Notices. Notice

58,663 words·~267 min read·/register/2007/12/21/07-6144

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

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Cancer Care for Uninsured Individuals: A Feasibility Study

(NCI)SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute

(NCI)of the National Institutes of Health

(NIH)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. Proposed Collection *Title: Cancer Care For Uninsured Individuals:* A Feasibility Study. *Type of Information Collection Request:* NEW. *Need and Use of Information Collection:* The purpose of this information collection is to conduct a pilot study to assess the feasibility of obtaining health insurance information for participants of the Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovarian

(PLCO)Cancer Screening Trial participants from health care providers and self reports. The ultimate objective is to compare the health care utilization of insured and uninsured PLCO participants. The PLCO data provides a unique opportunity to study health care seeking behavior after an abnormal cancer screening test and the effect of lack of health insurance. Individuals randomized to the intervention arm of the trial received screening for the PLCO cancers. Individuals with positive findings were referred to their doctors for follow-up care, but no additional care was provided by the trial. The PLCO study then collected detailed information on tests received for diagnosis, clinical presentation of disease, and cancer treatment. Since the PLCO original data collection had not recorded the health insurance of participants at the time of their screening, it is necessary to collect it retrospectively. This feasibility study will request information from 50 physicians and 150 participants. The aims are to determine:

(1)The total number of physicians to be contacted to obtain insurance information on all PLCO participants who had a positive cancer screening test;

(2)The percentage of physicians willing and able to provide insurance information;

(3)The percentage of respondents' patients with and without insurance, and possibly distribution of patients by insurance type;

(4)The number of participants for whom the insurance status can be only determined by self report;

(5)The percentage of PLCO participants who are willing to respond to the survey;

(6)The percentage of individuals who are willing to provide information on insurance status and type; and,

(7)The potential proportion of PLCO participants without health insurance at the time of screening. The results of this feasibility study will be used to design of a larger study to examine the health care behavior of insured and uninsured PLPCO participants. This is relevant to understand the results of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial and other screening trials currently being conducted in the U.S. The success of these trials is conditional on participants' access to care following a recommendation for follow-up. Uninsured individuals may be more likely to join these trials than insured ones in order to get free preventive care. They may also be more likely to not seek, or delay seeking, care after an abnormal screening test even though they are encouraged to get care and they may be highly motivated to receive the best care possible. It is relevant for other decision makers to understand whether uninsured persons are receiving appropriate care after abnormal screening results. The efforts to control cancer disease and the loss of life associated with it are concentrated on population wide screening. These endeavors may be compromised if a significant proportion of the population does not get appropriate follow-up after screening or does not get the care known to be effective for their disease. *Frequency of Response:* One time. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-profit. *Type of Respondents:* Men and women older than 55 who participated in the PLCO Screening trial and physicians who provided care for them. The annual reporting burden is shown in the following table. Type of respondents Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden hours per response Annual hour burden PLCO participants 150 1 5 minutes (0.08) 12.5 Physicians office staff 50 1 20 minutes (0.33) 16.7 Totals 200 29.2 The annualized cost to respondents is estimated at: $488. There are no Capital Costs to report. There are no Operating or Maintenance Costs to report. *Request for Comments:* Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Dr. Maria Pisu, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, MT 628, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-4410, or call non-toll-free number

(205)975-7366 or e-mail your request, including your address to: *mpisu@uab.edu.* *Comments Due Date:* Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60-days of the date of this publication. Dated: December 11, 2007. Vivian Horovitch-Kelley, NCI Project Clearance Liaison, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E7-24872 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing. ADDRESSES: Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications. A Clinically Proven Therapeutic Treatment and Diagnostic Tool for Mesothelin Expressing Cancers: A Novel Recombinant Immunotoxin SS1P (anti-mesothelin dsFv-PE38) *Description of Technology:* Mesothelin is a cell surface glycoprotein, whose expression is largely restricted to mesothelial cells in normal tissues. Mesothelin has been shown to be highly expressed in many cancers including malignant mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic carcinomas, gastric carcinomas, and other cancers. Mesothelin has been shown to be a target for immunotherapy and is also being used as a tumor marker. The technology relates to the SS1P immunotoxin that can be used to kill cells expressing mesothelin on their surface, such as mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and stomach cancer. Additionally, it can be used for the detection of mesothelin expressing cells present in a biological sample. The SSIP protein is an immunotoxin generated by the fusion of an anti-mesothelin antibody Fv fragment with a particularly high affinity (SS1), and a ~38 kDa portion of *Pseudomonas Exotoxin* A (PE38). *Applications:* SS1P can be used as a therapy for mesothelin expressing cancers. The immunotoxin can be used as a standalone treatment and in combination with standard chemotherapy. *Advantage:* SS1P immunotoxin is available for use and has been successfully tested clinically for the treatment of several mesothelin expressing cancers, such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer with low side effects. *Development Status:* Phase 1 studies have been completed for mesothelin expressing cancers such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. Phase 2 studies to begin shortly for combination therapy using SS1P and standard chemotherapy. In addition to an active Investigational New Drug

