)* * *

(ii)Where conveyors cross passageways or roadways, a horizontal platform shall be provided under the conveyor extending out from the sides of the conveyor a distance equal to 1.5 times the length of the wood handled. The platform shall extend the width of the road plus 2 feet on each side, and shall be kept free of wood and rubbish. The edges of the platform shall be provided with toeboards or other protection to prevent wood from falling, in accordance with § 1910.23.

(e)* * *

(4)*Runway to the jack ladder.* The runway from the pond or unloading dock to the table shall be protected with standard handrails and toeboards. Inclined portions shall have cleats or equivalent nonslip surfacing in accordance with § 1910.23. Protective equipment shall be provided for persons working over water.

(g)* * *

(13)* * *

(i)Blowpit openings shall be preferably on the side of the pit instead of on top. When located on top, openings shall be as small as possible and shall be provided with railings in accordance with § 1910.23.

(h)* * *

(1)*Bleaching engines.* Bleaching engines, except the Bellmer type, shall be completely covered on the top, with the exception of one small opening large enough to allow filling, but too small to admit a person. Platforms leading from one engine to another shall have standard guardrails in accordance with § 1910.23.

(j)* * *

(4)* * *

(iii)When beaters are fed from a floor above, the chute opening, if less than 42 inches from the floor, shall be provided with a complete rail or other enclosure. Openings for manual feeding shall be sufficient only for entry of stock, and shall be provided with at least two permanently secured crossrails in accordance with § 1910.23.

(5)* * *

(i)All pulpers having the top or any other opening of a vessel less than 42 inches from the floor or work platform shall have such openings guarded by railed or other enclosures. For manual charging, openings shall be sufficient to permit the entry of stock, and shall be provided with at least two permanently secured crossrails in accordance with § 1910.23.

(k)* * *

(6)*Steps.* Steps of uniform rise and tread with nonslip surfaces shall be provided at each press in accordance with § 1910.23.

(13)* * *

(i)A guardrail shall be provided at broke holes in accordance with § 1910.23.

(15)*Steps.* Steps or ladders of uniform rise and tread with nonslip surfaces shall be provided at each calendar stack. Handrails and hand grips shall be provided at each calendar stack in accordance with § 1910.23. [FR Doc. E7-24181 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in January 2008. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: Effective January 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed:

(1)A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to Part 4044),

(2)a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and

(3)a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022). This amendment

(1)adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during January 2008,

(2)adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during January 2008, and

(3)adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during January 2008. For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 5.42 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.49 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent an increase (in comparison to those in effect for December 2008) of 0.05 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and a decrease of 0.55 percent for all years thereafter. The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 3.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions represent no change from those in effect for December 2007. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022). The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible. Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during January 2008, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4022 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 29 CFR Part 4044 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions. In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows: PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 171, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *N* 2 * * * * * * * 171 01-1-08 02-1-08 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 171, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 171 01-1-08 02-1-08 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362. 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for January 2008, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used To Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— The values of *i* t are: *i* t for *t* = *i* t for *t* = *i* t for *t* = * * * * * * * January 2008 .0542 1-20 .0449 >20 N/A N/A Issued in Washington, DC, on this 10th day of December 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Deputy Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-24245 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 50 and 51 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0159; FRL-8506-6] RIN 2060-AN40 Exceptional Events Rule; Notice of Action Denying Petition for Reconsideration AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Action Denying Petition for Reconsideration. SUMMARY: The EPA is providing notice that it has responded to a petition for reconsideration of the Exceptional Events Rule (EER). On March 22, 2007, EPA finalized a rule in the **Federal Register** to govern the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events. Section 319 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended by section 6013 of the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient-Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFE-TEA-LU) of 2005 required the Administrator to publish a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** by March 1, 2006. Further, SAFE-TEA-LU required the EPA Administrator to publish a final rule within 1 year of the proposal. The final rule on the “Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events” became effective on May 21, 2007. Subsequent to the publication of this action, a petition for reconsideration from the Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC)was received by EPA on May 21, 2007, signed by John D. Walke; Director, Clean Air Program; Natural Resources Defense Council; 1200 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005-3928. The EPA considered the petition and supporting information along with information contained in the rulemaking docket (Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0159-0163) in reaching a decision on the petitions. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied the petition for reconsideration in a letter to the petitioner dated November 5, 2007. The letter documents EPA's reasons for the denial. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Padmini Singh, U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone

(202)564-5641, e-mail at *singh.padmini@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? This **Federal Register** notice, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration are available in the docket that EPA established for the Exceptional Events Rule (docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0159). The table below identifies the petition received by EPA, the date EPA received the petition, the document identification number for the petition, the date of EPA's response, and the document identification number for EPA's response. (Note that all the document numbers listed in the table are in the form of “EPA-HQ-OAR-XXXX-XXXX-xxxx.”) Petitioner Date of petition to EPA Petition: Document No. in docket Date of EPA response EPA response: Document No. in docket Natural Resources Defense Council 5/21/2007 0163 11/05/2007 0175 All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (Air 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 Air Docket is

(202)566-1742. II. Judicial Review Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions for review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if:

(i)The agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or

(ii)such actions are locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” The EPA has determined that its action denying the petition for reconsideration is of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) because EPA previously found the Exceptional Events Rule to be of nationwide scope and effect. Thus, any petitions for review of the letters denying the petitions for reconsideration described in this Notice must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this Notice is published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: December 10, 2007. Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-24242 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0782; FRL-8506-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Missouri; Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on May 18, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA has determined that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Missouri. As a result of this action, EPA will also withdraw, through a separate rulemaking, the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans

(FIPs)concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for Missouri. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO 2 and NO X and requires States to submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is approving today, Missouri has met the CAIR requirements by electing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. DATES: This rule is effective on December 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0782. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at

(913)551-7460 or by e-mail at *jay.michael@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. Analysis of Missouri's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources D. NO X Allowance Allocations E. Allocation of NO X Allowances From Compliance Supplement Pool F. Individual Opt-in Units V. Final Action VI. When Is This Action Effective? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Missouri's SIP submitted on May 18, 2007. In its SIP revision, Missouri has met the CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units

(EGUs)to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions, as finalized in the Missouri Register on April 16, 2007, pages 646-661. Missouri's regulations adopt by reference most of the provisions of EPA's SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season model trading rules, with certain changes discussed below. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. As a result of this action, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for Missouri. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1341 and 40 CFR 52.1342, relating to the CAIR FIP obligations for Missouri. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Missouri is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Missouri. Once a SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA does not have the option of maintaining the FIPs following full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIPs. EPA proposed to approve Missouri's request to amend the SIP on September 17, 2007 (72 FR 52828). In that proposal, EPA also stated its intent to withdraw the FIP, as described above. The comment period closed on October 17, 2007. No comments were received. EPA is finalizing the approval as proposed based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action. II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? The CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM 2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO 2 and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1 to September 30). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Missouri submitted its SIP in response to EPA's section 110(a)(2)(D) finding, which EPA approved in a rule published May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25975). In that rule, EPA stated that Missouri had met its obligation with regard to interstate transport by adoption of the CAIR model rule. EPA also stated that it would review and act on Missouri's CAIR rule in a separate rulemaking. This document takes final action on Missouri's CAIR rule as explained below. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO 2 and NO X and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO 2 reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO X and SO 2 starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:

(1)Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or

(2)adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO 2 and NO X budgets. The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO X SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs. IV. Analysis of Missouri's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations In this action, EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's SIP revision that adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 59,871 (2009-2014) and 49,892 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO X annual emissions, 26,678 (2009-2014) and 22,231 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO X ozone season emissions, and 137,214 (2010-2014) and 96,050 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO 2 emissions. Missouri's SIP revision sets these budgets as the total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO X annual and ozone season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO X annual model rule (but not the NO X ozone season model rule) provides for a compliance supplement pool (CSP), which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO X annual emissions. As a further example, the NO X ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program replaces the NO X SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. The NO X ozone season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program. The provisions of the CAIR SO 2 model rule are also similar to the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season model rules. However, the SO 2 model rule is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO 2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO 2 model rule uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing one ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program. EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for Federal rather than State implementation. The CAIR model SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. In the SIP revision, Missouri has chosen to implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. Missouri has adopted a full SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary, fossil fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990, or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatts electric

(MWe)producing electricity for sale. States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO X ozone season program only, those units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. Under this option, the CAIR NO X ozone season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e., units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the NO X SIP Call trading program. Missouri has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all current and future non-EGUs in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. The NO X SIP Call region of the State includes the eastern one-third of the State of Missouri (70 FR 46860). D. NO X Allowance Allocations Under the NO X allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO X annual and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO X allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO X allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:

(1)The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned;

(2)the frequency of allocations;

(3)the basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and

(4)the use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. Missouri has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of NO X annual allowances with its own methodology. Missouri has chosen to distribute NO X annual allowances to individual facilities based upon the total of their individual unit's pro-rata share of the total heat input for all affected units in the State. The State has provided a table in rule 10 CSR 10-6.362 that provides for permanent allocations to units in Phases I and II. Additionally, the State's rule creates an energy efficiency renewable resource set-aside of 300 allowances for each year of the program. The purpose for establishing this set-aside is to serve as an incentive for saving or generating electricity through the implementation of energy efficiency and renewable generation projects. If the number of allowances awarded each year are fewer than allowances allocated to the set-aside, the State will transfer surplus allowances to the accounts of the electric utilities on a pro-rata basis in the same proportion as allocations to the units listed in the rule. Missouri's rule provides that, by May 31 of the year for which allowances are requested from the set-aside, the State will complete the process of determining what projects are eligible and how many allowances should be provided, and of awarding the allowances to the projects. EPA interprets the rule to provide that, by the May 31 deadline, the State will transfer to the appropriate allowance tracking system accounts the allocations awarded to the eligible projects, as well as the surplus allowances provided to electric utilities. As with the annual program described above, Missouri has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. Missouri has chosen to distribute NO X ozone season allowances to individual facilities based upon the total of their individual unit's pro-rata share of the State's total heat input for all affected units in the State. The State has provided a table in rule 10 CSR 10-6.364 that provides for permanent allocations to NO X ozone season units in Phases I and II. As mentioned above, Missouri has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all current and future non-EGUs in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. By doing so, the three non-EGUs listed in Table II of Missouri's NO X SIP Call rule, 10 CSR 10-6.360, are provided CAIR NO X ozone season allowances totaling 59 allowances in Table II of 10 CSR 10-6.364 that are in addition to the State's initial allocation for both Phase I and Phase II of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program. The number of allowances provided to the non-EGUs in the CAIR NO X ozone trading program are equivalent to the amount they received under Missouri's NO X SIP Call rule. E. Allocation of NO X Allowances From Compliance Supplement Pool The CAIR establishes a compliance supplement pool

(CSP)to provide an incentive for early reductions in NO X annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO X annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the projected magnitude of the emission reductions required by CAIR in that State. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make NO X reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or Federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls. The CAIR annual NO X model trading rule establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States. Missouri has chosen to distribute CSP allowances using an allocation methodology that retains much of the CSP model rule language of 40 CFR 96.143. The State's methodology differs in two main ways. First, the State has added additional criteria for units subject to the Acid Rain Program that do not have an applicable NO X emission limit to be able to apply for allocations from the CSP by limiting their emissions below what limit would have applied had the unit been limited by Acid Rain Program or State NO X emission rate limits. Secondly, the State has chosen to modify the distribution methodology in the event the CSP is over-prescribed. If more requests for allocations have been made than CSP allowances exist, the State will divide the CSP into two pools. The smaller of the two pools is for units that combust tires and the larger pool is for the remaining units. F. Individual Opt-in Units The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all. Missouri has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to opt into the CAIR trading programs by adopting by reference the entirety of EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in the CAIR SO 2 , CAIR NO X annual, and CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs. V. Final Action EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on May 18, 2007. Under this SIP revision, Missouri is choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO 2 emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR. The Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions for Missouri. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1341 and 40 CFR 52.1342. EPA will take final action to withdraw the CAIR FIPs for Missouri in a separate rulemaking. VI. When Is This Action Effective? Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a rule generally cannot be effective less than 30 days prior to publication of the rule. However, a rule can be made effective less than 30 days prior to publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption, or relieves a restriction” or “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause”. EPA finds that there is good cause to make this approval effective on December 14, 2007. This CAIR SIP approval allows EPA to immediately record allowances as distributed under the approved State rule and, thus, allow sources to begin trading. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ). Because this action approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 12, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 29, 2007. William Rice, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by adding entries in numerical order for 10-6.362, 10-6.364 and 10-6.366 to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of Plan.

(c)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * * * * * * 10-6.362 Clean Air Interstate Rule Annual NO X Trading Program 5/30/07 12/14/07 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* 10-6.364 Clean Air Interstate Rule Seasonal NO X Trading Program 5/30/07 12/14/07 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* 10-6.366 Clean Air Interstate Rule S0 2 Trading Program 5/30/07 12/14/07 *[insert FR page number where the document begins]* * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-24230 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0890; FRL-8340-7] Clethodim; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues of clethodim and its metabolites in or on corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; and corn, field, stover. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective December 14, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 12, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0890. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn V. Montague, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-1243; e-mail address: *montague.kathryn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0890 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before February 12, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0890, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76321) (FRL-8104-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7117) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.458 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the herbicide clethodim, (E)-(+/-)-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one and its metabolites containing the 5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]cyclohexen-3-one and the 5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-5-hydroxycyclohexen-3-one moieties and their sulfoxides and sulfones, expressed as clethodim, in or on corn, field, forage at 0.2 parts per million (ppm), corn, field, grain at 0.2 ppm, and corn, field, stover at 0.2 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. below. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance for combined residues of clethodim and its metabolites on corn, field, forage at 0.2 ppm, corn, field, grain at 0.2 ppm, and corn, field, stover at 0.2 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by clethodim as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The referenced document is available in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as *Clethodim: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Field Corn* in that docket. Additionally, clethodim toxicological data are discussed in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** of March 14, 2001 (66 FR14829) (FRL-6770-8). B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern

(LOC)is derived from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UFs)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for clethodim used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document *Clethodim: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Field Corn* at page 12 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0890. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to clethodim, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing tolerances in (40 CFR 180.458). EPA assessed dietary exposures from clethodim in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for clethodim; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)1994-1996, and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for existing and proposed tolerances except succulent beans; an average of the field trial data was used for succulent beans; and incorporated percent crop treated

(PCT)information for certain registered uses. iii. *Cancer* . Clethodim was negative for carcinogenicity in feeding studies in rats and mice and was classified as “not likely” to be a human carcinogen. Therefore, a quantitative exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk is unnecessary. iv. *Anticipated residue and PCT information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if: a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue. b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group. c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDAC, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows: Commodity PCT (Weighted Average) Beets 1 Broccoli 10 Cabbage 1 Cantaloupes 1 Carrots 10 Celery 5 Cotton 1 Cucumbers 1 Dry beans 5 Lettuce 1 Onions 10 Peanuts 5 Potatoes 5 Pumpkins 5 Soybeans 5 Squash 5 Strawberries 1 Sugar beets 45 Sunflowers 20 Sweet potatoes 1 Tomatoes 1 Watermelons 5 EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available Federal, state, and private market survey data for that use, averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the nearest multiple of 5% except for those situations in which the average PCT is <1. In those cases, < 1% is used as the average and <2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single maximum value reported overall from available Federal, state, and private market survey data on the existing use, across all years, and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%. In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Proprietary Market Surveys, and the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most recent 6 years. The Agency believes that the three conditions listed above have been met. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which chemical clethodim may be applied in a particular area. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for clethodim in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of clethodim. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Surface water and ground water contamination may occur from the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates of clethodim, as well as from parent clethodim. Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) Tier I, and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated chronic environmental concentrations

(EECs)of clethodim + sulfoxide + sulfone are estimated to be 7.631 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 1.39 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 7.631 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Although clethodim is registered for use in non-crop areas and for commercial use on ornamentals, no residential exposure is expected from these uses because these uses are clearly intended for commercial and institutional applications on commercially grown ornamentals and not for ornamentals in a residential setting. Therefore, non-occupational exposure assessment of clethodim was not performed. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to clethodim and any other substances and clethodim does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that clethodim has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional (“10X”) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no evidence of susceptibility following *in utero* and/or postnatal exposure to clethodim in the developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits, and in the 2-generation rat reproduction study. There are no residual uncertainties concerning prenatal and postnatal toxicity and no neurotoxicity concerns. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for clethodim is complete. ii. There is no indication that clethodim is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that clethodim results in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment will not underestimate the potential exposure for infants, children, and/or women of childbearing age. There is no potential for residential exposure. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . There were no effects observed in oral toxicity studies including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits that could be attributable to a single dose (exposure). Therefore, clethodim is not expected to pose an acute risk. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to clethodim from food and water will utilize 73% of the cPAD for the population group Children 1-2 years old. There are no residential uses for clethodim that result in chronic residential exposure to clethodim. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Clethodim is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Clethodim is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Clethodim is classified as a “not likely” to be carcinogenic in humans based on the results of a carcinogenicity study in mice and the combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study in the rat. Therefore, clethodim is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to clethodim residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology gas chromatography with a flame photometric detector is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue levels

(MRLs)established for residues in or on the proposed commodities. Therefore, there are not questions with respect to Codex and U.S. tolerance compatibility. C. Response to Comments Public comments were received from B. Sachau who objected to the proposed tolerances because of the amounts of pesticides already consumed and carried by the American population. The commenter further indicated that testing conducted on animals have absolutely no validity and are cruel to the test animals. B. Sachau's comments contained no scientific data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to clethodim, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA has responded to B. Sachau's generalized comments on numerous previous occasions. 70 FR 1349, 1354 (January 7, 2005); 69 FR 63083, 63096 (October 29, 2004). V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of clethodim and its metabolites on corn, field, forage at 0.2 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.2 ppm; and corn, field, stover at 0.2 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, this rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 3, 2007. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.458 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 180.458 Clethodim; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * *

(3)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Corn, field, forage 0.2 Corn, field, grain 0.2 Corn, field, stover 0.2 * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-24164 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 72 240 Friday, December 14, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 [Docket No. PRM-51-11] Sally Shaw; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking

(PRM)submitted by Sally Shaw on June 23, 2006. The petition, docketed as PRM-51-11, requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking to reconcile NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (May 1996) (GEIS), for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications with the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS), “Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

(BEIR)VII, Phase 2,” Seventh Ed., 2005 report. The petitioner believes that this action is necessary because the BEIR VII report represents new and significant information on radiation standards and risk factors that must be reflected in NRC's GEIS. Although the NRC recognizes that the petition highlighted that BEIR VII contains a more refined risk assessment based on additional medical data and a better dosimetry system, the NRC is denying PRM-51-11 because it does not provide significant information or arguments that were not previously considered by the Commission. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to these petitions and the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner may be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at

(800)387-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David T. Diec, telephone

(301)415-2834, e-mail *dtd@nrc.gov,* or Andrew Luu, telephone

(301)415-1078, e-mail *anl@nrc.gov,* Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67072), the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking filed by Sally Shaw (the petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC reconcile the GEIS with the NAS BEIR VII report, which was released in 2005. The GEIS incorporates data from BEIR V, an earlier NAS report that was released in 1990. The NRC regulation, Part 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 51.95(c), requires that the NRC prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS)to the GEIS. The findings of the GEIS are set forth in Table B-1 of Appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 (Table B-1). A copy of the petition can be found in ADAMS under accession number ML061770056. Specifically, the petitioner requests that the NRC consider the NAS BEIR VII report as new and significant information and update the radiological impacts and conclusions set forth in the GEIS, including early fatalities, latent fatalities, and any injury projections based on this information. The petitioner asserts that BEIR VII represents the “current science,” and states that BEIR VII, unlike BEIR V, “estimates risks for cancer incidence rates as well as mortality and also provides detailed risk figures according to age of exposure for males and females, by cancer type.” According to the petitioner, BEIR VII shows that the cancer mortality risks for women and children are much higher than for men. Further, the petitioner asserts that the GEIS's radiological impact analysis is calculated based on an “arbitrary and false” threshold dose model, implying that a dose received below the threshold would not be of “regulatory concern.” In this regard, the petitioner refers to BEIR VII, which concludes that there is no evidence of a “threshold dose phenomenon.” The petitioner also asserts that the GEIS reports radiation risks to nuclear workers of one rem per year based on BEIR V. The petitioner requests that these radiation risks be recalculated using BEIR VII and the latest science in medical journals, which include exposure to internal radiation sources (alpha and beta emitters, via inhalation or ingestion). Finally, the petitioner asserts that the radiological impact analysis contained in the GEIS assumes that non-stochastic effects will not occur if the dose equivalent from internal and external sources combined is less than 50 rem per year and, as such, must be recalculated in light of BEIR VII. NRC Evaluation The petitioner's request is that the NRC reconcile the GEIS with the NAS BEIR VII, 2005 report. The NRC's regulations for implementing its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)are contained in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” The renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license is identified as a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and thus an SEIS (in conjunction with the GEIS) is required before the NRC determines whether to approve or disapprove the license renewal application. The NRC's requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants are contained in 10 CFR part 54. The GEIS assesses environmental impacts that could be associated with nuclear power plant license renewal and establishes generic findings for each type of environmental impact covering as many plants as possible. The GEIS reflects the NRC's findings regarding those environmental impacts associated with license renewal that are well understood. GEIS The GEIS assesses the various environmental impacts associated with license renewal in terms of significance and assigns one of three significance levels to a given impact—small, moderate, or large. A small impact means that the environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purpose of assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the NRC's regulations are considered small. A moderate impact means that the environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource. A large impact means that the environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. In addition to determining the significance of environmental impacts associated with license renewal, the NRC determines if its analysis can be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. The GEIS sets forth two categories: Category 1 and Category 2. Category 1 means that the GEIS analysis has shown that the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some environmental issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics; a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts; mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis; and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. Category 2 means that the GEIS analysis does not meet the criteria of Category 1, and thus, on that particular environmental issue, additional plant-specific review is required. The GEIS findings are set forth in Table B-1 of Appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51. For each license renewal application, the NRC will prepare a draft SEIS to analyze those plant-specific (Category 2) issues. The SEIS is not required to cover any Category 1 issues. The draft SEIS is made available for public comment. After consideration of any public comments, the NRC will prepare and issue a final SEIS under 10 CFR 51.91 and 51.93. The final SEIS and the GEIS serve as the requisite NEPA analysis for any given license renewal application. The GEIS analysis, as shown in Table B-1, concluded that both public and occupational radiation exposures during any plant refurbishment or plant operation through the license renewal term are of a small significance level and meet all Category 1 criteria. This conclusion is based on a given licensee's adherence to, and if necessary, NRC enforcement of, the dose limits as required in 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” and in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion `As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable' (ALARA) for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.” Regulations at 10 CFR part 20 require that a licensee limit the annual dose to a member of the public to no more than 0.1 rem