(IND)application, there are two associated orphan drug designations with this agent. *Inventors:* Ira Pastan

(NCI)*et al.* *Relevant Publications:* 1. R Hassan *et al.* Phase I study of SS1P, a recombinant anti-mesothelin immunotoxin given as a bolus I.V. infusion to patients with mesothelin-expressing mesothelioma, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Sep 1;13 (17):5144-5149. 2. Y Zhang *et al.* Synergistic antitumor activity of taxol and immunotoxin SS1P in tumor-bearing mice. Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Aug 1;12(15):4695-4701. *Patent Status:* U.S. Patent No. *7,081,518* issued 25 Jul 2006, entitled “Anti-Mesothelin Antibodies Having High Binding Affinity” (HHS Reference No. E-139-1999/0-US-07) *Related Intellectual Property:* 1. U.S. Patent No. 4,892,827 entitled “Recombinant Pseudomonas Exotoxin: Construction of an Active Immunotoxin with Low Side Effects” [HHS Ref. No. E-385-1986/0]; 2. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,051,405, 5,863,745, and 5,696,237 “Recombinant Antibody-Toxin Fusion Protein” [HHS Ref. No. E-135-1989/0]; 3. U.S. Patents 5,747,654, 6,147,203, and 6,558,672 entitled “Recombinant Disulfide-Stabilized Polypeptide Fragments Having Binding Specificity” [HHS Ref. No. E-163-1993/0]; 4. U.S. Patent No. 6,153,430, and U.S. Patent Application No. 09/684,599 “Nucleic Acid Encoding Mesothelin, a Differentiation Antigen Present on Mesothelium, Mesotheliomas and Ovarian Cancers” [HHS Ref. No. E-002-1996/0]; 5. U.S. Patent 6,083,502 entitled “Mesothelium Antigen and Methods and Kits for Targeting It” [HHS Ref. No. E-002-1996/1]; 6. U.S. Patent Application 09/581,345: “Antibodies, Including Fv Molecules, and Immunoconjugates Having High Binding Affinity for Mesothelin and Methods for Their Use” [HHS Ref. No. E-021-1998/0]; 7. PCT Application No. PCT/US01/18503, “Pegylation of Linkers Improves Antitumor Activity and Reduces Toxicity of Immunoconjugates” [HHS Ref. No. E-216-2000/2]; 8. PCT Application No. PCT/US2006/018502 and U.S. Patent Application No. 60/681,104, entitled “Anti-Mesothelin Antibodies Useful For Immunological Assays” [HHS Ref. No. E-015-2005/0-US-01]; and 9. And any related foreign filed national stage applications claiming priority to such patent applications and patents listed above. *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive and non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* David A. Lambertson, Ph.D.; 301/435-4632; *lambertsond@mail.nih.gov.* cDNA Encoding a Gene BOG and Its Protein Product *Description of Invention:* Available for licensing is BOG (B5t Over-Expressed Gene) with the gene product pRb of the well-known tumor suppressor gene RB, retinoblastoma susceptibility gene. The complex formed between Rb and BOG typically does not contain E2F-1 *in vivo.* This binding property suggests that cells which are transformed/transfected with cDNA or other functional nucleotide sequences which encode the BOG gene product will be useful as tools for studying cell cycle control and oncogenesis. Studies using rat liver epithelial cell