(1mSv)total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). In addition, 40 CFR part 190, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards For Nuclear Power Operations,” further restricts the allowable annual dose to a member of the public to a lower value of 0.025 rem (0.25 mSv) and to maintain doses to members of the public that are ALARA. Finally, 10 CFR 50.34a requires a nuclear power plant to maintain control over radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents produced during normal operations to dose levels contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, which are in the range of 0.003 rem (0.03 mSv) to 0.005 rem (0.05 mSv). BEIR Reports The risk estimates of human health effects from radiation were first evaluated by scientific committees starting in the 1950s. Since 1972, the National Academy of Sciences has published a series of reports on the biological effects of ionizing radiation (the BEIR reports), including the BEIR V report in 1990 and the BEIR VII report in 2005. The BEIR V and BEIR VII reports concentrated primarily on providing a comprehensive review of all biological and biophysical data regarding the health effects attributable to exposures to low doses of ionizing radiation, ranging between 0 to 10 rem (0-100 mSv). Although the BEIR VII committee examined several sources of epidemiological data (i.e., medical and occupational exposures), the single most important source of epidemiological data is the cohort of 120,000 Japanese atomic bomb survivors from the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three major changes have occurred after the BEIR V report was published. First, an additional 12 years of follow-up medical data are available. Second, cancer incidence data for the cohort are available (for BEIR V, only mortality data were available). The impact of these two developments has reduced the uncertainty in the assessment of cancer risk among the atomic bomb survivors. Third, the dosimetry system used to assign radiation exposure to the atomic bomb survivors was replaced with an improved dosimetry system. These changes have improved our understanding of the health risks associated with radiation exposure. The overall risk estimates of the BEIR V and BEIR VII reports, however, remain statistically insignificant. In this regard, the BEIR VII report states: “in general the magnitude of estimated risks for total cancer mortality or leukemia has not changed greatly from estimates in past reports such as BEIR V and recent reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). New data and analyses have reduced sampling uncertainty, but uncertainties related to estimating risk for exposure at low doses and dose rates and transporting risks from Japanese A-bomb survivors to the U.S. population remain large. Uncertainties in estimating risks of site-specific cancers are especially large.” The NRC staff completed a review of the BEIR VII report and documented its findings in the Commission paper SECY-05-0202, “Staff Review of the National Academies Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII),” dated October 29, 2005 (ADAMS accession number ML052640532). In this paper, the NRC staff concluded that the findings presented in the BEIR VII report agree with the NRC's current understanding of the health risks from exposure to ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII report's major conclusion is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of radiological protection that the NRC used to develop its regulations and the GEIS. Therefore, the NRC's regulations and the GEIS continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment. Consequently, none of the findings in the BEIR VII report represent new and significant information when compared to the findings of the BEIR V report and thus, there is no need to amend NRC regulations or the GEIS. The NRC has determined that a specific rulemaking to amend 10 CFR Part 51 and by extension, the GEIS, is not warranted. Public Comments The NRC received a total of 74 public comments relating to this petition. Of the 74 comments, 69 supported granting the petition. No comments opposed the petition and five comments were not applicable to this petition. The letters in support of the petition were essentially identical and contained one or more of the following four assertions: A. Protect the most vulnerable populations in the regulatory standards. B. Recognize that “allowable” levels are not safe. C. Consider radiation damage from inhaling or ingesting radionuclides; and D. Recognize that there is no safe dose. A. Protect the Most Vulnerable Populations in the Regulatory Standards Although some epidemiological studies have shown that children, individuals in poor health, and the elderly are more radiosensitive to radiation at high doses and high dose rates, no adverse health effects have been observed in these populations at the doses associated with NRC's radiation protection regulations and standards. The NRC, in NUREG 1850, “Frequently Asked Questions on License Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors,” provides information on a number of studies that have been performed to examine the health effects around nuclear power facilities. These studies report that there is no conclusive evidence which shows a statistical correlation between the low level radiation dose received by members of the public living near a nuclear power plant and their cancer incidence. The dose from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents is based on the “maximum exposed individual” and calculated to each of the four age groups (0-1, 1-11, 11-17, and 17 years and older). The methodology and guidance for calculating these doses and the associated dose conversion factors for each age group, are contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.” Nuclear power reactors implement this methodology and guidance in individual plant radiation protection programs and operating procedures. The NRC has concluded that the current NRC radiation protection standards continue to ensure adequate protection of the public. This position is further reiterated in the Commission Paper SECY-05-0202. In this paper, the NRC staff reviewed and evaluated NRC's radiation safety regulations and standards against the findings of the BEIR VII report. The NRC staff concluded “that the findings presented in the National Academies BEIR VII report contribute to our understanding of the heath risks from exposure to ionizing radiation. The major conclusion is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.” The BEIR VII report's conclusion is consistent with the system of radiological protection that the NRC used to develop its regulations and the GEIS. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the current regulations continue to be adequately protective of the public health and safety and the environment. Consequently, none of the findings in the BEIR VII report warrant initiating any immediate change to NRC regulations or the GEIS. B. Recognize That “Allowable” Levels Are Not Safe Commenter states that these levels are based on obsolete “standard man,” concept that applies to a healthy, white male in the prime of his life, and ignore the more vulnerable fetus, growing infant, children, and women who, according to the BEIR VII report, are 37-50 percent more vulnerable than men to the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. Although some epidemiological studies have shown that children, individuals in poor health, and the elderly are more radiosensitive to radiation at high doses and high dose rates, no adverse health effects have been observed in these populations at the doses associated with NRC's radiation protection regulations and standards. The amount of radioactive material released from nuclear power facilities is well measured, closely monitored, and known to be very small. As shown by the studies referenced in NUREG-1850, the radiation dose received by members of the public from the normal operation of a nuclear power plant are so low that no cancers have been observed. The BEIR VII committee's preferred estimate of lifetime attributable risk for solid cancer incidence and mortality (Tables 12-13) suggest that females are more sensitive than males to radiation exposure at 10 rem, a level that is 100 times the NRC's radiation protection standards specified in 10 CFR Part 20. The BEIR VII committee's preferred estimate of lifetime attributable risk for leukemia cancer incidence and mortality (Tables 12-13), moreover, suggest that males are more sensitive than females. The BEIR VII committee uses the 95 percent confidence intervals associated with estimated lifetime cancer risk for males and females that suggest that the apparent gender difference may not be statistically significant. Consequently, the BEIR VII report combined the two risk estimates and cited an average value which was also done by the BEIR V committee. A potential gender difference was not discussed in the BEIR VII report. The NRC radiation protection regulation, 10 CFR 20.1208, requires each licensee to ensure that the dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus during the entire pregnancy, due to the occupational exposure of a declared pregnant woman, does not exceed 0.5 rem (5 mSv). These radiation protection standards continue to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment. The petitioner has also requested that the NRC review an article entitled “Healthy from the Start: Building a Better Basis for Environmental Health Standards—Starting with Radiation,” published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), February 2007. This article was not published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and the article's conclusions do not appear to have been subjected to an independent peer review process. The authors of this article have stated that there are cause-and-effect relationships in the statistical associations between cancer rates and nuclear power reactor operations. Although it is true that cancer rates vary among locations, it is difficult to ascribe the cause of a cluster of cancers to a specific environmental agent, such as radiation from a nuclear power plant. Statistical association alone does not demonstrate causation. Also, well-established scientific methods must be used to demonstrate that these causal effects are appeared to be associated over time. Discussions regarding infants, children, and women are addressed in section A of this document. C. Consider Radiation Damage From Inhaling or Ingesting Radionuclides The issue of radiation risks, as discussed in the GEIS (i.e., Appendix E, section E 4.1.1), used a reference value of 1 rem to calculate the estimated number of excess cancer fatalities, based on the BEIR V report. As discussed in the section titled, “BEIR Reports,” while the changes between the reports has increased our understanding of radiation risk, none of the findings of the BEIR VII report represent new and significant information when compared to the findings of the BEIR V report. Thus, there is no need to amend NRC regulations or the GEIS. Human health effects associated with ionizing radiation, which the GEIS classifies as a Category 1 issue, are divided into two broad categories, non-stochastic and stochastic. The non-stochastic health effects are those in which the severity varies in direct relationship with the radiation dose and for which, according to scientific reports from ICRP, UNSCEAR, as well as the BEIR committee, a dose threshold is known to exist. Radiation-induced cataract formation is an example of a non-stochastic effect. The stochastic health effects are those that occur randomly and for which the probability of the effect occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold. Hereditary effects and cancer incidences are examples of stochastic effects. For the mitigation of stochastic health effects, the NRC endorses the linear, no-threshold dose response model as a basis for its radiation protection standards. This model indicates that any increase in radiation dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in the risk of adverse health effects. NRC regulations and standards, such as the annual dose limits contained in 10 CFR Part 20 for members of the public and for occupational workers, account for stochastic and non-stochastic health effects of radioactive material inhaled or ingested into the human body. For members of the public, the annual dose limit from exposure to radiation from an NRC licensed facility is 0.1 rem. For occupational workers, there are specific dose limits to address the stochastic and non-stochastic health effects. The total effective dose equivalent limit which addresses the stochastic health effects is limited to an annual dose of 5 rem. To address the non-stochastic health effects, the annual dose limit to any individual organ or tissue and the skin, other than the lens of the eye, is 50 rem; the annual dose limit to the lens of the eye is 15 rem. The dose unit is specified as TEDE in rem. The TEDE dose is the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (i.e., external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (i.e., internal exposures received from inhaling or ingesting of radioactive material which includes alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron emitters). The current dose regulations and standards contain adequate radiation safety limits based on radiation exposures from all types of radioactive material and therefore, continue to ensure adequate protection of the public and occupational workers. Further, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical ALARA dose criteria for the discharge of radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents from nuclear power plants. These dose objectives are incorporated into each nuclear power plant's license conditions. The NRC collects and assesses data regarding licensees' adherence to regulations based on site visits, audits and inspection records, and the annual radiological effluent release reports required to be submitted to the NRC and concludes that nuclear power plants continue to maintain their radioactive effluents to the ALARA dose criteria. D. Recognize That There Is No Safe Dose The BEIR VII report's major conclusion is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans. The BEIR VII committee did not attempt to equate radiation exposure and safety, nor did it offer any judgment or opinion on what constitutes a safe level of radiation exposure. It concludes that establishing limits on public exposure to ionizing radiation is the responsibility of Federal agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the NRC. The linear, no-threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans is consistent with the system of radiological protection that the NRC uses as a basis to develop its regulations. Therefore, the NRC's regulations continue to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Reasons for Denial The Commission is denying the petition for rulemaking submitted by Sally Shaw. The specific issues contained in the petition are already adequately addressed in the NRC's radiation protection regulations and standards. Although this petition is being denied, the Commission notes that the current GEIS that referenced the BEIR V, 1999 report, is undergoing planned revision and will consider recent radiological studies, including the BEIR VII, 2005 report. The summary of findings as a result of the planned update will be codified through an ongoing and routine rulemaking to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B1—Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. The Commission has concluded that nuclear plants that are in compliance with NRC radiation protection regulations and standards remain protective of public health and safety and the environment. The radiological health and environmental impacts contained in the GEIS, which are based on regulatory compliance, remain valid. For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-51-11. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-24291 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. AT-400, AT-500, AT-600, and AT-800 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Extension of the comment period. SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) AT-400, AT-500, AT-600, and AT-800 series airplanes. The earlier NPRM proposed to supersede Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2007-13-17, which applies to certain Air Tractor Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes. AD 2007-13-17 currently requires you to repetitively inspect the engine mount for any cracks, repair or replace any cracked engine mount, and report any cracks found to the FAA. The earlier NPRM proposed to retain the inspection actions of AD 2007-13-17 for Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes, including the compliance times and effective dates; establish new inspection actions for the AT-400 and AT-500 series airplanes; incorporate a mandatory terminating action for all airplanes; and terminate the reporting requirement of AD 2007-13-17. The earlier NPRM resulted from a Model AT-502B with a crack located where the lower engine mount tube is welded to the engine mount ring, and the manufacturer developing gussets that, when installed according to their service letter, terminate the repetitive inspection requirement. Since issuance of the NPRM, the manufacturer revised the service information and the FAA has determined that it is necessary to address the unsafe condition. Therefore, we are incorporating the service letter revision into the proposed AD, and we are extending the comment period to allow the public additional time to comment. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29, 2008 (an additional 30 days after the comment close date for the NPRM, which was January 30, 2008). ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(940)564-5616; fax:

(940)564-5612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, 10100 Reunion Pl., San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:

(210)308-3365; fax:

(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion On November 23, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Air Tractor AT-400, AT-500, AT-600, and AT-800 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67687). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2007-13-17 with a new AD that would retain the inspection actions of AD 2007-13-17 for Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes, including the compliance times and effective dates; establish new inspection actions for the AT-400 and AT-500 series airplanes; incorporate a mandatory terminating action for all airplanes; and terminate the reporting requirement of AD 2007-13-17. That proposed AD would have required you to use Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007. Since issuance of the NPRM, Snow Engineering Company revised the Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. A to the Rev. B level (dated November 30, 2007). FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that: • The unsafe condition referenced in this document exists or could develop on other products of the same type design; • Doing the actions following the revised service letter is necessary to address the unsafe condition; and • We should take AD action to correct this unsafe condition. Therefore, we are incorporating the service letter revision into the proposed AD, and we are issuing a supplemental NPRM and extending the comment period to allow the public additional time to comment. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,264 airplanes in the U.S. registry, including those airplanes affected by AD 2007-13-17. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1.5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $120 $0 $120 $151,680 We estimate the following costs to do the repair/modification: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 24 work-hours × $80 per hour = $1,920 $80 $2,000 $2,528,000 The estimated total cost on U.S. operators includes the cumulative costs associated with AD 2007-13-17 and those airplanes and actions being added in this proposed AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2007-13-17, Amendment 39-15121 (72 FR 36863, July 6, 2007), and adding the following new AD: **Air Tractor, Inc.:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by February 29, 2008 (an additional 30 days after the comment close date for the NPRM of January 30, 2008). Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2007-13-17, Amendment 39-15121. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Model Serial Nos. AT-400, AT-400A, AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B -0001 through -1175. AT-502, AT-502A, AT-502B, and AT-503A -0001 through -2597. AT-602 -0001 through -1141. AT-802 and AT-802A -0001 through -0227. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a Model AT-502B airplane with a crack located where the lower engine mount tube is welded to the engine mount ring. The airplane had 8,436 total hours time-in-service (TIS). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the engine mount, which could result in failure of the engine mount. Such failure could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done:

(1)*For all airplanes with less than 5,000 hours total TIS that do not have gussets installed on the engine mount in accordance with Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007:* Visually inspect the engine mount as follows: Affected airplanes Compliance Procedures

(i)*For all Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes* Initially before the airplane reaches a total of 1,300 hours TIS or within the next 100 hours TIS after August 10, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-13-17), whichever occurs later. Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS Follow one of the following:

(A)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007;

(B)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007; or

(C)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, revised January 22, 2007.

(ii)*For all Model AT-502A airplanes* Initially before the airplane reaches a total of 1,300 hours TIS or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007.

(iii)*For all Models AT-400, AT-400A, AT-402, AT-402A, AT-402B, AT-502, AT-502B, and AT-503A airplanes* Initially within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007.

(2)*For all airplanes:* Before further flight after any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where crack damage is found, repair and modify the engine mount by installing gussets following Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007. This modification terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(3)*For all airplanes:* Before the airplane reaches 5,000 hours total TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; inspect, repair if cracked, and modify the engine mount by installing gussets following Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007. This modification terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this AD. Note: As a terminating action to the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this AD, you may install the gussets before finding cracks or reaching 5,000 hours total TIS. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Forth Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, FAA San Antonio MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:

(210)308-3365; fax:

(210)308-3370. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:

(940)564-5616; fax:

(940)564-5612. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 10, 2007. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-24215 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0294; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-087-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model P 180 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Due to pressurization loads, the fuselage frame of the emergency exit door could suffer from fatigue and develop cracks in its corners. The superseded Italian Airworthiness Directive

(AD)1995-059 was issued to require modification of the emergency door frame in accordance with Piaggio (at the time I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A.) Service Bulletin 80-0057 original issue. Parts necessary to carry out the modification were a new door pan assembly and a doubler; Since these parts are no longer available, Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.

(PAI)designed new suitable part numbers introduced by Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 80-0057. The present AD mandates modification of the fuselage emergency door frame in accordance with Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 80-0057 from PAI. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-****; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-087-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2007-0225, dated August 14, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Due to pressurization loads, the fuselage frame of the emergency exit door could suffer from fatigue and develop cracks in its corners. The superseded Italian Airworthiness Directive

(PAI)designed new suitable part numbers introduced by Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 80-0057. The present AD mandates modification of the fuselage emergency door frame in accordance with Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 80-0057 from PAI. The MCAI requires the modification of the fuselage frame of the emergency door, using the newly designed door pan assembly and doubler and following Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin N. 80-0057, Revision 1, dated May 31, 2007. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin N. 80-0057, Revision 1, dated May 31, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 70 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $14,105 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $610,855, or $19,705 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0294; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-087-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by January 14, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to PIAGGIO P-180 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers

(MSN)1001, 1002, 1004, and MSN 1006 through 1033, that:

(1)are certificated in any category; and

(2)have not been modified in accordance with Piaggio Aero Industries Service Bulletin No. 80-0057, dated February 7, 1995. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 53: Fuselage. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Due to pressurization loads, the fuselage frame of the emergency exit door could suffer from fatigue and develop cracks in its corners. The superseded Italian Airworthiness Directive

(f)Unless already done, replace the emergency exit door pan assembly part number (P/N) 80-111152-401 with a new door pan assembly P/N 80-111152-405, and a new doubler reinforcement P/N 80-111604-001, following Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin N. 80-0057, Revision 1, dated May 31, 2007, at whichever of the following occurs later:

(i)When the airplane reaches 4,500 hours total time-in-service (TIS); or

(ii)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD or 500 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever of these occurs first. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No.: 2007-0225, dated August 14, 2007; and Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin N. 80-0057, Revision 1, dated May 31, 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 10, 2007. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-24216 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0040] RIN 1218-AC08 Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Agency is proposing to remove several references to consensus standards that have requirements that duplicate or are comparable to other OSHA rules; this rulemaking also includes correcting a paragraph citation in one these OSHA rules. In addition, the Agency is proposing to remove the reference to American Welding Society standard A3.0-1969 (“Terms and Definitions”) in its general-industry welding standards. OSHA also is publishing a direct final rule in today's **Federal Register** taking these same actions. This NPRM is the companion document to the direct final rule. This rulemaking is a continuation of OSHA's ongoing effort to update references to consensus and industry standards used throughout its rules. DATES: Comments to this NPRM (including comments to the information-collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of companion direct final rule), hearing requests, and other information must be submitted by January 14, 2008. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. (See the following section titled ADDRESSES for methods you can use in making submissions.) ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing requests may be submitted as follows: • *Electronic.* Comments may be submitted electronically to *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. • *Facsimile.* OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is

(877)889-5627.) Note that security-related problems may result in significant delays in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. • *Instructions.* All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0040). Comments and other material, including any personal information, are placed in the public docket without revision, and will be available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal information (either about themselves or others) such as social security numbers, birth dates, and medical data. OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this NPRM. It also welcomes comments on its findings that there would be no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts of this NPRM on the regulated community. This NPRM is the companion document to a direct final rule also published in today's **Federal Register** . If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment on the companion direct final rule, it will publish a **Federal Register** document confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and withdrawing this NPRM. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical corrections to the document. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA considers the date that it confirms the effective date of the direct final rule to be the date of issuance. However, if OSHA receives significant adverse comment on the direct final rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and proceed with this NPRM addressing the same standards. • *Docket.* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press inquiries contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:

(202)693-2255; fax:

(202)693-1888. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice, as well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion of the Proposal OSHA is proposing to remove several references to outdated consensus standards in its general-industry rules that have requirements that duplicate or are comparable to other OSHA rules. In addition, the Agency is correcting a paragraph citation in one these OSHA rules. The Agency also proposes to remove the reference to American Welding Society standard A3.0-1969 (“Terms and Definitions”) in its general-industry welding standards. This NPRM is the companion document to a direct final rule concerning the same standards published in the “Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** . For a complete discussion of this action, the relevant consensus standards and OSHA standards affected by this NPRM, as well as a discussion of the economic analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act certification, paperwork determination, issues involving federalism and State-Plan States, and OSHA's response under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, see the preamble to the direct final rule. II. Public Participation OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this NPRM. The Agency also welcomes comments on its findings that this rulemaking would have no negative economic or other regulatory impacts of this NPRM on the regulated community. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment, it will publish a **Federal Register** document confirming the effective date contained in the companion direct final rule and withdrawing this NPRM. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical corrections to the document. A full discussion of what constitutes a significant adverse comment is contained in the companion direct final rule. The Agency will withdraw the direct final rule if it receives significant adverse comment on the amendments contained in the direct final rule, and proceed with this NPRM by addressing the comment and publishing a new final rule. Should the Agency receive a significant adverse comment regarding some actions taken in the direct final rule, but not others, it may

(1)finalize those actions that did not receive significant adverse comment, and

(2)conduct further rulemaking under this NPRM for the actions that received significant adverse comment. The comment period for this NPRM runs concurrently with that of the direct final rule. Therefore, any comments received under this NPRM will be treated as comments regarding the direct final rule. Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to the direct final rule will be considered as comments to this NPRM; the Agency will consider such comments in developing a subsequent final rule. Comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. Accordingly OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates. List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1910 General industry, Health, Occupational safety and health, Safety, Welding. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this proposed rule. The Agency is issuing this rule under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR Part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC on Friday, December 7, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. III. Amendments to Standards OSHA is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1910 to read as follows: PART 1910—[AMENDED] Subpart A—[Amended] 1. Revise the authority citation for subpart A of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable. Section 1910.6 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993). 2. In § 1910.6: a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(5), (e)(62), and (e)(63), and (i)(1); and b. Revise paragraphs (e)(15), (e)(49), and (q)(3) to read as follows: § 1910.6 Incorporation by reference.

(e)* * *

(15)ANSI B7.1-70 Safety Code for the Use, Care and Protection of Abrasive Wheels, IBR approved for §§ 1910.215(b)(12) and 1910.218(j).

(49)ANSI Z9.1-51 Safety Code for Ventilation and Operation of Open Surface Tanks, IBR approved for 1910.261(a)(3)(xix), (g)(18)(v), and (h)(2)(i).