(RLE)lines which are resistant to the growth inhibitory effects of TGF-beta1 and primary liver tumors have been shown to over-express BOG. Moreover, when normal RLE continuously over-express BOG the cells become transformed and the transformed cells are able to form hepatoblastoma-like tumors when transplanted into nude mice. Therefore, biologics derived from BOG may be useful as diagnostics or therapeutics. *Applications:* Method to diagnose and treat liver cancer; Method to study cell cycle control and oncogenesis; Liver cancer therapeutics. *Development Status:* The technology is currently in the pre-clinical stage of development. *Market:* Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and the fifth most common cancer in the world; Post-operative five year survival rate of HCC patients is 30-40%. *Inventors:* Snorri S. Thorgeirsson *et al.* (NCI). *Relevant Publication:* JT Woitach *et al.* A retinoblastoma-binding protein that affects cell-cycle control and confers transforming ability. Nat Genet. 1998 Aug;19(4):371-374. *Patent Status:* U.S. Patent No. 6,727,079 issued 27 Apr 2004 (HHS Reference No. E-009-1998/2-US-02). *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Jennifer Wong, 301-435-4633; *wongje@mail.nih.gov.* *Collaborative Research Opportunity:* The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Center for Cancer Research, Laboratory of Experimental Carcinogenesis, is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize BOG (B5t Over-Expressed Gene) with the gene product pRb. Please contact John Hewes, Ph.D. at the NCI Technology Transfer Center at *hewesj@mail.nih.gov* or

(301)496-0477 for more information. Dated: December 14, 2007. Steven M. Ferguson, Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E7-24784 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on

(240)276-1243. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collections of information are 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 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. Proposed Project: Emergency Response Grants Regulations—42 CFR part 51—(OMB No. 0930-0229)—Extension This rule implements section 501(m) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C 290aa), which authorizes the Secretary to make noncompetitive grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to public entities to enable such entities to address emergency substance abuse or mental health needs in local communities. The rule establishes criteria for determining that a substance abuse or mental health emergency exists, the minimum content for an application, and reporting requirements for recipients of such funding. SAMHSA will use the information in the applications to make a determination that the requisite need exists; that the mental health and/or substance abuse needs are a direct result of the precipitating event; that no other local, state, tribal or Federal funding sources available to address the need; that there is an adequate plan of services; that the applicant has appropriate organizational capability; and, that the budget provides sufficient justification and is consistent with the documentation of need and the plan of services. Eligible applicants may apply to the Secretary for either of two types of substance abuse and mental health emergency response grants: Immediate awards and Intermediate awards. The former are designed to be funded up to $50,000, or such greater amount as determined by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis, and are to be used over the initial 90-day period commencing as soon as possible after the precipitating event; the latter awards require more documentation, including a needs assessment, other data and related budgetary detail. The Intermediate awards have no predefined budget limit. Typically, Intermediate awards would be used to meet systemic mental health and/or substance abuse needs during the recovery period following the Immediate award period. Such awards may be used for up to one year, with a possible second year supplement based on submission of additional required information and data. This program is an approved user of the PHS-5161 application form, approved by OMB under control number 0920-0428. The quarterly financial status reports in 51d.10(a)(2) and (b)(2) are as permitted by 45 CFR 92.41(b); the final program report, financial status report and final voucher in 51d.10(a)(3) and in 51d.10(b)(3-4) are in accordance with 45 CFR 92.50(b). Information collection requirements of 45 CFR part 92 are approved by OMB under control number 0990-0169. The following table presents annual burden estimates for the information collection requirements of this regulation. 42 CFR citation Number of respondents Responses per respondent Hours per response Annual burden hours Immediate award application: 51d.4(a) and 51d.6(a)(2) 3 1 3 *9 51d.4(b) and 51d.6(a)(2) Immediate Awards 3 1 10 *30 51d.10(a)(1)—Immediate awards—mid-program report if applicable 3 1 2 *6 Final report content for both types of awards: 51d.10(c) 6 1 3 18 Total 6 18 * This burden is carried under OMB No. 0920-0428. Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 *AND* e-mail her a copy at *summer.king@samhsa.hhs.gov.* Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Dated: December 13, 2007. Elaine Parry, Acting Director, Office of Program Services. [FR Doc. E7-24824 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Oral Declarations No Longer Satisfactory as Evidence of Citizenship and Identity AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: U.S., Canadian and Bermudian citizens entering the United States at land or sea ports-of-entry must establish their identity and citizenship to the satisfaction of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)Officer. Under current CBP procedures, such individuals may provide any proof of identity and citizenship. While most individuals provide documentary evidence of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, individuals may, depending on the circumstances, be admitted on an oral declaration. Accordingly, CBP is amending its field guidance procedures to instruct CBP officers that citizenship ordinarily may not be established using only an oral declaration. This Notice informs the public that, effective January 31, 2008, all travelers will be expected to present documents proving citizenship, such as a birth certificate, and government-issued documents proving identity, such as a driver's license, when entering the United States through land and sea ports of entry. DATES: This notice is effective January 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Manaher, WHTI, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 5.4-D, Washington, DC 20229, telephone number

(202)344-3003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All travelers entering the United States are inspected by a Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)Officer. To enter the United States in conformance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), U.S. citizens, Canadians and Bermudians must satisfy the CBP Officer of their identity and citizenship. *See* 8 CFR 235.1(b) and 235.1(f)(1). In accordance with current CBP operational procedures, a CBP Officer may accept documentary evidence of citizenship from U.S. citizens arriving at land or sea ports of entry from within the Western Hemisphere, such as a passport or birth certificate, or may accept an oral declaration if, depending upon the circumstances presented, such a declaration is deemed sufficient to prove citizenship. When assessing an assertion of citizenship, the CBP Officer may ask for additional identification and proof of citizenship until the CBP Officer is satisfied that the traveler seeking entry into the United States is a U.S. citizen. Similarly, certain nonimmigrant aliens who are citizens of Canada and Bermuda are exempt from presenting a passport when entering the United States as nonimmigrant visitors from countries in the Western Hemisphere at land or sea ports-of-entry. 8 CFR 212.1(a)(1) and (2). Like U.S. citizens, these travelers are required to satisfy the inspecting CBP officer of their identities and citizenship at the time of their applications for admission. 8 CFR 235.1(f)(1). In accordance with current CBP operational procedures, a CBP Officer may accept documentary evidence of citizenship from Canadian and Bermudian citizens arriving from within the Western Hemisphere, such as a passport or birth certificate, or may, depending upon the circumstances presented, accept an oral declaration. CBP is now amending its field instructions to direct CBP Officers to no longer generally accept oral declarations as sufficient proof of citizenship and, instead, require documents that evidence identity and citizenship from U.S., Canadian, and Bermudian citizens entering the United States at land and sea ports-of-entry. Upon implementation, these changes in procedure will reduce the potential vulnerability posed by those who might falsely purport to be U.S., Canadian or Bermudian citizens trying to enter the United States by land or sea in reliance upon a mere oral declaration. Beginning on January 31, 2008, a person claiming U.S., Canadian, or Bermudian citizenship must establish that fact to the examining CBP Officer's satisfaction by presenting a citizenship document such as a birth certificate as well as a government-issued photo identification document. CBP retains its authority to request additional documentation when warranted and to make appropriate individual exceptions. The instruction for CBP Officers to no longer generally accept oral declarations alone as satisfactory evidence of citizenship is a change in DHS and CBP internal operating procedures, and therefore is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). On June 26, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)and Department of State

(DOS)published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the final phase of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

(WHTI)and require persons entering the United States from Western Hemisphere countries to present a passport or other travel document as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. *See* 72 FR 35088. In the NPRM, DHS also explained that, separate from WHTI, beginning January 31, 2008, CBP would no longer accept oral declarations alone as proof of citizenship or identity at land and sea border ports-of-entry. DHS received five comments in response to the NRPM discussion on the change of practice concerning oral declarations. Although, as discussed above, the amendment to CBP procedures does not require notice and comment rulemaking, DHS will address those comments in the WHTI final rule. In summary, those comments were concerned about increased traffic and resulting travel delays at land border ports-of-entry stemming from document requirements. CBP will rely on its operational experience in processing travelers entering the United States by land to ensure that these changes are implemented in a manner that will minimize delays while achieving the security benefit underlying WHTI. Accordingly, effective January 31, 2008, CBP Officers will no longer generally allow travelers claiming to be U.S., Canadian, or Bermudian citizens to establish citizenship by relying only on an oral declaration. Beginning on that date, all travelers, including those claiming to be U.S., Canadian, or Bermudian citizens arriving by land and sea will generally be expected to present some form of documentation to satisfy the CBP Officer of his or her identity and citizenship. For example, such documentation may include a government-issued photo identification document presented with a citizenship document, such as a birth certificate. Dated: December 14, 2007. Jayson P. Ahern, Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection. [FR Doc. E7-24691 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP Dec. 07- 95] Re-Accreditation and Re-Approval of Inspectorate America Corp., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of re-approval of Inspectorate America Corp., of Martinez, California, as a commercial gauger and laboratory. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, Inspectorate America Corp., 3773 Pacheco Blvd., Suite C, Martinez, California 94553, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling

(202)344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to *http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/org_and_operations.xml* . DATES: The re-approval of Inspectorate America Corp., as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on March 6, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for March 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Bondoc, Ph.D., or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. Dated: December 7, 2007. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services. [FR Doc. E7-24694 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5117-N-106] Section 8 Random Digit Dialing Fair Market Rent Surveys AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. This survey provides HUD with a fast, inexpensive way to estimate Section 8 Fair Market Rents

(FMRs)in areas not covered by the American Community Survey annual reports and in areas where FMRs are believed to be incorrect. The Department has used this random digit dialing

(RDD)survey methodology for 15 years, as recently improved to offset low response rates. The affected public would be those renters surveyed and Section 8 voucher holders. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2528-0142) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at *Lillian_L_Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone

(202)708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)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;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Section 8 Random Digit Dialing Fair Market Rent Surveys. *OMB Approval Number:* 2528-0142. *Form Numbers:* None. *Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:* This survey provides HUD with a fast, inexpensive way to estimate Section 8 Fair Market Rents

(FMRs)in areas not covered by the American Community Survey annual reports and in areas where FMRs are believed to be incorrect. The Department has used this random digit dialing

(RDD)survey methodology for 15 years, as recently improved to offset low response rates. The affected public would be those renters surveyed and Section 8 voucher holders. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion. Number of respondents × Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden Hours Reporting Burden: 23,816 1 0.248 5,928 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 5,928. *Status:* Revision of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: December 13, 2007. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24775 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5117-N-107] Application for the Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency

(ROSS)Program AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. Application for the ROSS Grant Program: Service Coordinators Program and Family Self-Sufficiency for Public Housing. Eligible applicants are PHAs, Tribes/TDHEs, Non-Profits and Resident Associations. Information collected will be used to evaluate applications and award grants through the HUD SuperNOFA process. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577-0229) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at *Lillian_L_Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone

(1)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;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(ROSS)Program. *OMB Approval Number:* 2577-0229. *Form Numbers:* HUD-52752, HUD-52753, HUD-52754, HUD-52755, HUD-52767, HUD-52768, HUD-52769, HUD-96010, SF-424, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2991, SF-LLL, HUD-2993, HUD-2994, HUD-60002, SF-269-A. *Description Of The Need For The Information And Its Proposed Use:* Application for the ROSS Grant Program: Service Coordinators Program and Family Self-Sufficiency for Public Housing. Eligible applicants are PHAs, Tribes/TDHEs, Non-Profits and Resident Associations. Information collected will be used to evaluate applications and award grants through the HUD SuperNOFA process. *Frequency Of Submission:* On occasion, Annually. Number of respondents × Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden: 650 1 6.61 4,300 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 4,300. *Status:* Revision of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: December 13, 2007. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24879 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5125-N-51] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone

(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired

(202)708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration* , No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.). Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD:

(1)Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless,

(2)its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or

(3)a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless. Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857;

(301)443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581. For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable. For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available. Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the **Federal Register** , the landholding agency, and the property number. For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( *i.e.* , acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: AIR FORCE: Ms. Kathryn Halvorson, Director, Air Force Real Property Agency, 1700 North Moore St., Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209-2802;

(703)696-5502; COAST GUARD: Commandant, United States Coast Guard, Attn: Teresa Sheinberg, 2100 Second St., SW., Rm 6109, Washington, DC 20593;

(202)267-6142; ENERGY: Mr. John Watson, Department of Energy, Office of Engineering & Construction Management, ME-90, 1000 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20585:

(202)586-0072; GSA: Mr. John Smith, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th & F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405;

(202)501-0084; NAVY: Mr. Warren Meekins, Associate Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Services, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065;