(q)* * *

(3)NFPA 33-1969 Standard for Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Material, IBR approved for § 1910.94(c)(2). Subpart F—[Amended] 3-4. Revise the authority citation for subpart F of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 5. Revise paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(8)(ii) of § 1910.68 to read as follows: § 1910.68 Manlifts.

(b)* * *

(4)*Reference to other codes and subparts* . The following codes and subparts of this part are applicable to this section: Safety Code for Mechanical Power Transmission Apparatus, ANSI B15.1-1953 (R 1958); Safety Code for Fixed Ladders, ANSI A14.3-1956; and subparts D, O, and S. The preceding ANSI standards are incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.

(8)* * *

(ii)*Construction* . The rails shall be standard guardrails with toeboards meeting the provisions of § 1910.23. Subpart G—[Amended] 6. Revise the authority citation for subpart G of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911. Section 1910.94 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. 7. Revise paragraphs (b)(5)(1)( *a* ), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(3)(i) introductory text, (c)(3)(i)( *a* ), (c)(3)(iii) introductory text, (c)(3)(iii)( *a* ), (c)(5)(i) introductory text, and (c)(5)(iii)( *e* ) of § 1910.94 to read as follows: § 1910.94 Ventilation.

(b)* * *

(c)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)*Spray booth* . Spray booths are defined and described in § 1910.107(a).

(3)* * *

(5)* * *

(i)Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with provisions of § 1910.107(d), and in accordance with the following:

(iii)* * * ( *e* ) Inspection or clean-out doors shall be provided for every 9 to 12 feet of running length for ducts up to 12 inches in diameter, but the distance between cleanout doors may be greater for larger pipes. A clean-out door or doors shall be provided for servicing the fan, and where necessary, a drain shall be provided. Subpart H—[Amended] 8. Revise the authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119, 1910.120, and 1910.122 through 1910.126 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1910.119 also issued under Section 304, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note. Section 1910.120 also issued under Section 126, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553. 9. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(i)( *c* ) of § 1910.103 to read as follows: § 1910.103 Hydrogen.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(c)* * *

(1)* * *

(b)* * *

(5)* * *

(e)* * *

(a)* * *

(1)* * *

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(c)of § 1910.251. 19. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of § 1910.253 to read as follows: § 1910.253 Oxygen-fuel gas welding and cutting.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)Compressed gas cylinders shall be legibly marked, for the purpose of identifying the gas content, with either the chemical or the trade name of the gas. Such marking shall be by means of stenciling, stamping, or labeling, and shall not be readily removable. Whenever practical, the marking shall be located on the shoulder of the cylinder. Subpart R—[Amended] 20. Revise the authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 21. Revise paragraphs (c)(15)(ii), (e)(4), (g)(13)(i), (h)(1), (j)(4)(iii), (j)(5)(i), (k)(6), (k)(13)(i), and (k)(15) of § 1910.261 to read as follows: § 1910.261 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.

(c)* * *

(15)* * *

(e)* * *

(g)* * *

(13)* * *

(h)* * *

(j)* * *

(4)* * *

(5)* * *

(k)* * *

(6)*Steps.* Steps of uniform rise and tread with nonslip surfaces shall be provided at each press in accordance with § 1910.23.

(13)* * *

(i)A guardrail shall be provided at broke holes in accordance with § 1910.23.

(15)*Steps.* Steps or ladders of uniform rise and tread with nonslip surfaces shall be provided at each calendar stack. Handrails and hand grips shall be provided at each calendar stack in accordance with § 1910.23. [FR Doc. E7-24182 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1155; FRL-8506-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Updated Statutory and Regulatory Provisions; Rescissions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to approve certain revisions, and to disapprove certain other revisions, to the Nevada State Implementation Plan submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on January 12, 2006 and June 26, 2007. The provisions that are proposed for approval include certain definitions; prohibitory rules; provisions related to legal authority and enforcement; rules establishing opacity, sulfur and volatile organic compound limits; and rescission of abbreviations. The proposed approval of a certain statutory provision related to legal authority is contingent upon receipt of public process documentation of adoption of the provision as a revision to the state implementation plan. The proposed disapproval relates to rescission of a certain definition and rescission of a rule related to emission discharge information. EPA is proposing this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on submittals of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to update the Nevada state implementation plan with amended or recodified rules and with an amended statutory provision and to rescind a provision found to be unnecessary for further retention in the plan. DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1155, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4115, *steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. The State's Submittal A. Which SIP revisions did the State submit? B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP? C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. Amended Rules and Statutory Provision B. Rule Rescissions C. Rule Recodifications III. Public Comment and Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. Which SIP revisions did the State submit? On February 16, 2005, the Governor's designee, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), submitted a large revision to the applicable Nevada State Implementation Plan

(SIP)to EPA for approval under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”). The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal includes new and amended statutory provisions and rules as well as rescissions of certain statutory provisions and rules approved by EPA into the applicable SIP. The statutes, rules and rescissions submitted by NDEP on February 16, 2005 relate to definitions, administrative requirements, prohibitory rules, and permitting-related requirements and procedures. The February 16, 2005 SIP submittal also contains documentation of public participation (i.e., notice and public hearing) and adoption for all rule amendments up to and including those adopted by the State Environmental Commission on November 30, 2004. On January 12, 2006, NDEP re-submitted most of the earlier submittal as modified to reflect new or amended rules adopted by the State Environmental Commission on October 4, 2005. The January 12, 2006 SIP revision submittal supersedes the regulatory portion of the earlier SIP submittal but is not a complete re-submittal in that it did not include the documentation of public notice and hearing previously submitted. The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal does include such documentation for amendments adopted by the commission on October 4, 2005. The primary purpose of these SIP submittals is to clarify and harmonize the provisions approved by EPA under section 110 of the Act with the current provisions adopted by the State. Because these SIP submittals incorporate so many changes from 1970s and 1980s vintage SIP regulations, EPA has decided to review and act on them in a series of separate actions. The first such action, related to various definitions, sulfur emission rules, and restrictions on open burning and use of incinerators was proposed in the **Federal Register** on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53975) and finalized on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15040). The second such action, related to statutory authority, was proposed on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413) and finalized on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51766). A third action, related to most of the State's rescission requests, was proposed on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50875); EPA finalized action on most of the rescissions covered by the August 28th proposal on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 11), finalized rescission of a Federal Implementation Plan

(FIP)for regulation of fugitive sulfur oxides emissions from a defunct copper smelter on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32529), and finalized action on the rest of the rescissions covered by the August 28th proposal on November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62119). A fourth action, related to monitoring and volatile organic compound

(VOC)rules, was proposed on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51793) and finalized on December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71486). A fifth action, related to excess emissions provisions, was proposed on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 75690) but has not yet been finalized. A sixth action, related to visible emissions and particulate matter rules, was proposed on March 12, 2007 (72 FR 10960) and finalized on May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25971). A seventh action, related to permitting-related rules, was proposed on April 17, 2007 (72 FR 19144) but has not been finalized. Upon publication of the seventh action cited above, we have at least proposed action on all of the new or amended rules submitted by NDEP on January 12, 2006, except for Nevada Administrative Code

(NAC)NAC 445B.227 (“Prohibited conduct: Operation of source without required equipment; removal or modification of required equipment: modification of required procedure”) and NAC 445B.200 (“ ‘Violation’ defined”). We include NAC 445B.227 in today's proposed rule. We will take action on NAC 445B.200, which is a permitting-related definition, in a separate rulemaking. Also, upon publication of the seventh action cited above, we have at least proposed action on all of the rescissions submitted by NDEP on January 12, 2006 except for rule 25 of general order number 3 of the Nevada Public Service Commission, NAC 445.655 (“Abbreviations”), NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”), and Nevada Revised Statutes

(NRS)704.820 to 704.900 (“Construction of utility facilities: utility environmental protection act”). We include the rescissions of NAC 445.655 (“Abbreviations”) and NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”) in today's proposed rule. We will take action NDEP's rescissions of rule 25 of general order number 3 and NRS 704.820 to 704.900, which are permitting-related provisions, in a separate rulemaking. NDEP has submitted a number of SIP revisions supplementing or superseding portions of the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal, but the only relevant supplemental SIP revision for the purposes of this rulemaking is the one submitted on June 26, 2007. NDEP organized the June 26, 2007 SIP submittal into four parts. The first part contains public participation documentation for 11 rescissions that we proposed to approve in our August 28, 2006 proposed rule. We took final action on the 11 rescissions on November 2, 2007 (72 FR 62119). The second part contains amended rules and an amended statutory provision that would replace corresponding existing provisions in the Nevada SIP. In the third part, NDEP requests rescission of existing rule NAC 445.436 (“ ‘Air contaminant’ defined”) from the SIP. The fourth part contains recodifications of rules recently approved by EPA into the SIP. We include the second, third, and fourth parts of NDEP's June 26, 2007 SIP submittal in this rulemaking. Table 1 lists amended rules or statutory provisions intended to replace early 1980's versions of these provisions. The provisions listed in table 1 include NAC 445B.227, which was submitted on January 12, 2006, and the seven amended rules and one amended statutory provision submitted by NDEP on June 26, 2007. Table 1.—Submitted Rules and Statutory Provision Submitted NAC or NRS Title Adoption date Submittal date NAC 445B.172 “Six-Minute Period” defined 09/16/76 06/26/07 NAC 445B.190 “Stop order” defined 11/03/93 06/26/07 NAC 445B.220 Severability 09/06/06 06/26/07 NAC 445B.225 Prohibited conduct: Concealment of emissions 10/03/95 06/26/07 NAC 445B.227 Prohibited conduct: Operation of source without required equipment; removal or modification of required equipment: Modification of required procedure 10/03/95 01/12/06 NAC 445B.229 Hazardous emissions: Order for reduction or discontinuance 10/03/95 06/26/07 NAC 445B.275 Violations: Acts constituting; notice 03/08/06 06/26/07 NAC 445B.277 Stop orders 03/08/06 06/26/07 NRS 445B.310 Limitations on enforcement of federal and state regulations concerning indirect sources No adoption date 06/26/07 Table 2 lists three rules that NDEP seeks to rescind from the existing SIP. NDEP's rescission of NAC 445.655 and NAC 445.694 are included in the January 12, 2006 SIP submittal, and NDEP's rescission of NAC 445.436 is included in the June 26, 2007 SIP submittal. Table 2.—Requested Rescissions SIP rule Title Submittal date Approval date NAC 445.436 “Air contaminant” defined 10/26/82 06/26/84 NAC 445.655 Abbreviations 10/26/82 06/26/84 NAC 445.694 Emission discharge information 10/26/82 06/26/84 Table 3 lists rule recodifications submitted by NDEP to EPA on June 26, 2007 to replace corresponding SIP rules recently approved by EPA in the Nevada SIP. The recodified rules reflect the January 2007 update to chapter 445B of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), as published by the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. Table 3.—Submitted Rule Recodifications Recodified rule Title Submittal date NAC 445B.001 Definitions 06/26/07 NAC 445B.063 “Excess emissions” defined 06/26/07 NAC 445B.153 “Regulated air pollutant” defined 06/26/07 NAC 445B.22017 Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring of opacity 06/26/07 NAC 445B.2202 Visible emissions: Exceptions for stationary sources 06/26/07 NAC 445B.22043 Sulfur emissions: Calculation of total feed sulfur 06/26/07 NAC 445B.2205 Sulfur emissions: Other processes which emit sulfur 06/26/07 NAC 445B.22093 Organic solvents and other volatile compounds 06/26/07 B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP? Pursuant to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor of Nevada submitted the original Nevada SIP to EPA in January 1972. EPA approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other portions under CAA section 110(a). See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). For some of the disapproved portions of the original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions under CAA section 110(c). 1 This original SIP included various rules, codified as articles within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory provisions codified in chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and recodified its air quality rules into sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality statutes in chapter 445B (“Air Pollution”) of title 40 (“Public Health and Safety”) of the NRS. 1 Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA section 110(c) in substitution of disapproved State provisions are referred to as Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs). Nevada adopted and submitted many revisions to the original set of regulations and statutes in the SIP, some of which EPA approved at various times between 1975 and 1984. Since 1984, EPA had approved very few revisions to Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted by the State Environmental Commission. As a result, the version of the rules enforceable by NDEP was often quite different from the SIP version enforceable by EPA. The difference between the two sets of rules is sometimes referred to as the “SIP gap,” and closing the gap was one of the primary motivations behind NDEP's comprehensive SIP update that produced the February 16, 2005 and January 12, 2006 SIP submittals followed by supplemental SIP submittals such as the June 26, 2007 SIP submittal. C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation under the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations of certain provisions, rescissions, and recodifications contained in NDEP's January 12, 2006 and June 26, 2007 SIP revision submittals. The provisions submitted for approval include updated definitions; updated administrative, enforcement, and prohibitory rules; and a statutory provision related to legal authority. The rescissions relate to a certain definition, abbreviations, and a rule involving emission discharge information. The rule recodifications involve minor changes to rule titles and historical notes in certain definitions, particulate matter rules, sulfur emission rules, and a volatile organic compound rule. We provide our reasoning in general terms below but provide a more detailed analysis in the technical support document

(TSD)that has been prepared for this proposed rulemaking. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action We reviewed the provisions, rescissions, and recodifications submitted by NDEP that are listed in the three tables above for compliance with CAA requirements for SIPs in general as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51 and also for compliance with requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l). 2 Our consideration of the rules submitted on January 12, 2006 and June 26, 2007, and evaluated herein, takes into account the public participation documentation contained in the February 16, 2005 and January 12, 2006 SIP submittals. For the submitted rule recodifications, our review is cursory in nature consistent with EPA memorandum, “Review of State Regulation Recodifications,” from Johnnie L. Pearson, Chief, Regional Activities Branch, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated February 12, 1990. 2 CAA section 110(l) states: “Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” A. Amended Rules and Statutory Provision Based on a review of applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements and a comparison with the corresponding existing SIP provisions that they would replace, we propose to approve all of the provisions listed in table 1 above. In general, the submitted provisions mirror the corresponding provisions in the existing SIP or would strengthen the SIP by eliminating exceptions, deleting limitations, or expanding legal authority, and thereby would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. With respect to public participation requirements under CAA section 110(l), we find that adequate documentation has been submitted by NDEP (or otherwise acquired by EPA) to show compliance with CAA procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l) except for NRS 445B.310. Thus, our proposed approval of NRS 445B.310 is contingent upon receipt of documentation of notice and opportunity for public hearing on adoption of NRS 445B.310 as a revision to the Nevada SIP. 3 3 In so doing, we recognize that we have not consistently required the State of Nevada to submit public participation documentation for SIP revisions involving statutory provisions and should have done so. With Nevada rules, we typically consider the public process conducted by the relevant State administrative agency (usually the State Environmental Commission) in adopting new or amended rules as adequate to comply the procedural requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110(l). In contrast to rules, however, Nevada statutory provisions are typically submitted to EPA without an analogous public process, and thus NDEP must conduct a public process specifically for the purpose of adopting statutory provisions as a revision to the SIP to comply with section 110(l). Our TSD provides additional background information and a more detailed rationale for our proposed approval of the provisions listed in table 1 above. B. Rule Rescissions We have reviewed the rescissions listed in table 2 to determine whether any of them should be retained to comply with CAA or EPA requirements for SIPs, whether rescission of any of them would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, or whether any of them should be retained as a practical matter because of reliance on them by other SIP rules. Based on this review, we have found that NAC 445.436 (“`Air contaminant' defined”) should be retained because it is relied upon by certain SIP rules that remain in the applicable SIP. We find that NAC 445.655 (“Abbreviations”) may be rescinded because the abbreviations listed therein that are not simply superseded by our approval of the current version of the rule (i.e., NAC 445B.211 (“Abbreviations”), approved on March 27, 2006 at 71 FR 15040) are not relied upon by any rules in the applicable SIP. Lastly, with respect to NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”), we find that the rule should be retained to comply with requirements under 40 CFR 51.116(c). Therefore, we propose to disapprove the rescission requests for NAC 445.436 and NAC 445.694 and to approve the rescission request for NAC 445.655. Our TSD provides additional background information and a more detailed rationale for our proposed actions on the rescissions listed in table 2 above. C. Rule Recodifications We have compared the rule recodifications submitted by NDEP and listed in table 3 above with the corresponding SIP rules to ensure that the changes are administrative in nature. Based on this comparison, we find all of the changes, which include revised titles and updates to internal rule references and historical notes, to be administrative in nature and acceptable. Therefore, we propose to approve the rule recodifications listed in table 3, above. Our TSD provides additional background information and discussion for our proposed approval of the rule recodifications listed in table 3 above. III. Public Comment and Proposed Action Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act and for the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve certain revisions, and to disapprove certain other revisions, to the Nevada SIP submitted by NDEP on January 12, 2006 and June 26, 2007. The provisions that are proposed for approval include certain definitions; prohibitory rules; provisions related to legal authority and enforcement; rules establishing opacity, sulfur and volatile organic compound limits; and rescission of abbreviations. The proposed approval of a certain statutory provision related to legal authority is contingent upon receipt of public process documentation of adoption of the provision as a revision to the state implementation plan. The proposed disapproval relates to rescission of a certain definition and rescission of a rule related to emission discharge information. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final rule that will approve the new or amended rules shown in table 1, above, approve the rescission of existing SIP rule NAC 445.655 (“Abbreviations”), approve the rule recodifications shown in table 3, above, as revisions to the Nevada SIP, but retain existing SIP rules NAC 445.436 (“`Air contaminant' defined”) and NAC 445.694 (“Emission discharge information”) in the SIP. 4 5 4 The approval of submitted statutory provision NRS 445B.310 is contingent upon receipt of public process documentation from NDEP adopting this provision as a revision to the Nevada SIP. 5 Final approval of the provisions listed in table 1 of this notice would supersede the following provisions in the applicable SIP (superseding rules shown in parentheses) upon the established compliance date for any new or amended requirements in the superseding provisions: NAC 445.617 (NAC 445B.172), NAC 445.630 (NAC 445B.190), NAC 445.660 (NAC 445B.220), NAC 445.663 (NAC 445B.225), NAC 445.664 (NAC 445B.227), NAC 445.665 (NAC 445B.229), NAC.696 (NAC 445B.275), NAC 445.697 (NAC 445B.277), and NRS 445.493 (NRS 445B.310). Final approval of the rule recodifications listed in table 3 of this notice would supersede rules with the same section number in NAC chapter 445B. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve state law implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 30, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-24243 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 07-203] Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission tentatively concludes that it should amend the Commission's rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(TCPA)to require telemarketers to honor registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry so that registrations will not automatically expire based on the five year registration period. The Commission proposes extending this requirement indefinitely to minimize the inconvenience to consumers of having to re-register their preferences not to receive telemarketing calls and to further the underlying goal of the National Registry to protect consumer privacy rights. Also in this document, the Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and on how best to coordinate this rule change with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). DATES: Comments are due on or before January 14, 2008. Reply comments are due on or before January 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 02-278 and/or FCC Number 07-203, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting electronic filings. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting electronic filings. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone

(202)418-0539 or TTY:

(202)418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting electronic filings and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynne Montgomery, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Policy Division, at

(202)418-2229 (voice), or e-mail *Lynne.Montgomery@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 3, 2003, the Commission released the *Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991,* Report and Order ( *2003 TCPA Order* ), CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, published at 68 FR 44144, July 25, 2003, revising the TCPA rules, and adopted new rules to provide consumers with several options for avoiding unwanted telephone solicitations. These new rules established a national do-not-call registry, set a maximum rate on the number of abandoned calls, required telemarketers to transmit caller ID information, and modified the Commission's unsolicited facsimile advertising requirements. This is a summary of the Commission's document *Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM),* CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 07-203, adopted November 27, 2007, and released December 4, 2007, seeking comment on its tentative conclusion to amend its rules to eliminate the five-year registration period for the Do-Not-Call Registry and require telemarketers to honor registrations indefinitely, unless the consumer has cancelled the registration or the database administrator removes the telephone number because it was disconnected or reassigned. The *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM* does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4). Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for CG Docket No. 02-278. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the docket number, CG Docket No. 02-278. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption in this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies of each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. *See* 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written *ex parte* presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). A copy of document FCC 07-203 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554,

(202)418-0270. Document FCC 07-203 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com,* or call

(800)378-3160. A copy of document FCC 07-203 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS)at *http://www.fcc.gov.cgb/ecfs* (insert CG Docket No. 02-278 into the Proceeding block). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 07-203 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format