(202)685-9305; (These are not toll-free numbers). Dated: December 13, 2007. Mark R. Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 12/21/2007 Suitable/Available Properties Building Nebraska Warehouse Bldg. 1047-15-28-2 McCook Co: Red Willow, NE 69001 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200740013 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 7-I-NE-0533-AA Comments: 5000 sq. ft., needs repair, off-site use only Land Colorado Northgate Stockpile Storage Jackson, CO 80480 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200740011 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 7-D-CO-0645 Comments: 16.11 acres, uneven terrain, no utilities, restrictions/covenants Suitable/Available Properties Land Washington Bremerton Lot E. 16th & Trenton Ave. Kitsap, WA 98310 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200740012 Status: Excess GSA Number: 9-G-WA-1237 Comments: 1500 sq. ft., small size Unsuitable Properties Building California Bldgs. 1492, 1526, 1579 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740005 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 1601, 1632 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740006 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Unsuitable Properties Building California Bldgs. 2552, 2685, 2728 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740007 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 2801, 2802 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740008 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 3175, 3751, 3775 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740009 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Unsuitable Properties Building California 4 Bldgs. Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740010 Status: Excess Directions: 4161, 4316, 4384, 4388 Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 4406, 4475 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740011 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 4905, 4906, 4926 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740012 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Unsuitable Properties Building California Bldg. 5425 Lawrence Livermore National Lab Livermore, CA Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200740013 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Bldg. 84 Naval Base San Diego, CA Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200740018 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Maryland Bldgs. C11, 365, BB Naval Air Station Solomons, MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200740019 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Unsuitable Properties Building Ohio Naval Reserve Center Cleveland, OH 44114 Landholding Agency: Coast Guard Property Number: 88200740002 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area, within airport runway clear zone, within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Land Florida Defense Fuel Supply Point Lynn Haven, FL 32444 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200740009 Status: Excess Reasons: Floodway [FR Doc. E7-24496 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). *Applicant:* Sedgwick County Zoo, Wichita, KS, PRT-169707. The applicant requests a permit to export one male captive-born Central American tapir ( *Tapirus bairdii* ) to the Zoologico de Chapultepec, Mexico for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive breeding and conservation education. *Applicant:* Dirk Arthur dba Stage Magic Inc., Las Vegas, NV, PRT-170290. The applicant requests a permit to export and re-import “Selbit” a captive-born male leopard ( *Panthera pardus* ) to worldwide locations for the purpose of enhancement of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a three-year period and the import of any potential progeny born while overseas. Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* William J. Muzyl, Gaylord, MI, PRT-169697. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: November 30, 2007. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologis, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E7-24772 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AA-12436, AA-11074, AA-16678, AA-11142, AA-11143, AA-11038, AA-10750, AA-12592, AA-11034, AA-12463, AA-11033, AA-10723, AA-12558, AA-12462, AA-12563, AA-12562, AA-12591, AA-11008, AA-10964; AK-962-1410-HY-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Chugach Alaska Corporation for lands located in the Prince William Sound, Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Anchorage Daily News. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until January 22, 2008 to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.* Persons who use a telecommunication device

(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Dina L. Torres, Resolution Specialist, Resolution Branch. [FR Doc. E7-24825 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-060-1320-EL, WYW172684] Notice of Intent

(NOI)To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Notice of Public Meeting on a Federal Coal Lease-by-Application

(LBA)in the Decertified Powder River Federal Coal Production Region, Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent and notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Casper Field Office announces its intent to prepare an EIS on the potential impacts of the application to lease a tract of Federal coal. The EIS will be called the Hay Creek II Coal EIS. Under the provisions of 43 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)3425.1, the BLM received the following application to lease a maintenance tract of Federal coal in Campbell County, Wyoming: • Kiewit Mining Properties Inc. applied for a maintenance coal lease for approximately 1448.873 acres (approximately 148 million tons of recoverable coal) in a maintenance tract of Federal coal adjacent to the Buckskin Mine. The tract, which is referred to as the Hay Creek II Tract, has been assigned case number WYW172684. DATES: This notice initiates the public scoping process. To provide the public with an opportunity to review the proposal and gain understanding of the coal leasing process, the BLM will host a meeting on January 31, 2008, at 7 p.m. at the Gillette College Presentation Hall, Room 120, 300 West Sinclair, Gillette, Wyoming. At the meeting, the public is invited to submit comments and resource information, plus identify issues or concerns to be considered in the coal LBA process. The BLM can best use public input if comments and resource information are submitted by March 29, 2008. The BLM will announce future public meetings and other opportunities to submit comments on this project at least 15 days prior to the events. Announcements will be made through local news media and the Casper Field Office's Web site, which is: *http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Johnson or Mike Karbs, BLM Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604. Teresa Johnson or Mr. Karbs may also be reached at