(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.* Synopsis The Commission tentatively concludes that it should amend its rules so that telemarketers will be required to honor registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry until the registration is cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator because it was disconnected or reassigned. Under this tentative conclusion, consumer registrations will not expire after five years. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and how to implement this rule change in coordination with the FTC. The National Do-Not-Call Registry was adopted in large part to make it easier and more efficient for consumers to prevent unwanted telemarketing calls. As explained in Reports to Congress, the Commission believes the number of telephone numbers added to the Registry and the FCC's experience in both helping to ensure compliance with the Registry and in enforcing the do-not-call rules are strong indicators that the Registry has been successful in curbing the number of unwanted telemarketing calls. Therefore, the Commission is concerned that, starting June 28, 2008, five years after the opening of the registry, as many as 10 million registered numbers will expire and be automatically removed from the database, unless consumers take steps to re-register the numbers. By August 2008, as many as 20 million additional numbers will potentially expire and be purged from the registry. Such expirations will leave millions of consumers without protection against unwanted telemarketing calls—protections they have come to rely on since registering their numbers in 2003. Removing the current 5-year registration period will alleviate any burdens on consumers associated with re-registering numbers, including the time and effort necessary to register and the need to remember when to re-register. The Commission believes requiring telemarketers to continue honoring do-not-call registrations will also minimize any consumer confusion resulting from a sudden increase in telemarketing calls received when registrations begin to expire next year. In addition, eliminating the need to re-register numbers every five years should lower the cost of operating the National Registry. In adopting the National Registry, the Commission was mindful of concerns regarding the accuracy of the database. Initially, the Commission determined that a re-registration requirement should be included given that telephone numbers change hands, are disconnected and reassigned over time. However, the Commission believes the database administrator's use of technology to check all registered telephone numbers on a monthly basis and remove those numbers that have been disconnected or reassigned will maintain the database's high-level of accuracy. In addition, consumers will continue to be able to verify or cancel their registration status using either the telephone or Internet. Allowing consumers to verify their registration status or cancel their registrations at any time also enhances the accuracy of the National Registry. The Commission recognizes that absent a similar change in the FTC's policies, numbers that have been in the Registry for five years may be purged by the database administrator beginning in June 2008, and that telemarketers will no longer have access to those numbers in order to avoid calling them. The Commission notes, however, that the FTC recently committed that “it will not drop any telephone numbers from the Registry based on the five-year expiration period pending final Congressional or agency action on whether to make registration permanent.” The Commission envisions working closely with the FTC to ensure that telephone numbers are not removed at the end of the 5-year registration period, and that telemarketers continue to have access to those numbers. The Commission seeks comment on how best to coordinate with the FTC to most effectively institute this rule change in a meaningful, consistent way. In light of our tentative conclusion and the FTC's indication that it will retain registrations after the 5-year period, the Commission believes the Registry will continue to operate as it does today. The Commission, therefore, seeks comment on what impact, if any, our proposed rule change would have on telemarketers, particularly small businesses. Because telemarketers would be required to continue honoring do-not-call registrations as they do now, the Commission tentatively concludes that the enhanced consumer privacy protections created by this proposed rule amendment, taken in conjunction with the benefits to the federal government in administering the National Registry, outweigh any potential impact. The Commission believes making registrations permanent adequately balances the need to maintain a high level of accuracy in the national registry with the desire to have a simple and effective means to limit unwanted telemarketing calls. The proposed rule changes do not impose any new or modified information collection requirements. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM.* Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. The Commission will send a copy of this *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM,* including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules In 2003, the Commission released the *2003 TCPA Order* revising the TCPA rules to respond to changes in the marketplace for telemarketing. Specifically, the Commission established in conjunction with the FTC a National Do-Not-Call Registry for consumers who wish to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. The National Do-Not-Call Registry supplements long-standing company-specific rules which require companies to maintain lists of consumers who have directed the company not to contact them by phone. The *2003 TCPA Order* required telemarketers to honor do-not-call registrations on the National Registry for five years. It also revised the company-specific do-not-call rules to reduce the retention period for such do-not-call requests from ten to five years. This Notice tentatively concludes to amend the Commission's rules so that registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry will not expire after a period of five years. Telemarketers will instead be required to honor such registrations until consumers cancel the registrations or the numbers are removed because they were disconnected or reassigned. Legal Basis The proposed action is authorized under sections 1-4, 227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Public Law Number 102-243, 105 Statute 2394; and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, Public Law Number 108-10, 117 Statute 557. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The modifications to the regulations proposed in this item on telephone solicitation apply to a wide range of entities, including all entities that use the telephone to advertise. That is, the proposed rule changes would affect the myriad of businesses throughout the nation that use telemarketing to advertise. Thus, the Commission expects that the proposals in the *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM,* could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including the following: *Interexchange Carriers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's *Telephone Trends Report* data, 281 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of these 281 carriers, an estimated 254 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 27 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by the rules. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's *Telephone Trends Report* data, 1,310 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. *Wireless Service Providers.* In November of 2007, the SBA developed a small business size standard for small businesses in the category “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).” Under that SBA category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. For a census category that existed for a prior version of the NAICS codes, namely “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. Ordinarily, the Commission does not seek comment on the entities that must comply with proposed rules. However, the proposed rules in this document potentially could apply to any entity, including any telecommunications carrier that uses the telephone to advertise. Thus, under these unusual circumstances, the Commission seeks comment on whether the approximately 4.44 million small business firms in the United States, as identified in SBA data, will need to comply with these rules, or whether it is reasonable to assume that only a subset of them will be subject to these rules given that not all small businesses use the telephone for advertising purposes. After evaluating the comments, the Commission will examine further the effect any rule changes might have on small entities not named herein, and will set forth our findings in the final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities The *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM* proposes to amend the National Do-Not-Call Registry rules to require telemarketers to honor registrations until consumers cancel their registrations. This proposed rule change will affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, as numbers currently registered will not be removed from the Registry after five years. However, as long as the FTC similarly changes its policies, we expect that telemarketers would continue to access the Registry and avoid calling numbers on the Registry as they are required to do so today. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The Commission is considering amending its rules to require telemarketers to honor national do-not-call registrations indefinitely and is seeking comment on this option. The alternative would be to not modify the rules and leave the registration period at 5 years. This would result is millions of national do-not-call registrations being removed from the registry in 2008 and leaving consumers without protection from unwanted telemarketing calls unless they take action to re-register. Small businesses, which believe the elimination of any date of expiration for registrations would impact their business in a negative way, are requested to file comments and advise the Commission about such an impact. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule The FCC's TCPA rules and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule are duplicative in part. Should the Commission determine to amend its rules and there is no similar amendment made to the FTC's policies, the two sets of rules may be inconsistent. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to sections 1-4, 227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 227 and 303(r); and § 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1200, the *Do-Not-Call NPRM* in CG Docket No. 02-278 is adopted. The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the *Do-Not-Call Registry NPRM* on or before January 14, 2008, and reply comments on or before January 28, 2008. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 Telecommunications, Telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows: PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B),(c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 64.1200 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory text and (c)(2)(i)(D) to read as follows: § 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

(c)* * *

(2)A residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government. Any person or entity making telephone solicitations (or on whose behalf telephone solicitations are made) will not be liable for violating this requirement if:

(i)* * *

(D)*Accessing the national do-not-call database.* It uses a process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number on any list established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator of the registry no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made, and maintains records documenting this process; and Note to paragraph(c)(2)(i)(D): The requirement in paragraph 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D) for persons or entities to employ a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made is effective January 1, 2005. Until January 1, 2005, persons or entities must continue to employ a version of the registry obtained from the administrator of the registry no more than three months prior to the date any call is made. [FR Doc. E7-24280 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 223 [Docket No. 071120724-7618-01] RIN 0648-AU92 Endangered and Threatened Species; Conservation of Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of availability of a draft environmental assessment. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are proposing to issue protective regulations under of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)for two species listed as threatened, the elkhorn coral and the staghorn coral. The proposed regulations would apply all the prohibitions enumerated in the ESA to these two coral species, with limited exceptions for two specified classes of activities that contribute to the conservation of the listed corals. In addition, we are announcing the availability of an environmental assessment

(EA)that analyzes the impacts of promulgating these regulations. We are furnishing this notification to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review. DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by March 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)0648-AU92, by any of the following methods: • Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Facsimile

(fax)to: 727-824-5309. • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do no submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moore or Sarah Heberling, NMFS, at the address above or at 727-824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, at 301-713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 9, 2006, we published a final rule listing elkhorn (Acropora palmata) and staghorn (A. cervicornis) corals as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 26852). The final listing rule describes the background of the listing actions for elkhorn and staghorn corals and provides a summary of our conclusions regarding the status of the listed corals. We have not previously proposed any regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA for listed corals. Section 4(d) of the ESA provides that whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall issue such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Such regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions in ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed as endangered. Those section 9(a)(1) prohibitions make it unlawful with limited specified exceptions, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to: “(A) import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States;

(B)take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States;

(C)take any such species upon the high seas;

(D)possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs

(B)and (C);

(E)deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species;

(F)sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or

(G)violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this Act.” Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for violation of section 9 or regulations issued under the ESA. Whether section 9(a)(1) prohibitions or other regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species depends in large part upon the biological status of the species, the potential impacts of various activities on the species, and on factors such as the existence and efficacy of other conservation activities. The two acroporid coral species have survived for millions of years through cycles in ocean conditions and climate. However, as a part of the listing process, we concluded their abundances have been dramatically reduced to less than three percent of former population levels by disease, elevated sea surface temperature, and hurricanes. Additionally, given the extremely reduced population sizes of these species, we determined that the following lesser stressors are contributing to the threatened status of the species: sedimentation, anthropogenic abrasion and breakage, competition, excessive nutrients, predation, contaminants, loss of genetic diversity, African dust, elevated carbon dioxide levels, and sponge boring. We concluded that, within the jurisdiction of the United States, existing regulations have abated the threat posed by collection of the two species; however, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to abate the myriad other threats causing the species' status. Although elkhorn and staghorn corals are not currently endangered, they are likely to become so within the foreseeable future because of a combination of four of the five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and this status is not being ameliorated by state or foreign government efforts to protect the species. Therefore, as discussed below, we have determined it is necessary and advisable in most circumstances to apply the section 9 prohibitions to both these threatened coral species, in order to provide for their conservation. Application of Section 9 Prohibitions to Listed Corals As discussed above, the two coral species have declined to less than three percent of their former abundances and are currently impacted by myriad stressors that are acting simultaneously on the species throughout their ranges. We determined the major stressors (i.e., disease, elevated sea surface temperature, and hurricanes) to these species' persistence are severe, unpredictable, likely to increase in the foreseeable future, and, at current levels of knowledge, unmanageable. While the lesser stressors, enumerated above, have not been the primary causes of the species' decline, managing them will contribute to the conservation of the two species by slowing the rate of decline and reducing the synergistic effects of multiple stressors on the species. Therefore, we believe that the ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are necessary and advisable for the conservation of threatened elkhorn and staghorn corals, specifically to address the lesser stressors that are amenable to management. We believe that the prohibitions are not necessary and advisable in specific circumstances, and we are proposing specific exceptions for importation, exportation, and take, which are more fully described in the next section. Below is our discussion of the section 9 prohibitions which we are proposing to extend to the two listed corals. Section 9(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation and exportation of endangered species to or from the United States. We believe that it is necessary and advisable to extend this prohibition to elkhorn and staghorn corals. Existing laws prohibit and restrict extraction and trade of live elkhorn and staghorn corals. International agreement restricts international trade of both elkhorn and staghorn corals (Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species or CITES). Federal regulations prohibit harvest or possession of elkhorn or staghorn coral in Federal waters (e.g., Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Coral Fisheries Management Plans), and the Lacey Act prohibits trade of illegally obtained specimens. Sale of coral extracted from any waters is illegal in the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I.), Puerto Rico, and Florida, except that the sale of live elkhorn and staghorn corals extracted from Florida waters or the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)is legal when these corals are products of aquaculture (e.g., the corals have settled and grown on live rock products). Neither threatened coral species, however, is a product of commercial aquaculture anywhere within the United States, nor is there a directed market for either elkhorn or staghorn corals. More information on the specific Federal, state, and local laws and regulations concerning the import and export of corals is available in the Atlantic *Acropora* Status Review Document (BRT, 2005) or the Regulatory Impact Review for this proposed rule. As discussed in the status review document, prior to listing the two species as threatened under the ESA, there was no evidence of extraction of live specimens from Federal or state waters, nor evidence of trade of live specimens taken from foreign waters and imported into the United States for aquaria or other uses. Lack of extraction and trade of live specimens prior to the listing of these corals can be attributed mostly to existing laws and regulations. However, it is possible that the ESA listing might encourage a black market for the trade of these species, as evidenced by the trade of other threatened and endangered species (e.g., sturgeon eggs, elephant ivory). The increased public exposure to these rare corals due to the ESA listing may make the two species more desirable for aquaria or other uses. Therefore, to prevent this activity and to support existing regulations concerning the import and export of these corals, we find it necessary and advisable to extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A) prohibition to elkhorn and staghorn corals in order to provide for the conservation of the two species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States, and section 9(a)(1)(C) of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species upon the high seas for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Activities that constitute harm may include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). At the time of the drafting of the ESA, the high seas were defined as those waters not under any country's legal jurisdiction, and no country had yet designated an Exclusive Economic Zone (i.e., 200 nautical miles). Thus, “take on the high seas” is interpreted as take beyond any country's territorial seas, in the meaning of the ESA when it was first enacted. Based on available information, the territorial seas of countries within the range of the two threatened coral species end no more than 12 nautical miles NM (22.2 km) offshore (See, “Table of claims to maritime jurisdiction” as at December 29, 2006, at *http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf* ). Take of the listed corals can result from numerous private and public activities, including recreational and commercial activities, by direct and indirect impacts, and intentionally or incidentally. Protecting listed corals from direct forms of take, such as physical injury or killing, whether intentional or incidental, will help preserve the species' remaining populations and slow their rate of decline. Protecting listed corals from indirect forms of take, such as harm that results from habitat degradation, will likewise help preserve the species' populations and also decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors. We therefore propose to extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(B) prohibition to elkhorn and staghorn corals to manage for these threats. There are likely few locations where elkhorn and staghorn corals may possibly occur farther than 12 NM (22.2 km) from land, because typically the depth is too great. However, due to the dramatic decline in abundance and the myriad threats facing them, it is necessary and advisable for these species' conservation to protect the species from take everywhere they occur, including on the high seas, and thus we propose extending the ESA section 9(a)(1)(C) prohibition to the listed corals. Ensuring that take is prohibited everywhere the corals may be found will also avoid difficulty in enforcing these regulations based on claims about the origin of coral specimens. Sections 9(a)(1)(D), (E), and

(F)of the ESA prohibit, among other things, the possession, sale, and transport of endangered species that are taken illegally or that are entered into interstate or foreign commerce. For the same reasons discussed above regarding the prohibition pursuant to ESA section 9(a)(1)(A), it is necessary and advisable to extend these prohibitions to the two corals. The ESA listing of these two species may make them a desirable commodity and encourage a black market. Therefore, the extension of these prohibitions will discourage the development of a black market and reinforce existing regulations on commercial activities involving corals. Lastly, we are extending the section 9(a)(1)(G) prohibition against violating this and any other regulations we promulgate pertaining to these two corals. Summary of Exceptions to Section 9 Prohibitions The ESA allows for specific exceptions to the section 9 prohibitions through interagency consultation as prescribed by ESA section 7 or a permit issued pursuant to section 10. If this proposed rule becomes final and the section 9 prohibitions are extended to these two species, these exceptions would apply. Section 7 of the ESA requires all Federal agencies to consult with us if actions they fund, authorize, or carry out may affect threatened corals or any other species listed under the ESA. We consult on a broad range of activities conducted, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies. These activities include, but are not limited to, national water quality standards and discharge permits, coastal and nearshore construction, dredging or discharge of fill material, navigation regulation, fishery regulation, and live-rock aquaculture. Incidental take of these two threatened corals that results from federally funded, authorized, or implemented activities for which section 7 consultations are completed, will not constitute violations of section 9 prohibitions against take, provided the activities are conducted in accord with all reasonable and prudent measures

(RPMs)and terms and conditions contained in any biological opinion and incidental take statement issued by us. Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide us with the authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may authorize exceptions to any of the section 9 prohibitions and may be issued to Federal and non-Federal entities conducting research or conservation activities that involve a directed take of listed species. A directed take refers to the intentional take of listed species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take listed species in the course of an otherwise lawful activity; these permits provide an exception to the section 9(a)(1)(B) prohibitions. We determined that in certain circumstances described below, extending the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A), (B), and

(C)prohibitions to the two corals is not necessary and advisable. We are proposing exceptions to these prohibitions for two classes of activities that provide for the conservation of listed corals. Under specified conditions,

(1)scientific research and enhancement activities conducted under six specific existing Federal, state, or territorial research permitting programs are exempt from the section 9(a)(1)(A),

(B)and

(C)prohibitions; and

(2)restoration activities carried out by an authorized (under current laws) Federal, state, territorial, or local natural resource agency are exempt from the section 9(a)(1)(B) and

(C)prohibitions. These exceptions are described in more detail in the following sections. These classes of activities are not excepted from the Section 9(a)(1)(D) through

(F)prohibitions because allowing commercial activities does not provide for the conservation of the two species. The 9(a)(1)(G) prohibition will be applied to these activities so that it is unlawful to violate this rule or subsequent rules that we may promulgate under the ESA and pertaining to the corals. Exception to Prohibitions for Scientific Research and Enhancement Activities This exception would apply to both threatened corals covered by this proposed rule. In carrying out their resource management responsibilities, several Federal, state, and territorial natural resource management agencies permit scientific research and enhancement activities, including monitoring and other studies that are directed at, and occur within the geographic areas occupied by, the listed corals. Research or enhancement activities may involve collection of specimens from one location for study in another location, thus requiring an exception to the import and export, as well as the take prohibitions. The following six agencies have permit programs that include corals, and we have evaluated and found that they provide for the conservation of the listed corals: National Ocean Service (National Marine Sanctuary Program), National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), including CITES permit for research purpose only, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER), and the U.S.V.I. Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR). We compared each of these programs' substantive and procedural requirements to ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permit regulations. Review of the permitting process used by each of the six specific programs identified above revealed that each of these permit programs allow research activities that yield sufficient data to support the research objectives while limiting, to the maximum extent practicable, the amount of resources collected or impacted. We determined that the programs are restrictive enough to provide important conservation benefits to the listed corals without the additional requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research permits. Additionally, we reviewed examples of the types of acroporid research that have been permitted in the past by these agencies (e.g., gene flow, disease etiology) and concluded that the continuation and future permitting of these types of research will provide for the conservation of these species by improving our understanding of the status and risks facing these threatened corals, and providing critical information for assessing the effectiveness of current and future management practices. Each of these programs has application requirements similar to those of the ESA section 10 permitting program. Each requires detailed background information, justifications, and descriptions of expected impacts prior to approval for all proposed scientific research. Additionally, each of these permitting programs has data reporting requirements and the ability to apply stringent terms and conditions on issued permits. If research directed at elkhorn and staghorn coral is in compliance with one of the permit programs listed above, any importation, exportation, or take that occurs under such a permit would not constitute a violation of the prohibitions, and an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit would not be required. The original of the issued permit must be carried and available for inspection during the research or enhancement activity. Exception to Prohibitions for Certain Restoration Activities This exception applies to both threatened corals and would except certain Federal, state, and territorial agency personnel, or their designees as applicable, from the prohibitions when they are performing specific restoration activities directed at the listed corals under an existing legal authority that provides for such restoration. For purposes of this exception, a “restoration activity” is the methods and processes used to provide immediate aid to injured individuals. For example, reattachment of colonies or fragments dislodged or broken by vessel groundings onto suitable hard substrates would be excepted from the prohibition when it is implemented under an existing legal authority. Thus, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary staff actions under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act's authority to undertake all necessary actions to prevent or minimize the destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, (16 U.S.C. 1443), would be excepted from the prohibitions when the restoration activity described in this prohibition is implemented for either of the two acroporid corals. Through this exception, we are not authorizing any activities which are not currently authorized under an existing statute, rather we are excepting these activities from the section 9(a)(1)(B) and

(C)take prohibitions for the two listed corals. The activity which caused the injury is not excepted by this rule. Any person claiming this exception shall provide proof they are acting under the authority of the listed laws upon request by a law enforcement agent. Several Federal, state, and territorial government agencies have authorization to engage in the specific type of restoration activities covered by this proposed exception. We have included response, removal, or remedial authority under several Federal statutes in this proposed exception, because one or more of these authorities have been interpreted to include the type of natural resource restoration activity described above; for example, actions required to respond to a substantial threat of a discharge may dislodge or break coral fragments, and reattaching those fragments are legitimate response activities. However, we are not including removal or remedial authority in state or territorial laws, because we are not aware that these authorities have been interpreted to include restoration activities. For state and territorial authorities, the following table currently only includes those that expressly provide for direct restoration of natural resources including corals. We are specifically requesting the states and territories included in Table 1 to comment on whether we have included all their authorities that could encompass the restoration activities proposed to be excepted from the prohibitions. The following table lists the authorizing statute, the specific provision, and specific agencies or offices authorized under existing statutes to implement the coral restoration activities defined in this proposed exception. We are also requesting that the agencies listed ensure the rule correctly identifies the specific offices authorized to implement the statutory provisions. Table 1. Agencies and authorizing statutes whose coral restoration activities would be excepted from the section 9(a)(1)(B) and

(C)prohibition by this proposed rule if finalized. FEDERAL: Agency/Person Statute and Specific Provision(s) Description of Authority NOAA, National Ocean Service

(NOS)National Marine Sanctuaries Act 16 U.S.C. 1433 Authorized to conduct, among other things, all necessary actions to prevent or minimize actual or imminent risk of destruction or loss of, or injury to, Sanctuary resources. NOAA NOS Coral Reef Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6406 Authorized to conduct activities to conserve coral reefs, including restoration. Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Authorized representatives of States or Indian Tribes. ″Oil Pollution Act″ 33 U.S.C. 2702 Authorized to conduct the removal of discharges of oil, including the prevention, minimization or mitigation of substantial threats of discharges. Designated Federal, State or Indian tribal natural resources trustees, including NOAA, Department of Interior (DOI), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Puerto Rico DNER, and U.S. Virgin Islands DPNR. 33 U.S.C. 2706 Authorized to restore or rehabilitate trust natural resources injured, destroyed or lost as a result of discharges of oil, or substantial discharges of oil. Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)or Commandant, USCG; Authorized representatives of States. ″Clean Water Act″ 33 U.S.C. 1321 Authorized to conduct removal of and mitigation or prevention of substantial threats of discharges of oil or hazardous substances to certain waters; protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of, and minimization of risk of damage to, fish and wildlife resources harmed by, or that may be jeopardized by, discharges; Designated Federal, State or Indian tribal natural resources trustees, including NOAA, DOI, FDEP, DNER, and DPNR. Authorized to conduct restoration or rehabilitation of public trust natural resources damaged or destroyed as a result of discharges. Administrator of the EPA; States or Indian Tribes in cooperative agreements with EPA; Heads of other federal agencies where release is from vessel or facility solely under their control. ″Superfund Act″ (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9604 Authorized to conduct removal and other remedial action for releases or substantial threats of releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Administrator of the EPA 42 U.S.C. 9606 Authorized to conduct abatement actions in response to imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances. Designated Federal, State or Indian tribal natural resources trustees, including NOAA, DOI, FDEP, DNER, and DPNR 42 U.S.C. 9607 Authorized to conduct restoration and rehabilitation of natural resources injured, destroyed or lost as a result of actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances. DOI, National Park Service

(NPS)Park System Resource Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 19jj 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (National Wildlife Refuge System) Authorized to conduct all necessary actions to prevent or minimize actual or imminent risk of destruction, loss of, or injury to Park System resources, and to restore such resources. DOI National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668 Authorized to administer refuges for the conservation of fish and wildlife within refuges. FLORIDA: The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund State Lands; Board of Trustees to Administer FL Statute § 253.03 Authorized, among other things, to administer, manage, conserve, and protect all lands owned by the State or any of its agencies, departments, boards or commissions. Duty of Board to Protect, etc. FL Statute. § 253.04 FDEP Authorized to protect, conserve, and prevent damage to state-owned lands; FDEP authorized to assess civil penalties for damage to coral reefs in state waters. Governor and Cabinet; FDEP Land Acquisition for Conservation or Recreation; Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund FL Statute § 259.032 Authorized to use monies in the Fund to, among other things, promote restoration activities, and manage lands acquired under this section to protect or restore their natural resource values. FDEP Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal; Liability for Damage to Natural Resources FL Statute § 376.121 Authorized to recover the costs of restoration of state natural resources damages by pollution discharges, and to use funds recovered for, among other purposes, restoration of the damaged resources. FDEP Land and Water Management; Coral Reef Restoration FL Statute § 390.0558 Authorized to use monies in the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund to restore or rehabilitate injured or destroyed coral reefs. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: DPNR DPNR; Powers and Duties of Department 3 V.I.C. § 401 Authorized to undertake programs and projects for, among other things, the conservation of natural resources of the U.S.V.I., for the restoration and preservation of the scenic beauty of the U.S.V.I., and for the conservation, maintenance and management of U.S.V.I. wildlife, the resources thereof, and its habitat. DPNR Conservation; Croix East End Marine Park Established; 12 V.I.C. § 98 Authorized to protect territorially significant marine resources, including coral reefs, in the St. Croix East End Marine Park. PUERTO RICO: DNER Conservation; Protection, Conservation and Management of Coral Reefs 12 L.P.R.A. §§ 241-241g et seq. Authorized to, among other things, take all measures needed for the protection, conservation and management of coral reefs and coral communities throughout the territorial waters of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. DNER Conservation; Natural Patrimony Program 12 L.P.R.A. § 1227 Authorized to acquire, restore and manage lands, natural communities and habitats identified as, among other things, deserving preservation for their natural resource values. DNER Conservation; Tres Palmas de Rincon Marine Reserve 12 L.P.R.A. § 5063 Authorized to administer, rehabilitate and conserve the reserve. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the ESA On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. We must identify to the extent known, specific activities not considered likely to result in violations of section 9, as well as activities that will be considered likely to result in violations. We believe that, based on the available information, the following actions will not result in a violation of section 9: 1. Collection, handling, and possession of listed corals that are acquired lawfully through an ESA section 10 permit or through one of the exceptions in this proposed rule; or 2. Activities that result in incidental take authorized by an incidental take statement issued through a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 or permitted through section 10 of the ESA. Based on available information, we believe the following categories of activities are those most likely to result in a violation of the ESA section 9 prohibitions. We wish to emphasize that whether a violation results from a particular activity is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. The mere fact that an activity may fall within one of these categories does not mean that the specific activity will cause a violation; due to such factors as location and scope, specific actions may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on the species. Further, an activity not listed may in fact result in a violation. However, the following types of activities are those that may be most likely to violate the prohibitions in section 9, which would be extended to the listed corals through this rule: 1. Removing, damaging, poisoning, or contaminating elkhorn or staghorn corals. 2. Removing, poisoning, or contaminating plants, wildlife, or other biota required by listed corals for feeding, sheltering, or other essential behavioral patterns. 3. Removing or altering substrate, vegetation, or other physical structures that are essential to the integrity and function of listed corals' habitat. 4. Altering water flow or currents to an extent that impairs spawning, feeding, or other essential behavioral patterns of listed corals. 5. Discharging pollutants, such as oil, toxic chemicals, radioactivity, carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, or organic nutrient-laden water, including sewage water, into listed corals' habitat to an extent that disrupts or prevents the reproduction, development, or normal physiology of listed corals. 6. Releasing non-indigenous or artificially propagated species into listed corals' habitat or locations from where they may access the habitat of listed corals. 7. Activities conducted in shallow water coral reef areas, including boating, anchoring, fishing, recreational SCUBA diving, and snorkeling, that result in abrasion of or breakage to the listed corals. 8. Interstate and foreign commerce dealing in listed corals, and importing or exporting listed corals. 9. Shoreline and riparian disturbances (whether in the riverine, estuarine, marine, or floodplain environment) that may disrupt or prevent the reproduction, settlement, reattachment, development, or normal physiology of listed corals (e.g., land development, run-off, dredging, and disposal activities that result in direct deposition of sediment on corals, shading, or covering of substrate for fragment reattachment or larval settlement). 10. Activities that modify water chemistry in coral habitat to an extent that disrupts or prevents the reproduction, development, or normal physiology of listed corals. 11. Activities that result in elevated water temperatures in coral habitat that cause bleaching or other degradation of physiological function of listed corals. For example, in our economic analysis on this rule, we identified discharges of cooling water effluent from power plants as an activity that may result in elevated sea surface temperature. This list provides examples of the types of activities that could have a high risk of causing a violation, but it is by no means exhaustive. It is intended to help people avoid violating the ESA and to encourage efforts to recover the threatened corals addressed in this proposed rule. Persons or entities concluding that their activity is likely to violate the ESA are encouraged to immediately adjust that activity to avoid violations and to seek authorization under:

(a)an ESA section 10 incidental take permit;

(b)an ESA section 10 research and enhancement permit; or

(c)an ESA section 7 consultation. The public is encouraged to contact us (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) for assistance in determining whether circumstances at a particular location, involving these activities or any others, might constitute a violation of this proposed rule if finalized. In making a determination that it is not necessary and advisable to impose ESA section 9 take prohibitions on certain activities, we recognize that new information may require a reevaluation of that conclusion at any time. For any of the exceptions from the prohibitions described in this proposed rule, we will evaluate periodically the activity's effect on the conservation of listed corals. If we determine that it becomes necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, we will impose take prohibitions on the activities previously excepted through rulemaking. Public Comments Solicited To assist us in identifying appropriate prohibitions and exceptions identified in this proposed rule, we held seven public information-gathering workshops in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.V.I. in May 2006. Representatives from Federal, state, and territorial resource management agencies, non-governmental organizations, local fishing communities, academic and coral research institutions, and the general public attended the Acropora Conservation Workshops. The purpose of these workshops was to gather as much information as possible about activities and programs that affect the two threatened coral species, including information about the impacts of these activities and programs. We are soliciting comments, information, and/or recommendations on any aspect of this proposed rule from all concerned parties (see DATES and ADDRESSES). We will consider all relevant information, comments, and recommendations received before reaching a final decision on ESA section 4(d) regulations for listed corals. If we determine it is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, we may add or remove prohibitions or exceptions on the basis of public comment. Classification We determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management programs of Florida, Puerto Rico, and U.S.V.I.. This determination has been submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Pursuant to E.O. 13132, the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs will provide notice of the proposed action and request comments from the appropriate official(s) in the states and territories where the two corals occur. This proposed rule has been determined not to be significant under Executive Order 12866. We prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and its legal basis are included in the preamble of this proposed rule. Small entities may be affected if a project they seek to implement requires ESA section 7 consultation and may adversely affect the listed coral species, requiring minor changes to the project to lessen impacts on the corals (RPMs). Reporting requirements of the rule would be solely associated with implementation of the required section 7 RPMs. No record keeping requirements are proposed. No existing Federal rules or laws duplicate or conflict with the proposed rule. Existing Federal rules and laws overlap the proposed rule only to the extent that they provide for the protection of natural resources or corals in general. A summary of the impacts analysis follows. The IRFA found that a number of existing Federal, state, or local laws prohibit take, possession, or sale of, and/or damage to, corals. Puerto Rico and U.S.V.I. law prohibit the take and sale of elkhorn and staghorn corals. Florida law prohibits take of these corals, with an exception provided for corals that attach to rock placed by aquaculture operations (i.e. live rock) that have appropriate permits. Florida law allows sales of dead elkhorn or staghorn coral skeletons with proof that the specimens were not taken illegally. There is anecdotal evidence that Florida shell shops have sold dead specimens of these species, and this rule does not preclude sales of dead specimens obtained legally before listing. There is no historical evidence of any live rock operations selling live rock with these species attached in the past 10 years of observations reported by live rock producers. There is also no historical evidence of international trade of either of these species. It is anticipated that, on average, approximately 44 non-Federal grantees or permittees, or their contractors, could be affected annually if the proposed rule is implemented. Historically, these projects have involved pipeline installation and maintenance, mooring construction and maintenance, dock/pier construction and repair, marina construction, bridge repair and construction, new dredging, maintenance dredging, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/water quality standards, cable installation, beach nourishment, shoreline stabilization, reef ball construction and installation, and port construction. Our database does not track whether applicants have been small entities, so it is impossible to determine the number of grantees, permittees, or contractors that may be small entities in the future. There is no indication that affected project applicants or their contractors would be limited to, nor disproportionately comprised of, small entities. The proposed rule will not result in an increase in the number of ESA section 7 consultations. Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for other species, incremental administrative costs of identifying RPMs will be negligible, compared to the analytical requirements and associated costs already required by the duty to consult to ensure the action does not jeopardize listed species. Hence, we have assumed there will be no administrative costs of consultation associated with the proposed rule. Though we have characterized the costs associated with individual types of project modifications for the projected future activities, no total cost of this rule can be identified; the lack of specific information on the design and location of projected future projects limits our ability to forecast the exact type and amount of modifications required. However, the majority of the project modifications that NMFS would always require for these actions are currently required by other regulatory agencies. In addition, current ESA regulations require that RPMs cannot alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, and timing of an action and may only involve minor changes. We considered four alternatives for extending section 9(a)(1) prohibitions to threatened corals. These included a preferred alternative (i.e., this proposed rule), a no action alternative, and two additional alternatives. The no action alternative was not selected because it did not meet the conservation objectives of the proposed rule. The remaining two alternatives were not selected because they

(1)were judged to have less conservation value for the corals, and

(2)could result in smaller annual incomes generated by small businesses that rely on resident and visitor use of coral reefs. This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposed rule is consistent with E.O. 13089, which is intended to preserve and protect the biodiversity, health, heritage, and social and economic value of U.S. coral reef ecosystems and the marine environment. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation. Dated: December 7, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533(d). 2. In subpart B of part 223, add § 223.208 to read as follows: § 223.208 Corals.

(a)*Prohibitions.*

(1)The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)) relating to endangered species apply to elkhorn ( *Acropora palmata* ) and staghorn ( *A. cervicornis* ) corals listed as threatened in § 223.102(d), except as provided in section 223.208(d).

(2)It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to do any of the following:

(i)Fail to comply immediately, in the manner specified at § 600.730

(b)through

(d)of this Title, with instructions and signals specified therein issued by an authorized officer, including instructions and signals to haul back a net for inspection;

(ii)Refuse to allow an authorized officer to board a vessel, or to enter an area where fish or wildlife may be found, for the purpose of conducting a boarding, search, inspection, seizure, investigation, or arrest in connection with enforcement of this section;

(iii)Destroy, stave, damage, or dispose of in any manner, fish or wildlife, gear, cargo, or any other matter after a communication or signal from an authorized officer, or upon the approach of such an officer or of an enforcement vessel or aircraft, before the officer has an opportunity to inspect same, or in contravention of directions from the officer;

(iv)Assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, threaten, obstruct, delay, prevent, or interfere with an authorized officer in the conduct of any boarding, search, inspection, seizure, investigation, or arrest in connection with enforcement of this section;

(v)Interfere with, delay, or prevent by any means, the apprehension of another person, knowing that such person committed an act prohibited by this section;

(vi)Resist a lawful arrest for an act prohibited by this section;

(vii)Make a false statement, oral or written, to an authorized officer or to the agency concerning applicability of the exceptions enumerated in paragraph

(d)of this section relating to elkhorn and staghorn corals;

(viii)Make a false statement, oral or written, to an authorized officer or to the agency concerning the fishing for, catching, taking, harvesting, landing, purchasing, selling, or transferring fish or wildlife, or concerning any other matter subject to investigation under this section by such officer, or required to be submitted under this part 223; or

(ix)Attempt to do, solicit another to do, or cause to be done, any of the foregoing.

(b)*Affirmative defense.* In connection with any action alleging a violation of this section, any person claiming the benefit of any exception, exemption, or permit under this section has the burden of proving that the exception, exemption, or permit is applicable, was granted, and was valid and in force at the time of the alleged violation, and that the person fully complied with the exception, exemption, or permit.

(c)*Exceptions.* Exceptions to the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)) applied in paragraph

(a)of this section relating to elkhorn and staghorn corals are described in the following paragraphs

(1)through (5):

(1)*Permitted scientific research and enhancement* . Any import, export, or take of elkhorn or staghorn corals resulting from conducting scientific research or enhancement directed at elkhorn and staghorn corals is excepted from the prohibitions in ESA sections 9(a)(1)(A),

(B)and

(C)provided a valid resource research or enhancement permit has been obtained from one of the following Federal or state agencies: NOAA National Ocean Service National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including CITES permit), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, or the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources. The importation, exportation, or take must be in compliance with the applicable terms and conditions of the permit, and the permit must be in the possession of the permittee while conducting the activity.

(2)*Restoration activities* . Any agent or employee of certain governmental agencies may take listed elkhorn or staghorn corals without a permit, when acting in the course of conducting a restoration activity directed at elkhorn or staghorn coral which is authorized by an existing authority (see Table 1). Take of elkhorn or staghorn corals during such restoration activity is excepted from the prohibitions in ESA sections 9(a)(1)(B) and (C). An excepted restoration activity is defined as the methods and processes used to provide immediate aid to injured individuals.

(d)*Section 10 Scientific and enhancement permits.* The Assistant Administrator may issue permits authorizing activities that would otherwise be prohibited under § 223.208(a) for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of elkhorn or staghorn corals, in accordance with and subject to the conditions of part 222, subpart C-General Permit Procedures.

(e)*Section 10 Incidental take permits.* The Assistant Administrator may issue permits authorizing activities that would otherwise be prohibited under § 223.208(a) in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), and in accordance with, and subject to the conditions of part 222 of this chapter. Such permits may be issued for the incidental taking of elkhorn and staghorn corals.

(f)*Section 7 Interagency consultation.* Any incidental taking that is in compliance with the terms and conditions specified in a written statement provided under section 7(b)(4)(C) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(4)(C)) shall not be considered a prohibited taking of the elkhorn and staghorn corals pursuant to paragraph

(o)of the same subsection (16 U.S.C. 1536(o)(2)). Table 1 to § 223.208. Agencies and authorizing statutes whose coral restoration activities are excepted from certain prohibitions in paragraph

(A)of this section. FEDERAL: Agency/Person Statute and Specific Provision(s) NOAA, National Ocean Service

(NOS)National Marine Sanctuaries Act 16 U.S.C. 1433 NOAA NOS Coral Reef Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. 6406 Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Authorized representatives of States or Indian Tribes. ″Oil Pollution Act″ 33 U.S.C. 2702 Designated Federal, State or Indian tribal natural resources trustees, including NOAA, Department of Interior (DOI), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER), and U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources

(DPNR)33 U.S.C. 2706 Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)or Commandant, USCG; Authorized representatives of States. ″Clean Water Act″ 33 U.S.C. 1321 Designated Federal, State or Indian tribal natural resources trustees, including NOAA, DOI, FDEP, DNER, and DPNR. Administrator of the EPA; States or Indian Tribes in cooperative agreements with EPA; Heads of other Federal agencies where release is from vessel or facility solely under their control. ″Superfund Act″ (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9604 Administrator of the EPA 42 U.S.C. 9606 Designated Federal, State or Indian tribal natural resources trustees, including NOAA, DOI, FDEP, DNER, and DPNR 42 U.S.C. 9607 DOI, National Park Service

(NPS)Park System Resource Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 19jj 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (National Wildlife Refuge System) DOI National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668 FLORIDA: The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund State Lands; Board of Trustees to Administer FL Statute § 253.03 Duty of Board to Protect, etc. FL Statute. § 253.04 FDEP Governor and Cabinet; FDEP Land Acquisition for Conservation or Recreation; Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund FL Statute § 259.032 FDEP Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal; Liability for Damage to Natural Resources FL Statute § 376.121 FDEP Land and Water Management; Coral Reef Restoration FL Statute § 390.0558 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: DPNR DPNR; Powers and Duties of Department 3 V.I.C. § 401 DPNR Conservation; Croix East End Marine Park Established; 12 V.I.C. § 98 PUERTO RICO: DNER Conservation; Protection, Conservation and Management of Coral Reefs 12 L.P.R.A. §§ 241-241g et seq. DNER Conservation; Natural Patrimony Program 12 L.P.R.A. § 1227 DNER Conservation; Tres Palmas de Rincon Marine Reserve 12 L.P.R.A. § 5063 [FR Doc. E7-24211 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 240 Friday, December 14, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 10, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* Telecommunications System Construction Policies and Procedures. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0059. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (RE Act), 7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.* , was amended in 2002 by Title IV, Rural Broadband Access, by Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, which authorizes Rural Utilities Service

(RUS)to provide loans and loan guarantees to fund the cost of construction, improvement, or acquisition for facilities and equipment for the provision of broadband service in eligible rural communities in the States and territories of the United States. Title VI of the RE Act requires that loans are granted only to borrowers who demonstrated that they will be able to repay in full within the time agreed. RUS has established certain standards and specifications for materials, equipment and construction to assure that standards are maintained, loans are not adversely affected, and loans are used for intended purposes. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS has developed specific forms for borrowers to use when entering into contracts for goods or services. The information collected is used to implement certain provisions of loan documents about the borrower's purchase of materials and equipment and the construction of its broadband system and is provided on an as needed basis or when the individual borrower undertakes certain projects. The standardization of the forms has resulted in substantial savings to borrowers by reducing preparation of the documentation and the costly review by the government. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 513. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 10,724. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24207 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number: AMS-ST-07-0149; ST08-01] Request for an Extension and Revision to a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's

(AMS)intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection for Recordkeeping Requirements for Certified Applicators of Federally Restricted Use Pesticides (7 CFR part 110). DATES: Comments received by February 12, 2008 will be considered. *Additional Information or Comments:* Contact Bonnie Poli, Pesticide Records Branch, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, Suite 203, 8609 Sudley Road, Manassas, Virginia 20110-4582, Telephone

(703)330-7826, Fax

(703)330-6110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Recordkeeping Requirements for Certified Applicators of Federally Restricted Use Pesticides (7 CFR part 110) *OMB Number:* 0581-0164. *Expiration Date of Approval:* May 30, 2008. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, (Pub. L. 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 136i-1) (Act), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to require that certified pesticide applicators maintain records of applications of federally restricted use pesticides for a period of two years. The Act also

(1)requires that the pesticide records be made available to Federal or State officials, and to licensed health care professionals who need the records in order to treat an individual who may have been exposed to restricted use pesticides;

(2)requires that the Secretary of Agriculture enforce the recordkeeping and access requirements of the Act and promulgate regulations to administer the Act; and

(3)establishes civil penalties for violations of the Act. A certified applicator is an individual who is certified by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)or a State under cooperative agreement with EPA to use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. The Secretary of Agriculture delegated his responsibilities under the Act to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which promulgated regulations to administer the Act at 7 CFR part 110 (regulations). In order to enforce these regulations, AMS must collect information through personal inspections of the application records of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides. The information collected by AMS is used only by authorized representatives of AMS (AMS' Science and Technology national staff, other designated Federal employees and designated State supervisors and their staffs) who are delegated authority to access the records pursuant to subsection

(b)of the Act. The collected information is used to administer the Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping program. AMS is the primary user of this information. The secondary user of the information is each designated State agency which has a cooperative agreement with AMS. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated as follows:

(a)Approximately 307,151 certified private applicators (recordkeepers) apply restricted use pesticides. It is estimated that certified private applicators average 1.31 hours per recordkeeper for a total of 402,368 annual burden hours. This is a 247,708 increase in burden hours from the previous collection request due to an increase in the number of restricted use pesticide applications being made by certified private applicators. The new data indicates that certified private applicators make an average of 16 restricted use pesticide applications per year. Of the 307,151 certified private applicators, approximately 3,600 are selected annually for recordkeeping inspections. It is estimated that a private applicator that is subject to a pesticide record inspection has an annual burden of .330 hours, which contributes to a total annual burden of 1,195 hours.

(b)There are approximately 281,428 certified commercial applicators nationally who are required to provide copies of restricted use pesticide application records to their clients. It is estimated that certified commercial applicators have a total annual burden of 1,386,877 hours.

(c)It is estimated that State agency personnel who work through cooperative agreements with AMS to inspect certified private applicator's records have a total annual burden of 7,274 hours. This is a decrease of 1,702 burden hours from the previous collection request due to fewer states participating in cooperative agreements with AMS. *Respondents:* Certified private and commercial applicators, State governments or employees, and Federal agencies or employees. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 592,233—The total number of respondents includes certified commercial applicators, certified private applicators (recordkeepers) and designated State agency personnel utilized to inspect certified private applicator's records. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* The estimated number of responses per respondent is as follows:

(a)It is estimated that certified private applicators (recordkeepers), record on an average 16 restricted use pesticide application records annually.

(b)It is estimated that certified commercial applicators provide 616 copies of restricted use pesticide records to their clients annually.