(307)261-7600. ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments or concerns to the BLM Casper Field Office, Attn: Teresa Johnson, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604. Written comments or resource information may also be hand-delivered to the BLM Casper Field Office or sent by facsimile to the attention of Teresa Johnson at

(307)261-7510. Comments may be sent electronically to *casper_wymail@blm.gov* . Please include “Buckskin Mine, Hay Creek II Coal EIS/Teresa Johnson” in the subject line. Members of the public may examine documents pertinent to this proposal by visiting the Casper Field Office during its business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. submitted an application on March 24, 2006, to lease a maintenance tract of Federal coal adjacent to the company's Buckskin Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, which is operated by Buckskin Mining Company. A maintenance tract is a parcel of land containing Federal coal reserves that can be leased to maintain production at an existing mine. This tract is known as the Hay Creek II Tract. Consistent with Federal regulations under NEPA and the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the BLM must prepare an environmental analysis prior to holding a competitive Federal coal lease sale. The Powder River Regional Coal Team reviewed this LBA at a public meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming, and recommended that the BLM process it. The Hay Creek II Tract application includes approximately 148 million tons of recoverable Federal coal underlying the following lands in Campbell County, Wyoming: T. 52 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Wyoming Section 7: Lots 18 through 20; Section 8: Lots 13 through 16; Section 17: Lots 1 through 4, 5 (N 1/2 ), 6 (N 1/2 ), 7 (N 1/2 ), and 8 (N 1/2 ) Section 18: Lots 5 through 7, 10, 11, 12 (N 1/2 , SW 1/4 ), 13 (W 1/2 ), 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 (W 1/2 ); Section 19: Lots 5 (W 1/2 ), 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 (W 1/2 ), 13 (W 1/2 ), 14, 15, 17 through 19, and 20 (W 1/2 ). Containing 1448.873 acres, more or less. Buckskin Mining Company proposes to mine the tract as a part of the Buckskin Mine. At the mining rate of 25 million tons per year, the coal included in the Hay Creek II Tract would extend the life of the Buckskin Mine by as many as 6 years. Lands in the application contain private surface estate overlying the Federal coal. The Buckskin Mine is operating under approved mining permits from the Land Quality and Air Quality Divisions of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

(OSM)will be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. If the tract is leased to the applicant, the new lease must be incorporated into the existing mining and reclamation plan for the mine. Before the Federal coal in the tract can be mined the Secretary of the Interior must approve the revised Mineral Leasing Act

(MLA)mining plan for Buckskin Mine. The OSM is the Federal agency that is responsible for recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the revised MLA mining plan to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Other cooperating agencies may be identified during the scoping process. The BLM will provide interested parties the opportunity to submit comments or relevant information or both. This information will help the BLM identify issues to be considered in preparing the Hay Creek II Coal EIS. Issues that have been identified in analyzing the impacts of previous Federal coal leasing actions in the Wyoming Powder River Basin

(PRB)include the need for resolution of conflicts between existing and proposed oil and gas development and coal mining on the tract proposed for coal leasing; potential impacts to big game herds and hunting; potential impacts to Greater Sage-grouse; potential impacts to listed threatened and endangered species; potential health impacts related to blasting operations conducted by the mine to remove overburden and coal; the need to consider the cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions combined with other existing and proposed development in the Wyoming PRB; and potential site-specific and cumulative impacts on air and water quality. Your response is important and will be considered in the EIS process. If you do respond, we will keep you informed of the availability of environmental documents that address impacts that might occur from this proposal. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: November 5, 2007. Alan Rabinoff, Acting State Director. [FR Doc. E7-24428 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WO-320-1310-DS-OSHL] Notice of Availability of Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments To Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ), the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)has prepared the Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments To Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). By this notice, the BLM is announcing the opening of a 90-day public review and comment period for the PEIS. The planning area lies within the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. DATES: Please submit written comments on the PEIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes their Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** . The BLM will announce future meetings and/or hearings and any other public participation activities at least 15 days in advance on the internet and through public notices, media news releases, and/or mailings. ADDRESSES: Copies of the PEIS will be sent to affected Federal, state, and local government agencies and other interested parties. Copies of the PEIS are available for public inspection via the internet at *http://ostseis.anl.gov,* electronic media (on CD-ROM), and paper. Paper and electronic (CD-ROM) copies of the PEIS are available at BLM locations listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Web Site: http://ostseis.anl.gov.* • *Mail:* BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft Programmatic EIS Comments, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri Thompson, BLM Project Manager, at