(c)State agency personnel, who work under cooperative agreements with AMS to conduct restricted use pesticide records inspections, have approximately 3,591 responses annually. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,797,714. This revision in the Total Annual Burden on Respondents increases the current burden by 116,917 hours due to the increase in the number of restricted use pesticides applications that the private applicators are making annually. Although there are fewer states participating in the cooperative program, the total annual burden did increase. Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to Bonnie Poli, Pesticide Records Branch, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, Suite 203, 8609 Sudley Road, Manassas, Virginia 20110-4582. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 10, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-24202 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AC50 Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period—Proposed Directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for Forest Service Special Use Permits AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is extending the public comment period for the proposed directive regarding Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for Forest Service Special Use Permits for an additional 30 days. The original notice called for comments to be submitted by January 17, 2008 (72 FR 59246, October 19, 2007). DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments electronically by following the instructions at the Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulation.gov.* Comments may also be submitted by mail to U.S. Forest Service, Attn: Carolyn Holbrook, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff (2720), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 1125, Washington, DC 20250-1125. If comments are sent electronically, the public is requested not to send duplicate comments by mail. Please confine comments to issues pertinent to the proposed directives, explain the reasons for any recommended changes, and, where possible, reference the specific section and wording being addressed. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on these proposed directives in the Office of the Director, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, 4th Floor Central, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC., on business days between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are encouraged to call ahead at

(202)205-1426 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Holbrook,

(202)205-1426, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Dated: December 7, 2007. Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E7-24240 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletion ACTION: Proposed Addition to and Deletion From the Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete a service previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* January 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)

(2)and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Addition If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Product Folder, Classification, Pressboard *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0825—Legal Size—1 Divider/4 Part—Light Green. *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0824—Legal Size—1 Divider/4 Part—Earth Red. *NPA:* Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA. *Coverage:* A-List for the total Government requirement as specified by the General Services Administration. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Deletion Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Service *Service Type/Location:* Microfilming, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. *NPA:* Business Technology Career Opportunities (BTCO), Wichita, KS. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-24225 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List a product and services previously furnished by such agencies. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions On October 5 and October 19, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 56983; 59251) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List: Services *Service Type/Location:* Catering Services, San Antonio Detention Center, 8940 Fourwinds Drive, 1st Floor Detention Branch, San Antonio, TX. *NPA:* Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. *Contracting Activity:* Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, DC. *Service Type/Location:* Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 200 Granby Street, Norfolk, VA. *Service Type/Location:* Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 903 Gateway Blvd, Hampton, VA. *NPA:* Louise W. Eggleston Center, Inc., Norfolk, VA. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Chamblee, GA. Deletions On October 19, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 59291-59252) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List: Product Paper, Xerographic & Inkjet (Large Format) *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0483 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0598 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0599 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0600 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0601 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0602 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0603 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0604 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0605 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0606 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0607 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0608 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0609 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0610 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0611 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0612 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0613 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0614 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0615 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0616 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0617 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0618 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0619 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0620 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0621 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0622 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0623 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0624 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0625 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0626 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0627 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0628 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0629 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0630 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0631 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0632 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0633 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0634 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0635 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0636 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0637 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0638 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0639 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0640 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0641 *NSN:* 7530-00-NIB-0642 *NPA:* Wiscraft Inc.—Wisconsin Enterprises for the Blind, Milwaukee, WI. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Services *Service Type/Location:* Food Service Attendant, Air National Guard Base, Building 600, Lincoln, NE. *NPA:* Goodwill Services, Inc., Lincoln, NE. *Contracting Activity:* Air National Guard, Lincoln, NE. *Service Type/Location:* Grounds Maintenance, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Office, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Butte, MT. *NPA:* BSW, Inc., Butte, MT. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Butte, MT. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Customs Service, 8855 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR. *NPA:* Portland Habilitation Center, Inc., Portland, OR. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Customs Service, Indianapolis, IN. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-24226 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* International Trade Administration (ITA). *Title:* Implementation of Tariff Rate Quota Established Under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 for Imports of Certain Cotton Woven Fabrics. *OMB Control Number:* 0625-0260. *Form Number(s):* ITA-4156P. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 10. *Number of Respondents:* 10. *Average Hours per Response:* 1 hour. *Needs and Uses:* The Tax Relief and Heath Care Act of 2006 (“the Act”) contains provisions to assist the men's and boys' cotton shirting industry. Among these provisions, the Act creates an annual Tariff Rate Quota

(TRQ)providing for temporary reductions through December 31, 2009, in the import duties of cotton woven fabrics suitable for making men's and boys' cotton shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19). The reduction in duty is limited to 85 percent of the total square meter equivalents of all imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men's and boys' cotton shirts in the United States and purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. Section 406(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to fairly allocate the tariff rate quota. More specifically, the Secretary of Commerce must issue licenses and ensure that the TRQ is fairly allocated to eligible manufacturers under the above headings. The TRQ is effective for goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2007, and will remain in force through 2009. The TRQ will be allocated each year and a TRQ allocation will be valid only in the year for which it is issued. The reduction of import duties provided by the TRQ will be of considerable benefit to firms that receive TRQ allocations. It will lower these firms' cost of production, enabling them to better compete with foreign imports. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number

(202)395-7285 or via the Internet at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: December 10, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24198 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Census 2010 Participation Survey AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before February 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Nancy A. Bates, U.S. Census Bureau, C2PO, Room 8H491, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233 at 301-763-5248 (or via the Internet at *Nancy.A.Bates@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau plans to request clearance to conduct the Census Participation Survey to measure public knowledge, awareness, and perceptions about the 2010 Census. This research is designed to complement previous research conducted for Census 2000 as well as the Census Planning Database (a geographic summary file with Census 2000 response information) to inform the strategic direction of the 2010 Census Integrated Communications Plan (ICP). Every ten years, the Census Bureau is congressionally mandated to count everyone (citizens and non-citizens) residing in the United States. An accurate count is critical for many reasons including but not limited to: • Congressional reapportionment, • Redistricting congressional boundaries; • Community planning; and • Distribution of public funds and program development. The role of the ICP is to increase public awareness and motivate people to respond to the census promptly, saving millions of taxpayer dollars. The specific objectives of the ICP are: • Increase mail response; • Improve cooperation with enumerators; and • Improve overall accuracy and reduce differential undercount For the first time in Census 2000, the Census Bureau ran a paid advertising campaign to support Census data collection activities. This campaign was considered a very successful initiative and one of several reasons cited with helping to reverse declining mail response rates. In developing the 2000 campaign, the Census Bureau relied on one's likelihood to engage in civic activities as a proxy to one's likelihood to respond to the census. The campaign was built on the slogan, “This is your Future. Don't leave it blank.” The intent of this slogan and related variations was to incite a sense of personal benefit, community benefit, and infer a sense of urgency. The target mail response rate for the 2010 Census has been set at 69 percent, higher than the 67 percent obtained in Census 2000. To support this goal, the ICP includes a communications campaign based on behavior during the 2000 Census and current knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, barriers, and motivations specific to 2010 Census participation. This model will provide contemporary insight into public motivations specific to the census. There are many commonalities to Census 2000 such as low Census favorability; lack of awareness and personal relevancy; and many motivators that were leveraged in 2000 still resonate. However, the social and political landscape has shifted since Census 2000 and the Census Bureau is facing new challenges such as: • Distrust in government is higher than ever; • Confidentiality issues heightened; • Shifting core values (quality of life; family values); • Definition of community is broadening; • Recent debates on immigration; and • Increased language barriers. The purpose of the Census Participation Survey is to inform tactical and strategic decisions for the ICP. The collected data will not be used to produce official Census Bureau estimates. II. Method of Collection The Census Participation Survey will be administered to a sample of adults. Most interviews will be selected though random-digit-dialing and administered via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), while a small portion of the interviews will be conducted in-person. Some of the CATI interviews will be conducted on the respondent's cell phone. A $10 gift will be provided to respondents as compensation for costs (inbound charges) incurred from the cell phone interview. Additionally, a $10 gift will be provided to respondents to the in-person interview to increase the response rate. When an address is available, respondents will be notified of the data collection with a pre-notification letter. The Census Participation Survey will focus on the following topic areas: • Awareness about the census and attitudes and perceptions about the Census Bureau; • Barriers and motivations for census participation; • Potential 2010 Census messaging alternatives; • Current issues and their relevancy to census participation; • Individual-level participation in Census 2000 (self-reported) and participation intent for the 2010 Census; and • Demographics, socioeconomics, and psychographics. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* None. *Form Number:* CPS-2008. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,667. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. Section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 6, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24199 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Action Affecting Export Privileges; Cirrus Electronics, Cirrus Electronics Pte. Ltd, Cirrus Electronics Marketing

(P)Ltd., Parthasarathy Sudarshan, Mythili Gopal, Akn Prasad, and Sampath Sundar; Order Renewing Temporary Denial Order In the Matter of: Cirrus Electronics LLC, Washington, DC Department of Corrections, Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003; and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina; Cirrus Electronics Pte., Ltd., Level 3 ECON Building, No. 2 Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3 Singapore; Cirrus Electronics Marketing

(P)Ltd., #303, Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India; Parthasarathy Sudarshan, Washington, DC Department of Corrections, Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003; Mythili Gopal, 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina; Akn Prasad, #303, Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India; Sampath Sundar, Level 3 ECON Building, No. 2 Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3 Singapore, Respondents. Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 1 the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), has requested that I renew for 180 days an Order temporarily denying export privileges under the EAR (“TDO”) of: 1 The EAR are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2007). The EAR are issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive presidential notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § § 1701—1706 (2000)) (“IEEPA”).

(1)Cirrus Electronics, doing business as Cirrus Electronics LLC, Washington, DC Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003 and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonsville, South Carolina (“Cirrus U.S.A.”)

(2)Cirrus Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore (“Cirrus Singapore”)

(3)Cirrus Electronics Marketing

(P)Ltd., #303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India (“Cirrus India”)

(4)Parthasarathy Sudarshan, Managing Director, CEO, President, and Group Head of Cirrus Washington, DC Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003 and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonsville, South Carolina

(5)Mythili Gopal, International Manager of Cirrus, 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonsville, South Carolina

(6)Akn Prasad, CEO of India Operations of Cirrus, #303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India

(7)Sampath Sundar, Director of Operations of Cirrus, Cirrus Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore (collectively referred to as the “Respondents”) On June 1, 2007, I found that evidence presented by BIS demonstrated that the Respondents knowingly violated the EAR on at least five occasions between on or about September 30, 2005 and on or about April 17, 2006 by exporting items subject to the EAR from the United States to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (“VSSC”) and Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (“BDL”) in India without the licenses required by Section 744.1 of the EAR. VSSC and BDL are organizations set forth on the Entity List set forth in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR. In each instance, the items were shipped from the United States to Singapore for subsequent shipment to VSSC and BDL. The Respondents were aware of the Entity List licensing requirements and on at least one occasion provided an end-user statement to a U.S. vendor that falsely represented the end-user in order to conceal the intended actual end user, VSSC, of the vendor's items. I further found that such violations had been significant, deliberate and covert, and were likely to occur again, especially given the nature of the transactions. As such, a TDO was needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with the Respondents in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Issuance of the TDO, rendered effective as of June 12, 2007, the date of publication in the **Federal Register** , was consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR. OEE has presented additional evidence indicating that Cirrus Singapore remains in business despite issuance of the TDO. I now find, based on the continued circumstances that led to the initial issuance of the TDO on June 1, 2007 and the additional evidence supplied by OEE, that the renewal of this TDO for a period of 180 days is necessary and in the public interest, to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. All parties to this TDO have been given notice of the request for renewal. *It is therefore ordered:* First, that the Respondents, Cirrus Electronics LLC, Washington, DC Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003, and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonsville, South Carolina, 29681-3615, and Cirrus Electronics PTE LTD., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore, and Cirrus Electronics Marketing

(P)LTD., #303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India, and Parthasarsathy Sudarshan, Managing Director, CEO, President, and Group Head of Cirrus, Washington, D.C. Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, SE., Washington, DC 20003, and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonsville, South Carolina, 29681-3615, and Mythili Gopal, International Manager of Cirrus, 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonsville, South Carolina, 29681-3615, and Akn Prasad, CEO of India Operations of Cirrus, #303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India, and Sampath Sundar, Director of Operations of Cirrus, Cirrus Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore (collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR. Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the EAR; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. Third, that after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to any of the Respondents by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order. Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology. In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. The Respondents may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order. A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and shall be published in the **Federal Register** . This Order is effective as of the date that it is signed and shall remain in effect for 180 days. Entered this 5th day of December, 2007. Darryl W. Jackson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-24237 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 071126747-7750-01] Precision Measurement Grants Program; Availability of Funds AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the Precision Measurement Grants Program is soliciting applications for financial assistance for Fiscal Year

(FY)2008. The Precision Measurement Grants Program is seeking proposals for significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. DATES: Abbreviated proposals must be received at the address listed below no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 1, 2008. Proposals received after this deadline will be returned with no further consideration. Finalists will be selected by approximately March 21, 2008, and will be requested to submit full proposals to NIST. All full proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Abbreviated proposals and paper applications must be submitted to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr; Manager, NIST Precision Measurement Grants Program; National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8420; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8420; e-mail: *mohr@nist.gov* . Web site: *http://physics.nist.gov/pmg* . Electronic final proposals should be uploaded to *http://www.Grants.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Technical questions should be addressed to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr at the address listed in the Addresses section above, or at Tel:

(301)975-3217; e-mail: *mohr@nist.gov* .; Web site: *http://physics.nist.gov/pmg* . Grants Administration questions should be addressed to: Grants and Agreements Management Division; National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; Tel:

(301)975-6328. For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Authority:* The authority for the *Precision Measurement Grants Program* is as follows: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272

(b)and (c), NIST conducts directly, and supports through grants, a basic and applied research program in the general area of fundamental measurement and the determination of fundamental constants of nature. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number:* Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609. *Program Description:* The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the *Precision Measurement Grants Program* is soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2008. The *Precision Measurement Grants Program* is seeking proposals for significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. As part of its research program, since 1970 NIST has awarded Precision Measurement Grants primarily to universities and colleges so that faculty may conduct significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. NIST sponsors these grants and cooperative agreements primarily to encourage basic, measurement-related research in universities and colleges and other research laboratories and to foster contacts between NIST scientists and those faculty members of academic institutions and other researchers who are actively engaged in such work. The Precision Measurement Grants are also intended to make it possible for researchers to pursue new ideas for which other sources of support may be difficult to find. There is some latitude in research topics that will be considered under the *Precision Measurement Grants Program* . The key requirement is that the proposed project is consistent with NIST's ongoing work in the field of basic measurement science. *Funding Availability:* NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each. Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations. NIST issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2008,” Public Law 110-92 as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. NIST anticipates making awards for the program listed in this notice provided that funding for the program is continued beyond December 14, 2007, the expiration of the current continuing resolution. Award start dates for new grants are expected to be October 1, 2008. Applicants should propose multi-year projects for up to three years at no more than $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each for the first year of the research projects. NIST may award both, one, or neither of these new awards. Second and third year funding will be at the discretion of NIST, based on satisfactory performance, continuing relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funds. NIST plans to fund the awards as grants. If collaboration by NIST scientists in the scope of work is appropriate for any award, a cooperative agreement will be issued instead. *Cost Share Requirements:* The Precision Measurement Grants Program does not require any matching funds. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; international organizations; and Federal agencies with appropriate legal authority. *Evaluation Criteria:* The evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the abbreviated application proposals and full proposals are: 1. The importance of the proposed research—Does it have the potential of answering some currently pressing question or of opening up a whole new area of activity? 2. The relationship of the proposed research to NIST's ongoing work—Will it support one of NIST's current efforts to develop a new or improved fundamental measurement method or physical standard, test the basic laws of physics, or provide an improved value for a fundamental constant? 3. The feasibility of the research and the potential impact of the grant—Is it likely that significant progress can be made in a three year time period with the funds and personnel available and that the funding will enable work that would otherwise not be done with existing or potential funding? 4. The qualifications of the applicant—Does the educational and employment background and the quality of the research, based on recent publications, of the applicant indicate that there is a high probability that the proposed research will be carried out successfully? Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Review and Selection Process:* All abbreviated proposals and full applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive abbreviated proposals and full applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive abbreviated proposal and full application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. All applicants must submit an abbreviated proposal (original and two signed copies), containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a total length of no more than five

(5)double spaced pages, to the mailing address given above in the ADDRESSES section. These proposals will be screened to determine whether they address the requirements outlined in this notice. Proposals that do not meet those requirements will not be considered further. Eight independent, objective individuals, at least half of whom are NIST employees, and who are knowledgeable about the scientific areas that the program addresses will conduct a technical review of each abbreviated proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section for this program. Each reviewer will evaluate and rank the proposals. The proposals will then be ranked based on the average of the reviewers' rankings. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but the ranking will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The Chief of the Atomic Physics Division of the Physics Laboratory, the selecting official, will then select approximately four to eight finalists. In selecting finalists, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described above in the Program Description section. Applicants not selected as finalists will be notified in writing. Finalists will then be asked in writing to submit full proposals up to ten

(10)pages in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Content and Form of Application Submission section of the FFO notice. The same independent reviewers that reviewed the abbreviated proposals will then evaluate the full proposals based on the same evaluation criteria, and the proposals will be ranked as previously described. In selecting proposals that will be recommended for funding, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank and relevance to the program objectives described in the Program Description section of this notice. The final approval of selected applications and award of grants will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. *The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 69 FR 78,389 (Dec. 30, 2004) applies to this notice. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402). *Collaborations with NIST Employees:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget. If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. *Use of NIST Intellectual Property:* If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. 200-212, 37 CFR Part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in Section B.20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements 69 FR 78,389 (Dec. 30, 2004). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803. Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one. If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain. *Collaborations Making Use of Federal Facilities:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed using Federal Facilities. If an applicant proposes use of NIST facilities, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention and a description of the facilities. Any use of NIST facilities must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the availability of the facilities and approval of the proposed usage. Any unapproved facility use will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. Examples of some facilities that may be available for collaborations are listed on the NIST Technology Services Web site, *http://ts.nist.gov/.* *Paperwork Reduction Act:* The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects:* Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, the Food and Drug Administration, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics. NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards

(IRBs)possessing a current registration filed with DHHS and to be performed by institutions possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance

(FWA)from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance

(SPA)for any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST. On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement

(1)the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and

(2)the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at *http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf* for funding such research. *Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals:* Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks. *Limitation of Liability:* Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations. NIST issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 52, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2008,” Public Law 110-92 as amended by H.R. 3222, Public Law 110-116. NIST anticipates making awards for the program listed in this notice provided that funding for the program is continued beyond December 14, 2007, the expiration of the current continuing resolution. In no event will NIST or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Funding of any award under any program announced in this notice is subject to the availability of funds. *Executive Order 12866:* This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12372:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* Dated: December 5, 2007. Richard F. Kayser, Acting Deputy Director, NIST. [FR Doc. E7-24276 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE27 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Central California Seabird Research Operations AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting seabird research in central California, have been issued to PRBO Conservation Science

(PRBO)for a period of one year. DATES: The authorization of the IHA is effective from December 12, 2007, until December 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, Environmental Assessment (EA), and a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, ext 137, or Monica DeAngelis, Southwest Regional Office, NMFS,

(562)980-3232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses and the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which

(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On December 15, 2006, PRBO submitted an application to NMFS requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ), Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardsi* ), northern elephant seals ( *Mirounga angustirostris* ), and Steller sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ) incidental to central California seabird research operations on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS. A detailed description of the proposed activity is provided in the July 27, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 41294), therefore, it is not repeated here. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the applications and proposed authorizations was published on July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41294). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). *Comment:* The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHAs subject to the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. The Commission further recommends that any authorization issued specify that, if a mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal occurs that appears to be related to the research, activities will be suspended while NMFS determines whether steps can be taken to avoid further injuries or mortalities or until such taking can be authorized by regulations promulgated under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the Commission's comments and recommendation that the applicant must institute monitoring and mitigation measures sufficient to afford the potentially affected marine mammal species adequate protection from sources of disturbance, including disturbance of behavior. NMFS further agrees with the Commission that research activities must be suspended immediately if a dead or injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project area and the death or injury of the animal could be attributable to the applicant's activities. This requirement is a condition in the IHA. Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity The marine mammals most likely to be found in the proposed seabird research areas are the California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, and northern elephant seals. General information of these species can be found in Caretta et al. (2007), which is available at the following URL: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2006.pdf* . Additional information on these species is provided in the July 27, 2007, **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 41294). Refer to these documents for information on these species. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat The only anticipated impacts would be temporary disturbances caused by the appearance of researchers near the pinnipeds. The potential disturbance might alter pinniped behavior and cause animals to flush from the area. Animals may return to the same site once researchers have left or go to an alternate haul out site, which usually occurs within 30 minutes (Allen et al., 1985). Long term effects of this disturbance are unlikely, as very few breeding animals will be present in the vicinity of the proposed seabird research areas. The proposed seabird research would not result in the physical altering of marine mammal habitat. No marine mammal habitat is expected to be affected by the proposed action. No marine mammal critical habitat is found within the proposed research area. There is no subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the proposed research area, therefore, there will be no impact of the activity on the availability of the species or stocks of marine mammals for subsistence uses. Number of Marine Mammals Estimated to Be Taken It is estimated that approximately 2,422 California sea lions, 500 harbor seals, 273 northern elephant seals, and 14 Steller sea lions could be potentially taken by Level B harassment. This estimate is based on previous research experiences, with the same activities conducted in the proposed research area, and on marine mammal research activities in these areas. These incidental harassment take numbers represent approximately 1 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion, 1.5 percent of the California stock of Pacific harbor seal, 0.3 percent of the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal, and 0.03 percent of the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion. All of the potential takes are expected to be Level B behavioral harassment only. No injury or mortality to pinnipeds is expected or requested. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting The researchers would take all possible measures to reduce marine mammal disturbance for the activities described above. Researchers would keep their voices hushed and bodies low in the visual presence of pinnipeds. Seabird observations at North Landing on Southeast Farallon Island would be conducted in an observation blind where researchers are shielded from the view of hauled out pinnipeds. Beach landings on Ano Nuevo Island would only occur after any pinnipeds that might be present on the landing beach have entered the water. Researchers accessing seabird nest boxes would crawl slowly if pinnipeds are within view. Visits to intertidal areas of Southeast Farallon Island during research activities would be coordinated to reduce potential take. All research goals on Ano Nuevo Island would be coordinated to minimize the necessary number of trips to the island. Once on Ano Nuevo Island, researchers would coordinate monitoring schedules so areas near any pinnipeds would be accessed only once per visit. Researchers would take notes of sea lions and seals observed within the proposed research area during studies. The notes would provide dates, time, tidal height, species, numbers of sea lions and seals present, and any behavior changes. PRBO will submit a final report, including these notes, to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA, if it is issued. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)In July 2007, NMFS prepared a draft EA on the issuance of an IHA to PRBO to take marine mammals by Level B harassment incidental to conducting seabird research in central California. The draft EA was released for public review and comment along with the application and the proposed IHA. All comments are addressed in full in the Comments and Responses section. Subsequently, NMFS finalized the draft EA and on December 4, 2007, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the proposed project. No environmental impact statement was prepared. ESA A section 7 consultation under the ESA was conducted with NMFS Headquarters Office of Protected Resources' Endangered Species Division. On October 19, 2007, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion and concluded that the issuance of an IHA to PRBO is likely to affect, but not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions. An incidental take statement is included in the Biological Opinion. Determinations For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of seabird research on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions hauled out in the vicinity of the proposed research area. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the survey period, may be made by these species, this action will have a negligible impact on California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions. In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document. Authorization NMFS has issued an IHA to PRBO for the potential harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions incidental to conducting of seabird research on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: December 10, 2007. Helen Golde, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-24255 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) December 11, 2007. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Request for Public Comments concerning a request for modification of the NAFTA rules of origin for textile filaments, staple yarns, and woven fabrics and nonwoven and other textile articles from rayon fiber. SUMMARY: On October 16, 2007, the Chairman of CITA received a request from the National Textile Association (NTA), alleging that certain rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”) cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for textile filaments, staple yarns, and woven fabrics, classified under chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and nonwoven and other textile articles of chapter 56, should be modified to allow the use of non-North American rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”). CITA is also considering a broad change in the rule of origin for all other textile products to allow the use of non-North American rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”). The President may proclaim a modification to the NAFTA rules of origin under these circumstances to implement an agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”) can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by (January 14, 2008 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Carrigg, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 USC 1854); Section 202(q) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 USC 3332(q)); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. BACKGROUND Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), NAFTA countries are required to eliminate customs duties on textile and apparel goods that qualify as originating goods under the NAFTA rules of origin, which are set out in Annex 401 to the NAFTA. The NAFTA provides for the Parties to consult to consider issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns or fabrics in the free trade area. See NAFTA Annex 300-B, Section 7.2(a). The NAFTA implementing legislation authorizes the President to modify the rules of origin pursuant to any agreement reached by the NAFTA Parties, as provided in Section 7.2(a) of Annex 300-B. See Section 202(q)(3)(A) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. The Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)that accompanies the NAFTA Implementation Act stated that any interested person may submit to CITA a request for a modification to a particular rule of origin based on a change in the availability in North America of a particular fiber, yarn or fabric and that the requesting party would bear the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted. NAFTA Implementation Act, SAA, H. Doc. 103-159, Vol. 1, at 491 (1993). The SAA provides that CITA may make a recommendation to the President regarding a change to a rule of origin for a textile or apparel good. SAA at 491. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification. See section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. On October 16, 2007, the Chairman of CITA received a request from the National Textile Association (NTA), alleging that certain rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”) cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for textile filaments, staple yarns, and woven fabrics, classified under chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and nonwoven and other textile articles of chapter 56, should be modified to allow the use of non-North American rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”). CITA is also considering a broad change in the rule of origin for all other textile products to allow the use of non-North American rayon fibers (other than “lyocell”). CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the rayon fiber described above can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than January 14, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that these rayon fibers can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces fiber that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3001 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary. R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E7-24281 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Amendment to Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: DoD. ACTION: Amendment to Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.85, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is amending the charter for the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (hereafter referred to as the Board). The Department of Defense hereby authorizes the Board to establish and use subcommittees as necessary and consistent with its mission. These subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976, and other appropriate Federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any federal officers or employees who are not Board Members. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is a discretionary federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense to provide the Department of Defense independent advice concerning matters arising from the military service obligations of members of the National Guard and Reserve members and the impact on their civilian employment. Pursuant to DoD policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) may act upon the advice of the Board. The Board shall be composed of no more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of Defense for three-year terms, and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis. Those members, who are not full-time federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109. Board members, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) shall select the Board's Chairperson from the Board membership at large. The Board shall meet at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Chairperson. The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp* . The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-2554, extension 128. Dated: December 7, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E7-24224 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers The Release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Announcement of a Public Hearing for the North Topsail Beach Shoreline Protection Project, in North Topsail Beach, Onslow County, NC AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office has received a request for Department of the Army authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, from the Town of North Topsail Beach to nourish approximately 11.1 miles of beachfront to protect residential homes and town infrastructures, to reposition the New River Inlet channel, and to implement an inlet management plan to control the positioning of the new inlet channel, and to conduct periodic renourishment events. The new channel will be centrally located and the proposal will be to maintain that position, which essentially will be located perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines of North Topsail Beach and Onslow Beach. The proposed source of the material for the nourishment will be dredged from an offshore borrow area and from the repositioning of the inlet. The projected amount of material needed to nourish the oceanfront shoreline is approximately 3.21 million cubic yards. The placement of beach fill along the Town's shoreline would result in the initial widening of the beach by 50 to 100 feet. The widened beach would be maintained through a program of periodic beach nourishment events with the material extracted from the New River Inlet; and if necessary, supplemental materials from the offshore borrow area. All work will be accomplished using a hydraulic dredge. The proposed project construction will be conducted in a five phase approach to correspond with the Town's anticipated annual generation of funds. The ocean shoreline of the Town of North Topsail Beach encompasses approximately 11.1 miles along the northern end of Topsail Island. Of the 11.1 miles, approximately 7.25-miles of the shoreline in the project area, with the exception of two small areas, is located within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS), which prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds that would encourage development. The channel through New River Inlet has been maintained by the COE for commercial and recreational boating interest for over 55 years. The COE is authorized to maintain the channel in the inlet to a depth of 6 feet mean low water

(mlw)over a width of 90 feet. DATES: The Public Hearing will be held at the North Topsail Beach Town Hall, located at 2008 Loggerhead Court, off NC Hwy 210, on January 9, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Written comments on the Draft EIS will be received until January 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of comments and questions regarding the Draft EIS may be addressed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division. *ATTN:* File Number 2005-344-067, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890. Copies of the Draft EIS can be reviewed on the Coastal Planning & Engineering homepage at, *http://www.coastalplanning.net/projects/temp/ntopsail.html,* or contact Ms. Gwen Dye, at

(910)251-4494, to receive written or CD copies of the Draft EIS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action and DEIS can be directed to Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, telephone:

(910)251-4811. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Project Description. The Town of North Topsail Beach, located along the north-northeast 11.1 miles of Topsail Island in North Carolina, is proposing to nourish the oceanfront shoreline and reposition New River Inlet channel as a means to address a severe erosion problem that is threatening development and town infrastructure. The entire stretch of the Town's shoreline has experienced a considerable amount of erosion over the last 20 years due primarily to the impact of numerous tropical storms and hurricanes during the mid to late 1990's and due to impacts of the uncontrolled movement of the main ebb channel in New River Inlet. The Town has stated that the shoreline erosion and residual effects of the storms have left North Topsail Beach in an extremely vulnerable position with regard to its ocean front development and infrastructure. They have estimated that over $250 million in property tax value as well as roads, water and sewer lines, and other utilities are at risk. The stated goals and objectives of the project are the following:

(1)Stabilize the oceanfront shoreline located immediately south of New River Inlet,

(2)Provide short-term protection to the 31 imminently threatened residential structures over the next zero to five years,

(3)Provide long-term protection to Town infrastructure and approximately 1,200 homes over the next thirty years,

(4)Reduce or mitigate for historic shoreline erosion along 11.1 miles of oceanfront shoreline,

(5)Improve recreational opportunities,

(6)Use beach compatible material,

(7)Maintain the Town's tax base, and

(8)Balance the needs of the human environment with the protection of existing natural resources. The project is divided into three sections; North, South, and Central. The North Section starts from the inlet shoulder and runs approximately 21,000 linear feet along the ocean shoreline. The Central Section is located both north and south of NC Hwy 210/55 Bridge and is approximately 16,500 linear feet, while the South Section, which is outside of the CBRS designation, includes approximately 20,320 linear feet of shoreline. The Town is proposing to undertake the nourishment along the 11.1 miles of oceanfront in a five phase approach within a dredging window between November 16 and March 31 of any year. The first phase will include the relocation of the inlet channel with the dredged inlet material being used to nourish approximately 14,000 linear feet of shoreline in the North Section. Construction timeline for Phase One will be within the 2008-2009 dredging window. Phase Two would take place during the 2010-2011 dredging window using the offshore borrow source, and will nourish approximately 5,140 linear feet in the North Section. The third phase will place offshore borrow material along approximately 11,500 linear feet within the southern part of the Central Section, and is proposed during the 2012-2013 dredging window. For Phase Four, offshore material will be used to nourish 6,880 linear feet of shoreline in the north part of the Central Section and part of the southern tip of the North Section. This construction will take place in the 2014-2015 dredging window. The final phase of nourishment will encompass the entire South Section, using the offshore borrow site, and will be conducted in the 2016-2017 dredging window. 2. Proposed Action. Within the Town's preferred alternative, the relocation of the inlet channel is a main component in the protection of the North Section of the project area. The inlet management plan includes the repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment along an approximate 150 degree azimuth and maintaining that position and alignment approximately every four years. Initial construction of the new channel and subsequent maintenance events will result in a channel width of 500 feet at −18 foot NAVD depth. The new channel will start within the inlet gorge and will extend approximately 3,500 linear feet southeast breaching through the ocean bar. The amount of material to be extracted during the realignment of the channel is approximately 635,800 cubic yards. The composite mean grain size of the dredged material is approximately 0.32mm, compared to the native beach material at 0.23mm. For the remaining phases, all the material used to nourish the beaches will be dredged from an offshore borrow area. The borrow area is located approximately 1.5 miles offshore within the Central Section, and just southwest of the NC 210 bridge. The site is approximately 482 acres in size and is divided into two sections:

(1)A 459-acre area with finer grain size (composite mean grain size of 0.21mm) containing approximately 6.19 million cubic yards and

(2)a 23-acre area with coarser material at a composite mean grain size of 0.33mm encompassing approximately 357,000 cubic yards. The division of the borrow site into coarser and finer materials resulted in the use of the Point of Intercept Concept or “perched beached” for the placement of material in areas where nearshore hard bottom communities were present. For nourishment in areas within close proximity to nearshore hard bottoms, the beach profiles were designed to use coarser material in order to reduce the fill toe of equilibrium. 3. Alternatives. Several alternatives have been identified and evaluated through the scoping process, and further detailed description of all alternatives is disclosed in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIS. The applicant's preferred alternative is to relocate the main ocean bar channel to a southerly alignment, implement an inlet management plan, nourish approximately 11.1 miles of ocean shoreline, and to construct the work in a five phase approach. 4. Scoping Process. A public scoping meeting was held on June 5, 2005 and a Project Delivery Team

(PDT)was developed to provide input in the preparation of the EIS. The PDT comprised of local, state, and federal government officials, local residents and nonprofit organizations. The COE has initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the EIS assesses the potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and is coordinated with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management

(DCM)to insure the projects consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The COE is coordinating closely with DCM in the development of the EIS to ensure the process complies with State Environmental Policy Act

(SEPA)requirements, as well as the NEPA requirements. The Draft EIS has been designed to consolidate both NEPA and SEPA processes to eliminate duplications. Dated: December 6, 2007. John E. Pulliam, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army, District Commander. [FR Doc. E7-24247 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-GN-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearings for Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Activities To Implement 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Actions at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section (102)(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the Department of the Navy

(DON)NEPA regulation (32 CFR part 775), DON announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)for potential environmental impacts associated with implementing actions directed by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment

(BRAC)Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended in 2005 (BRAC Law), at the National Naval Medical Center

(NNMC)in Bethesda, MD. Under the BRAC law, the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) will realign all tertiary and complex health care services to the NNMC campus in Bethesda. The transfer and integration of these services with existing functions at NNMC will result by law in creation of a new premier military health care center to be named the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) at Bethesda, MD. The BRAC law calls for completion of the realignment, establishment of the WRNMMC, and closure of WRAMC to be accomplished by 15 September 2011. The realignment of tertiary and complex medical care will bring additional patients and visitors requiring additional staff and facilities to be provided at NNMC. The DEIS provides information on the proposed new construction and facility alterations, current estimates of the additional staff that will be needed, and an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of these realignment actions at NNMC in Bethesda, MD. DATES: The public comment period for the DEIS will end 45 days after publication of an NOA in the **Federal Register** by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. All comments on the DEIS must be postmarked, faxed, or e-mailed by midnight January 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Officer in Charge—BRAC, National Naval Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889, fax: 301-295-5020 or e-mail: *NNMCEIS@med.navy.mil* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Officer in Charge—BRAC, National Naval Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889, Telephone: 301-295-2722 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, fax: 301-295-5020, or e-mail: *NNMCEIS@med.navy.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This DEIS evaluates the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of new facilities at the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC), Bethesda, Maryland. Alternative One would add approximately 1,144,000 square feet

(SF)of new building construction, provide approximately 508,000 SF of renovation to existing building space at NNMC, and provide approximately 824,000 SF of new parking facilities. It would accommodate approximately 2,500 additional staff. The new construction or improvements to existing facilities would provide medical care and administration additions and alterations, a Traumatic Brain Injury/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Intrepid Center of Excellence, permanent and temporary lodging facilities (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters and Fisher Houses TM ), a new physical fitness center, additional parking, and road and utility improvements on the installation as needed to support the new facilities. Under Alternative Two, the same facilities are proposed; some facility sites change and the choice of new construction versus renovation of some facilities differs from Alternative One. Alternative Two would add to NNMC approximately 1,230,000 SF feet of new building construction, approximately 423,000 SF of building renovation, and approximately 824,000 SF of new parking facilities. The estimated staffing increase would also be approximately 2,500 personnel under Alternative Two. The Notice of Intent (NOI), published in the **Federal Register** on November 21, 2006, identified the following alternatives to be under consideration in the EIS:

(1)Implement the BRAC recommendation;

(2)Implement the BRAC recommendation and provide for future anticipated growth, support activities, and changes to the installation;

(3)No action, with NNMC continuing to maintain and repair existing facilities without additional growth. Since November 2006, a number of planning decisions have been made by Department of Defense

(DoD)that have affected, but not substantially changed, the proposed NEPA analysis on the best way to ensure world-class care is provided for the Nation's wounded veterans both today and in the post-BRAC environment. Special housing, billeting, food service, medical support, and administrative support requirements were determined and then appropriately sited on the NNMC Bethesda campus. The decisions made by DoD resulted in a refocused effort in this DEIS to concentrate in the Proposed Action entirely on implementation of the BRAC mandate through Warrior Care. Any other non-BRAC related future growth, support activities, or changes to the installation are considered when reasonably foreseeable in the analysis of cumulative impacts. The DEIS finds that environmental impacts from Alternative One and Alternative Two would be similar. The DEIS analysis indicates an increase in off-base traffic volumes due to the increase in staff, patients, and visitors. The off-base traffic impact would be the same for either alternative. The DEIS finds that proposed new facilities would involve a small increase in impervious surface area and minimal impacts to biological resources because the new facilities would be constructed on either existing development such as parking lots or on landscaped areas. The increase in runoff resulting from the increase in impervious surface would be controlled with storm water management and erosion and sediment control measures. Emissions of air pollutants from the Proposed Action during construction and operations would not exceed *de minimis* levels or ambient standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for protection of the airshed and thus air quality impacts would not be significant. Short-term increases in noise levels would occur during construction that are typical of construction activities. No major issues are anticipated for utilities required to support the NNMC expansion. Formal consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act with appropriate agencies will be conducted by the DON to ensure that construction of new buildings in the NNMC Bethesda Historic District would be accomplished with minimal impacts to cultural resources. The DEIS finds that the Proposed Action is compatible with existing land use plans and land use planning underway within NNMC. Beneficial economic impacts to the surrounding economy are anticipated under each action alternative, resulting from the large investment in construction and renovation of facilities. Local residents could experience increased traffic on weekdays and weekends. Personnel relocating from their positions at WRAMC are not expected to change their off base residences; therefore, impacts to local housing, schools, or community services are expected to be minimal. Adherence to applicable regulations and guidance will avoid impacts to human health and safety. The DEIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and interested parties. The DEIS is also available for public review at the following local libraries and public facilities: Bethesda Library, 7400 Arlington Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; Chevy Chase Library, 8005 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; Davis Library, 6400 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817; Kensington Park Library, 4201 Knowles Avenue, Kensington, MD 20895; Rockville Library, 21 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850; Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814; Bethesda Urban Partnership, Inc., 7700 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, MD 20814; and Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1204, Bethesda, MD 20814. The DEIS is also available at the following Web sites: *http://www.bethesda.med.navy.mil/Professional/Public_Affairs/BRAC/* ; and *http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brac* . The DON also invites the general public, local governments, state and other federal agencies to participate in the public hearings where the DON will receive oral and written comments on the DEIS. Two hearings will be held: January 9 and 10, 2008 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. The public hearings will be conducted in English. A court reporter will be available to record oral comments. The DON requests that people desiring to speak submit, in writing, their intention to participate and that they frame their statements to meet a three

(3)minute limitation on the length of any oral statement. The limit is not intended to constrain an individual's ability to make comments but rather to ensure that all persons requesting to make a comment are given that opportunity. The DON also requests that technical statements or statements of considerable length be submitted in writing. For requests for special assistance, sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired, language interpreters, or other auxiliary aids at the scheduled public hearings, please contact: Officer in Charge—BRAC, National Naval Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889, Telephone: 301-295-2722 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, fax: 301-295-5020, or e-mail: *NNMCEIS@med.navy.mil* . To allow time for the arrangements to be made, any request for special assistance at the public hearings must be made to the DEIS point of contact by January 04, 2008. Dated: December 10, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24214 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. Marine Corps Grow the Force Initiative (or GTF) at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station New River, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC AGENCY: Department of the Navy; DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508) and U.S. Marine Corps

(USMC)NEPA implementing regulations in Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, the USMC announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)to evaluate the potential environmental consequences that may result from the permanent assignment of approximately 9,900 additional Marines and support service personnel at three installations in North Carolina: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) and Marine Corps Air Station New River (MCASNR) in Jacksonville and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point (MCASCP) in Havelock. The proposed action includes incremental permanent personnel increases at existing USMC installations. By Fiscal Year

(FY)2011 MCBCL, MCASNR, and MCASCP personnel (military and civilian) increases are expected to be approximately 7,700 (MCBCL), 1,400 (MCASNR), and 800 (MCASCP). Alternatives to be examined in the EIS may consist of alternative sitting locations on these installations for new facility construction, renovation and use of existing facilities, or a combination of both new and existing facilities. The no-action alternative, of not permanently basing these Marines and associated personnel, will also be examined. The USMC is initiating the scoping process with this notice of intent. Scoping assists the USMC in identifying community concerns and local issues related to the proposed action. DATES: Three open house scoping meetings will be held in the Jacksonville and Havelock regional area from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on the following dates and locations:

(1)Tuesday, January 29, 2008, Havelock Tourist and Event Center, 201 Tourist Center Drive, Havelock, NC.

(2)Wednesday, January 30, 2008, Coastal Carolina Community College, 444 Western Boulevard, Jacksonville, NC.

(3)Thursday, January 31, 2008, Dixon High School, 160 Dixon School Road, Holly Ridge, NC. ADDRESSES: Federal, state, and local agencies, and interested groups and persons are encouraged to attend the scoping open house meetings. All are encouraged to provide comments on the proposed action either at the scoping meetings or by mail, postmarked no later than February 3, 2008 to ensure proper consideration in the EIS to the following address: Mr. Michael H. Jones, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Mid-Atlantic, Code BMEV31 Building C, Room 3012, 6506 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael H. Jones, 757-322-4942. Please submit requests for special assistance, sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired or other auxiliary aids at the public meeting to Mr. Jones by January 8, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In January 2007, the President of the United States, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, announced that the Marine Corps would increase its end strength from approximately 180,000 to 202,000 by 2011. This increase is needed to provide adequate time to recover between deployments, train to meet combat readiness, and prepare for redeployment. The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure that Marines are properly prepared and trained for existing combat and homeland protection missions and future conflicts. The Marine Corps uses the Total Force Structure Process

(TFSP)to transform strategic guidance, policy constraints, and commander-generated recommendations into the integrated capabilities required to execute Marine Corps missions. The TFSP relies on a detailed, integrated examination of doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, and facilities, ensuring that no aspect of the enterprise is ignored when new requirements for the Corps are identified. In order to meet the purpose and need, the proposed action of increasing the Marine Corps must be expedited while not compromising the current Marine Corps missions. Existing force structure and organization would be maintained in order to not further complicate, retard, or jeopardize the Marine Corps mission. The proposed action accomplishes this by augmenting existing units with Marines possessing the appropriate skill sets. These existing units are already established at current Marine Corps bases. Consequently, alternative bed-down locations to the proposed action are not feasible because they would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Specifically, the EIS will evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed action at the three installations on the following resources: Land; water resources (e.g., wetlands and coastal zones); natural resources, including threatened and endangered species; air; earth resources (e.g., soils and geology); visual resources, and cultural resources. Issues and activities that will be addressed include: Hazardous materials and hazardous waste; noise; recreation; transportation; socioeconomics; and environmental justice. Other resources, activities, and issues as identified through the scoping process will be included in the EIS and the analysis will evaluate both direct and indirect impacts, and account for cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Jacksonville and Havelock, NC regional area. The USMC values the good relationship between its three installations in eastern NC and the surrounding communities, and will work closely with community stakeholders to assess the potential impacts of the proposed action on traffic and other transportation issues; stormwater and other environmental concerns; population increases and the related concerns with respect to schools, child care, and other quality of life issues; and other potential impacts that may be identified. Dated: December 10, 2007. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Administrative Law Division, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24234 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-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 January 14, 2008. 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: December 11, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Lender's Application for Payment of Insurance Claim, ED Form 1207. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Businesses or other for-profit. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 51. *Burden Hours:* 14. *Abstract:* The ED Form 1207—Lender's Application for Payment of Insurance Claim is completed for each borrower for whom the lender is filing a Federal claim. Lenders must file for payment within 90 days of the default, depending on the type of claim filed. 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 3488. 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* , 202-245-6432. 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. E7-24269 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 12, 2008. 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

(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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: December 11, 2007. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Loan Discharge Application: Unpaid Refund. *Frequency:* *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 400. *Burden Hours:* 200. *Abstract:* If a school fails to make a required refund of a Federal Family Education Loan Program or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program loan, a borrower uses this form to apply for a discharge of the portion of the loan that was not refunded. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3546. 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. E7-24272 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice-215] Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Notice of Filings of Self-Certifications of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Filings. SUMMARY: On October 23, 2007, The WCM Group, Inc., on behalf of three owners and operators of new base load electric powerplants, submitted coal capability self-certifications to the Department of Energy

(DOE)pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. Section 201(d) of FUA requires DOE to publish a notice of receipt of self-certifications in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell at

(202)586-9624. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), provides that no new base load electric powerplants may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA section 201(d), in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** reciting that the certification has been filed. The following owners of proposed new base load electric powerplants have filed self-certifications of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61: *Owner:* Nueces Bay WLE, LP *Capacity:* 700 MW *Plant Location:* Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas *In-Service Date:* June, 2009 *Owner:* Laredo WLE, LP *Capacity:* 200 MW *Plant Location:* Laredo, Webb County, Texas *In-Service Date:* June, 2008 *Owner:* Barney M. Davis, LP *Capacity:* 700 MW *Plant Location:* Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas *In-Service Date:* June, 2009 Issued in Washington, DC, on December 3, 2007. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E7-24232 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC08-725C-000] Proposed Information Collection and Request for Comments December 7, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for Office of Management and Budget Emergency Processing of proposed information collection and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is providing notice of its request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for emergency processing of a proposed collection of information in connection with steps being taken by the electric industry to address potential cyber vulnerabilities, and is soliciting public comment on that information collection. DATES: The Commission and OMB must receive comments on or before January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to:

(1)Nathan Frey, FERC Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Frey may be reached by telephone at

(202)395-7345.

(2)Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, ED-30, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Mr. Miller may be reached by telephone at

(202)502-8415 and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan First, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Mr. First may be reached by telephone at

(202)502-8529 and by e-mail at *jonathan.first@ferc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A recent experiment conducted for the Department of Homeland Security by the Idaho National Laboratory demonstrated that under certain conditions energy infrastructure could be intentionally damaged through cyber attack. In that experiment, researchers caused a generator to malfunction through an experimental cyber attack. This potential cyber vulnerability, which was recently broadcast on CNN, was the subject of an October 17, 2007 hearing before the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives. The Commission intends to immediately issue a directive that requires all generator owners, generator operators, transmission owners, and transmission operators that are registered by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation

(NERC)and located in the United States to provide to NERC certain information related to actions they have taken or intend to take to protect against the potential cyber vulnerability discussed above. The Commission will also require NERC to make this information available for Commission review. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824o, vests the Commission with authority over the Electric Reliability Organization

(ERO)and over the users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System for purposes of approving and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. Under section 215, the term “Reliability Standard” includes requirements for the cyber security protection of the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the Commission is charged not merely with approving (or remanding) Reliability Standards filed by the ERO, but also with ordering the ERO to submit a proposed standard or a modification to an existing standard that “addresses a specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or modified reliability standard appropriate to carry out this section.” A number of efforts are underway to secure the Nation's electric infrastructure against potential cyber vulnerabilities. One such effort is an advisory issued by NERC, acting through the Electric Sector-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC), to generator owners, generator operators, transmission owners, and transmission operators. This advisory identified a number of short-term measures, mid-term measures and long-term measures designed to mitigate the potential cyber vulnerability discussed above. It has been represented that a number of entities are already either secured against the potential cyber vulnerability referred to above or have taken steps to mitigate this vulnerability, and NERC has since sent a data request to industry members. That data request is limited in scope. It is essentially a request that industry members indicate if their mitigation plans are “complete,” “in progress,” or “not performing.” This information is not sufficient for the Commission to discharge its duties under section 215 of the Federal Power Act because it does not provide information on what facilities are the subject of the mitigation plans, what steps to mitigate the potential cyber vulnerability are being taken, when those steps are planned to be taken, and, if certain actions are not being taken, why not. In sum, given the seriousness of this potential vulnerability and given that the NERC data request does not provide information that the Commission needs to discharge its statutory responsibilities, the Commission believes further action is necessary in order to ensure that the owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System have taken or are taking appropriate steps to protect the Bulk-Power System. Section 307 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825f, authorizes the Commission to “investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or matters which it may find necessary or proper * * * to aid in * * * prescribing rules or regulations [under the Federal Power Act], or in obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation.” Section 39.2(d) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 39.2(d), requires owners and operators to “provide the Commission * * * such information as is necessary to implement section 215 of the Federal Power Act as determined by the Commission.” The Commission believes that the information that will be requested is critical to ensuring that appropriate mitigation of this potential cyber vulnerability is put in place and that it is put in place as quickly as possible. The Commission believes that an accurate overview of the actions taken and expected to be taken in the industry is a necessary first step to determine whether any further measures need to be taken by the Commission to ensure the safety and reliability of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission is very sensitive to the need to preserve confidentiality of the information requested and the need to minimize the burden on industry. Accordingly, the information will be examined on-site at NERC headquarters, and disclosure by NERC will be on a need-to-know basis to NERC personnel and the Commission and its staff. Respondents will provide the information listed below to NERC, which will secure the information and treat the responses as nonpublic information available, as noted above, on a need-to-know basis to NERC personnel and to the Commission and its staff. Following Commission review, the information will be returned to the submitters. Each respondent will be required to provide the following information to NERC: 1. A copy of the owner or operator's plan for responding to the cyber vulnerability outlined in the ES-ISAC advisory, along with a general description of the facility for each plan, 2. A description of the measures—short-term, mid-term, and long-term—taken or planned to be taken (and the timeframe for implementing such measures) as recommended by the ES-ISAC advisory to mitigate the risks associated with this cyber vulnerability including projected completion dates if they fall outside the ES-ISAC advisory deadlines, 3. An explanation of how the plan and measures described above secure the owners or operators' facilities against this cyber vulnerability, and 4. If an owner or operator believes no actions are necessary regarding a measure, an explanation why it believes that to be so, along with a general description of the facility that the respondent proposes to exempt from actions under the advisory. The Commission estimates that it would take each respondent no more than 12 hours to generate the requested information. The Commission estimates that the number of respondents will be approximately 1,150. Therefore, the total number of hours it would take to comply with the reporting requirement would be 13,800. The Commission estimates a total cost of $1,214,400 to respondents @ $88 per hour, based on salaries for professional and clerical staff, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. The Commission has submitted this reporting requirement to OMB for approval. OMB's regulations describe the process that federal agencies must follow in order to obtain OMB approval of reporting requirement. *See* 5 CFR part 1320. The standards for emergency processing of information collections appear at 5 CFR 1320.13. If OMB approves a reporting requirement, then it will assign an information collection control number to that requirement. If a request for information subject to OMB review has not been given a valid control number, then the recipient is not required to respond. OMB requires federal agencies seeking approval of reporting requirements to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed reporting requirement. 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv). Therefore, the Commission is soliciting comment on:

(1)Whether the collection of the information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of this information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)How to minimize the burden of the collection of this information on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24249 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. QF08-110-000] Tiqun Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Notice of Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility December 7, 2007. Take notice that on December 6, 2007, Tiqun Energy, Inc. filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations. The facility is a cogeneration facility with the primary energy source being natural gas. The production equipment will consist of two GE LM 6000 PF Sprint gas turbine generators each with a duct-fired heat recovery steam generator driving a steam turbine generator for a total net output capacity of 140 MWe. The facility will be located in Anchorage, Alaska. Chugach Electric Association, Inc. and Anchorage Municipal Light & Power are the electric utilities with which the facility expects to interconnect, transmit or sell electric energy to, or purchase supplementary, standby, back-up and maintenance power. A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification provides notice that the entity making the filing has determined the facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24248 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 December 7, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-19-000. *Applicants:* Quachita Power, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. *Description:* Quachita Power, LLC & Entergy Arkansas, Inc's application for order authorizing acquisition & disposition of jurisdictional assets under Section 203 of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER96-25-031; ER01-1363-009. *Applicants:* Coral Power LLC; Coral Energy Management, LLC. *Description:* Coral Power, LLC and Coral Energy Management, LLC submit a notice of non-material change in status and compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER97-420-017. *Applicants:* ProLiance Energy, LLC. *Description:* ProLiance Energy LLC submits revised tariff sheet to replace the 11/5/07 filing along with a redlined copy of its tariff. *Filed Date:* 11/29/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-2984-009. *Applicants:* Green Country Energy, LLC. *Description:* Green County Energy, LLC submits a supplement to its 11/9/07 filing of a notice of a non-material change in status. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0069. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-48-010. *Applicants:* Powerex Corp. *Description:* Powerex Corp submits a notice of non-material change in status. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-774-005. *Applicants:* Eagle Energy Partners I, LP. *Description:* Eagle Energy Partners I, LP amends its 10/24/07 filing of a Notice of Change in Status by including Appendix B and submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 1 *et al* to reflect a 9/18/07 effective date etc. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0155. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1420-004. *Applicants:* Lehman Brothers Commodity Services Inc. *Description:* Lehman Brothers Commodity Services Inc submits a revised tariff sheets (Attachment II) to reflect a 9/18/07 effective date for its market based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0154. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1232-006; ER05-283-007. *Applicants:* JPMorgan Ventures Energy Corporation; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. *Description:* Errata to Notice on Non-Material Change in Status Regarding Market-Based Rate Authority of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. *Filed Date:* 12/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-5088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1346-002. *Applicants:* White Creek Wind I, LLC. *Description:* White Creek Wind LLC submits its revised Third Revised Sheet 1 of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071206-0228. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-527-002. *Applicants:* Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc. *Description:* Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc submits notice of a non-material change in status related to a change in its upstream ownership. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1094-003. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits Service Agreement 1151 with an updated effective date pursuant to FERC's 11/2/07 Letter Order. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1105-001. *Applicants:* Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Change in Facts Relied Upon by the Commission in Granting Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC Market-Based Rate Authority. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-5029. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1126-004. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits Service Agreement 1153 with an updated effective date pursuant to FERC's 11/2/07 Letter Order. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0118. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1174-002; OA07-74-002. *Applicants:* MATL LLP. *Description:* MATL LLP submits 11/26/07 revised tariff sheets to its open access transmission tariff. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0153. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1249-003. *Applicants:* Lockport Energy Associates, L.P. *Description:* Lockport Energy Associates, LP submits a revised generation market power screens and a revised description of the seasonal capacity ratings of its facility. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-19-003. *Applicants:* Energy Algorithms, LLC. *Description:* Amendment to application of Energy Algorithms LLC for order accepting market based rate tariff, granting waivers and blanket authority, and request for waiver of prior notice requirement. *Filed Date:* 11/26/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071207-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-88-001. *Applicants:* Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Old Dominion Electric Cooperative submits a Revised Interconnection Agreement with A&N Electric Cooperative and 12/4/07 submit an errata to this filing. *Filed Date:* 12/04/2007; 12/03/07. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0122; 20071205-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-110-002. *Applicants:* Starwood Power-Midway, LLC. *Description:* Starwood Power-Midway, LLC submits their revised FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 and request for shortened notice period of no more than seven days and to waive the Commission's prior notice requirements. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-112-001. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Idaho Power Co submits its Open Access Transmission Tariff and a revision to their Annual Informational Filing filed on 10/29/07. *Filed Date:* 12/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071206-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-169-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Allete, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc and ALLETE, Inc submits an errata to their 11/2/07 filing of proposed revisions to Attachment P of their FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 12/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071206-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 26, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-173-001. *Applicants:* Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Florida Power Corp dba Progress Energy Florida, Inc. files an amendment to its cost-based power sales agreement with the City of Williston, Florida. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-213-001. *Applicants:* Round Rock Energy, LP. *Description:* Round Rock Energy, LP submits a supplemental filing to Sheet 1, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071203-0193. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-281-000. *Applicants:* Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. submits revised tariff sheets for Attachment H and T to the Southwest Power Pool, Inc Open Access Transmission Tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-282-000 *Applicants:* New England Power Pool Participants Committee *Description:* The New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits Revised Sheet 58 et al to their Second Restated NEPOOL Agreement. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0066. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-283-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits amendments to Section 5.14.1(b) of its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff for year 2008/2009. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0070. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-285-000. *Applicants:* Tampa Electric Company. *Description:* Tampa Electric Co. submits notice of cancellation of its Second Revised Rate Schedule 39, comprising the Agreement to Provide Qualifying Facility Transmission Service with Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-286-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits their first revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1421 with the Village of Vygnet. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-287-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-288-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co. submits revised rate sheets for the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with El Segundo Power II, LLC. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0059. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-289-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits a generator interconnection agreement with Liberty V Biofuels Power, LLC. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-290-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits Service Agreement 1165 and Amendment 1 to the 4/11/02 interconnection agreement. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-291-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits Service Agreement 1164, an amended and restated interconnection agreement with Bio-Energy Partners. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-292-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits Service Agreement 1163, an amended and restated interconnection agreement with Fibertek Energy, LLC. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0113. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-293-000. *Applicants:* Forward Windpower, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Forward Windpower, LLC for order accepting market-based rate tariff for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0112. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-294-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. dba National Grid submits a power purchase and interconnection agreement dated 4/27/98 with Cogen Energy Technology, LP. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0126. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-295-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits a power purchase agreement with Indeck-Yerkes Limited Partnership. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0124. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-296-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc et al submits revisions to section 37. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-297-000. *Applicants:* Lookout Windpower, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Lookout Windpower, LLC for order accepting market-based rate tariff for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0115. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-6-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* Supplemental Info of Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071130-5092. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 14, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-51-001. *Applicants:* Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. *Description:* Mid-Continent Area Power Pool submits Third Revised Sheet 2 *et al* to its FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective 11/30/07. *Filed Date:* 11/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071205-0130. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-74-002. *Applicants:* MATL LLP. *Description:* MATL LLP submits 11/26/07 revised tariff sheets to its open access transmission tariff. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071204-0153. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-17-000. *Applicants:* WSPP Inc. *Description:* WSPP Inc submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff incorporating specific changes to the Order 888 proforma OATT adopted by the FERC in Order 890. *Filed Date:* 12/03/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071206-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 24, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-24241 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138; FRL-8506-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles; EPA ICR No. 1723.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0320 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-566-9744. • *Mail:* Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA, West Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 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-OAR-2007-1138. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://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 *http://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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4851; fax number: 734-214-4869; e-mail address: *sochacki.lynn@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 202-566-1742. Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv)minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1138] *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are importers into the United States of nonroad engines and vehicles. *Title:* Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1723.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0320. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This ICR covers the burden associated with EPA Form 3520-21, a declaration form for importers of nonroad vehicles or engines into the United States, which identifies the regulated category of engine or vehicle and the regulatory provisions under which the importation is taking place. In addition, this ICR covers the possible burden of EPA Form 3520-8 if it comes to be used to request final importation clearance for Independent Commercial Importers of nonroad Compression Ignition engines, who would have to bring the engines into compliance and provide test results, comparable to the use of Form 3520-8 for on-road vehicles and engines as covered by OMB 2060-0095. The information is used by Agency enforcement personnel to verify that all nonroad vehicles and engines subject to Federal emission requirements have been declared upon entry or that the category of exclusion or exemption from emissions requirements has been identified in the declaration. The information is also used to identify and prosecute violators of the regulations and to monitor the program in achieving the objectives of the regulations. The Forms are required before making customs entry; see 19 CFR 12.73 and 12.74. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.81 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 4,801. *Frequency of response:* Once per entry. (One form per shipment may be used.) *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 2.5. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 9749. *Estimated total annual costs:* $520,787. This includes an estimated burden cost of $484,785 and an estimated cost of $36,002 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: December 7, 2007. Karl J. Simon, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-24229 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6694-1] 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. 20070386, ERP No. D-NRC-E06024-GA* , Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site, Issuance of an Early Site Permit

(ESP)for Construction and Operation of a New Nuclear Power Generating Facility, NUREG-1872, Burke County, GA. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concern about impacts to surface water under level 4 drought conditions and impacts to drinking water sources. EPA also requested radiological monitoring of all plant effluents, appropriate storage and disposition of radioactive waste and compliance with the NPDES Permit. Rating EC1. *EIS No. 20070400, ERP No. D-FRC-K05065-CA* , Upper American River Hydroelectric FERC NO. 2101-084, El Dorado and Sacramento Counties, CA and Chili Bar Hydroelectric FERC No. 2155-024, El Dorado County, CA, Issuance of a New License for the Existing and Proposed Hydropower Projects. *Summary:* EPA has no objections to the proposed project. Rating LO. *EIS No. 20070412, ERP No. D-TVA-E08022-TN* , Ruthford-Williamson-Davidson Power Supply Improvement Project, Proposes to Construct and Operate a New 500-kilovolt

(kV)Ruthford Substation, a New 27-mile 500-kV Transmission Line and Two New 9- and 15-mile 161-kV Transmission Lines, Ruthford, Williamson Counties, TN. *Summary:* EPA expressed concern about impacts to water quality, wetlands, forested wetlands, and riparian vegetation. Rating EC2. *EIS No. 20070425, ERP No. D-COE-E39071-00* , Wolf Dam/Lake Cumberland Project, Emergency Measures in Response to Seepage, Mississippi River, South Central Kentucky and Central Tennessee. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts related to water quantity and water quality in the reservoir and project dam releases, and recommends that specific mitigation measures and monitoring efforts be implemented. Rating EC1. *EIS No. 20070431, ERP No. D-NOA-E91020-00* , Snapper Grouper Fishery Amendment 15A, Proposes Management Reference Points and Rebuilding Plans for Snowy Grouper, Black Sea Bass and Red Porgy, South Atlantic Region. *Summary:* While EPA has no objections to the proposed action, we suggested that shorter recovery schedules are considered. Rating LO. Final EISs *EIS No. 20070395, ERP No. F-USA-D15001-MD* , Fort George G. Meade Base Realignment and Closure 2005 and Enhanced Use Lease

(EUL)Actions, Implementation, Anne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's Counties, MD. *Summary:* EPA continues to express concern about natural resource impacts, and recommends additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures be implemented. *EIS No. 20070397, ERP No. F-AFS-L65537-WA* , Tripod Fire Salvage Project, Proposal to Salvage Harvest Dead Trees and Fire-Injured Trees Expected to Die Within One Year, Methow Valley and Tonasket Ranger Districts, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, Okanogan County, WA. *Summary:* EPA has no objections to the action as proposed. *EIS No. 20070434, ERP No. F-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 has continuing concerns regarding sufficiency of mitigation for impacts to coral reefs. EPA recommends the Navy commit to the preferred mitigation watershed restoration project agreed upon by the Navy and resource agencies and avoid selecting the contingency mitigation plan, which does not sufficiently replace lost ecosystem functions. *EIS No. 20070444, ERP No. F-USA-E15000-GA,* Fort Benning U.S. Army Infantry Center, Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC)2005 and Transformation Actions, Implementation, Chattahoochee and Muscogee Counties, GA. *Summary:* EPA continues to have environmental concern about air quality impacts and requested additional work toward the development of a comprehensive alternative transportation program to assist the Columbus area in meeting air quality standards in the future. *EIS No. 20070460, ERP No. F-FRC-F03010-WI,* Guardian Expansion and Extension Project, Construction and Operation Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calument, Brown, Walworth, Outagamie Counties, WI. *Summary:* EPA continues to have environmental concerns about mitigation for wetland, upland forest, and wildlife habitat impacts. *EIS No. 20070461, ERP No. F-IBR-K39106-00,* Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Implementation, Colorado River, CO and CA. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed project. *EIS No. 20070462, ERP No. F-MMS-E02011-00,* Eastern Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)Oil and Gas Lease Sale 224, Gulf of Mexico Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Parishes/Counties of LA, MS, AL, and North Western Florida. *Summary:* EPA continues to have environmental concerns about drilling fluid impacts, and requested additional field investigations on the effects of synthetic-based drilling fluids in the deep water environment. *EIS No. 20070479, ERP No. F-GSA-D11037-DC,* Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH-W), Proposed Master Plan for Campus Located at 3700 North Capitol Street, NW., AFRH Trust Fund, Washington, DC. *Summary:* EPA continues to have environmental concerns about Impacts to historic properties and developmental impacts. *EIS No. 20070438, ERP No. FS-NOA-B91017-00,* Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment 11, Implementation to Control Capacity and Mortality in the General Category Scallop Fishery, Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, NC. *Summary:* EPA's previous issues have been resolved; therefore, EPA has no objection to the proposed action. Dated: December 11, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-24228 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6693-9] 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 12/03/2007 through 12/07/2007 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20070511, Final EIS, BLM, AK* , Bay Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Located within the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay Areas, AK, Wait Period Ends: 01/14/2008, Contact: Chuck Denton 907-267-1246. *EIS No. 20070512, Draft EIS, FHW, TX* , Tier 1 DEIS—I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor Study, Improvement to International, Interstate and Intrastate Movement of Good and People, Louisiana-Mexico/Northeast Texas to Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 03/19/2008, Contact: Donald Davis 512-536-5900. *EIS No. 20070513, Final EIS, FHW, TX* , Grand Parkway/TX-99 Segment E Improvement Project, IH-10 to U.S. 290, Funding, Right-of-Way Grant and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Harris County, TX, Wait Period Ends: 01/14/2008, Contact: Donald Davis 512-536-5960. *EIS No. 20070514, Draft EIS, AFS, CO* , San Juan Public Lands, Draft Land Management Plan (DLMP), Implementation, San Juan National Forest, Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, LaPlata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan and San Miguel Counties, CO, Comment Period Ends: 03/12/2008, Contact: Gary Thrash 970-247-4874. *EIS No. 20070515, Final Supplement, FHW, IA* , IA-100 Extension Around Cedar Rapids, Edgewood Road to U.S. 30, Reevaluation of the Project Corridor and Changes in Environmental Requirements, Funding and U.S. Army COE 404 Permit Issuance, Linn County, IA, Wait Period Ends: 01/14/2008, Contact: Phillip E. Barnes 515-233-7300. *EIS No. 20070516, Final EIS, FHW, DE* , U.S. 301 Project Development, Transportation Improvements from MD State Line to DE-1, South of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, New Castle County, DE, Wait Period Ends: 01/14/2008, Contact: Robert Kleinburd 302-734-2966. *EIS No. 20070517, Draft EIS, USA, MD* , National Naval Medical Center, Activities to Implement 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Actions, Construction and Operation of New Facilities for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, Comment Period Ends: 01/28/2008, Contact: Andrew Gutberlet 301-295-2722. *EIS No. 20070518, Draft EIS, COE, PA* , Southern Beltway Transportation Project, Transportation Improvement between I-79 to Mon/Fayette Expressway (PA Turnpike 43), Application for U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Washington County, PA, Comment Period Ends: 02/08/2008, Contact: Scott A. Hans 412-395-7152. *EIS No. 20070519, Draft EIS, AFS, MO* , Cooney McKay Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project, Proposed to Restore Desirable Vegetative Conditions, Swan Valley near Condon, Swan Lake Ranger District, Flathead National Forest, Lake and Missoula Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: 01/28/2008, Contact: Steve Brady 406-837-7501. *EIS No. 20070520, Final EIS, FHW, NY* , NY-17—Elmira to Chemung Project, Proposed Highway Reconstruction, New Highway Construction, Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Town and City of Elmira, Town of Ashland and Chemung, Chemung County, NY, Wait Period Ends: 01/28/2008, Contact: Amy Jackson-Grove 518-431-4127. *EIS No. 20070521, Draft Supplement, NOA, 00* , Reef Fish Amendment 30A: Greater Amberjack—Revise Rebuilding Plan, Accountability Measures: Gray Triggerfish—Establish Rebuilding Plan, End Overfishing, Accountability Measures, Regional Management, Management Thresholds and Benchmarks, Gulf of Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 01/28/2008, Contact: Roy E. Crabtree, MD 727-824-5701. Amended Notices *EIS No. 20070021, Draft Supplement, BLM, MT* , Montana Statewide Oil and Gas, Development Alternative for Coal Bed Natural Gas Production and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans, Additional Information Three New Alternatives, Implementation, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, NPDES Permit, Several Cos, MT, Comment Period Ends: 03/13/2008, Contact: Mary Bloom 406-233-2852. Revision to FR Notice Published 02/02/2007: Reopening of the Comment Period is Only for the Supplemental Air Quality Analysis Portion for the above DSEIS from 05/02/2007 to 03/13/2008. *EIS No. 20070411, Draft EIS, FRC, NC* , Yadkin—Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydro Electric Project (Docket Nos. P-2197-073 & P-2206-030), Issuance of New Licenses for the Existing and Proposed Hydropower Projects, Yadkin—Yadkin-Pee Dee Rivers, Davidson, Davie, Montgomery, Rowan, Stanly, Anson and Richmond Counties, NC, Comment Period Ends: 12/10/2007, Contact: Andy Black 1-866-208-3372. Revision of FR Notice Published 10/05/2007: Extending Comment Period from 12/03/2007 to 12/10/2007. Dated: December 11, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7-24227 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notices DATE and TIME: Friday, December 14, 2007, at 1 p.m. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor). STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. The following item has been added to the Agenda: Final Rules on Candidate Travel. PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:

(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-6059 Filed 12-12-07; 11:57 am]

Connectionstraces to 82

Traces to 82 documents

U.S. Code