(303)239-3758, ( *sherri_thompson@blm.gov* ), Bureau of Land Management, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215 or Mitchell Leverette, BLM Acting Division Chief, Solid Minerals, at

(202)452-0351, ( *mitchell_leverette@blm.gov* ), Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources PEIS is being prepared to meet the requirements established by Congress in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It will evaluate the amendment of 12 resource management plans to designate public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), BLM as available for application for commercial leasing for oil shale and tar sands development. The PEIS evaluates the amendment of nine land use plans to designate lands as available for commercial oil shale leasing and amendment of six land use plans to designate lands as available for commercial tar sands leasing. Three of the plans that could be amended contain both oil shale and tar sands resources, so a total of 12 plans will be amended. The Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(PEIS)and Plan Amendments for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Leasing on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming was published in the **Federal Register** on December 13, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 73791-73792). As originally stated in the NOI, this PEIS is to evaluate the potential impacts associated with commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources that are located on public lands in the three states. The scope of the analysis was to include an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts associated with commercial leasing of these resources under a range of alternatives. Since the NOI was published, however, initial environmental analysis and input from cooperating agencies has led BLM to conclude that critical information on which to assess potential impacts, define required mitigation and approve commercial leasing, is not available at this time. Therefore, BLM has limited the purpose and need for the PEIS. The purpose and need for the PEIS now is to:

(1)Identify the most geologically prospective areas where oil shale and tar sands resources are present on public lands and that could be open to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development; and

(2)Evaluate the environmental effects associated with amendments of 12 land use plans to allow for application for commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing. In the NOI, the BLM identified planning criteria, initiated the public scoping process, and invited the public to provide comments on the scope and objectives of the PEIS and to identify issues to be addressed in the planning process. During the scoping process, public meetings were held in Salt Lake City, Vernal, and Price, Utah; Rock Springs and Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Rifle and Denver, Colorado. About 5,000 people participated in the scoping process by attending public meetings or submitting comments. The BLM published a scoping report in March 2006, summarizing and categorizing issues, concerns, and comments received. These comments were considered in developing the alternatives in this PEIS. The study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective resources of the Green River Formation located in the Green River, Piceance, Uinta, and Washakie Basins and encompasses approximately 3,540,000 acres. The BLM has identified the most geologically prospective areas for oil shale development on the basis of the grade and thickness of the oil shale deposits. For the purposes of this PEIS, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources in Colorado and Utah are those deposits that yield 25 gallons or more of shale oil per ton of rock (gal/ton) and are 25 feet thick or greater. In Wyoming, where the oil shale resource is not as high quality as in Colorado and Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources are those deposits that yield 15 gallon/ton or more of shale oil and are 15 feet thick or greater. For the tar sands resources, the study area includes those locations designated as Special Tar Sand Areas (STSAs) by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78). Eleven STSAs were identified in Utah: Argyle Canyon-Willow Creek (hereafter referred to as Argyle Canyon), Asphalt Ridge-Whiterocks and Vicinity (hereafter referred to as Asphalt Ridge), Circle Cliffs East and West Flanks (hereafter referred to as Circle Cliffs), Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge-Rim Rock and Vicinity (hereafter referred to as Raven Ridge), San Rafael Swell, Sunnyside and Vicinity (hereafter referred to as Sunnyside), Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon. The total acreage of the study area is approximately 1,026,000 acres. The oil shale and tar sands resources within the defined study areas are located within the jurisdiction of 12 separate BLM administrative units. These units include the Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, and White River Field Offices in Colorado; the Moab, Monticello, Price, Richfield, and Vernal Field Offices and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah; and the Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices in Wyoming. With the exception of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the final Record of Decision for this PEIS would amend existing land use plans in affected BLM administrative units to designate the lands available for application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development for oil shale and tar sands resources. Within the above-listed administrative units, and within the defined boundaries of the most geologically prospective resources of the Green River formation and the designated STSAs, public lands managed by the BLM where the Federal Government owns both the surface estate and subsurface mineral rights are included in the scope of the PEIS analysis. Lands where the surface estate is owned by Tribes, States, or private parties but where the federal government owns the subsurface mineral estate (i.e., split estate lands) are also included in the scope of this analysis. Tribal lands on which both the surface estate and subsurface mineral estate are owned by the Tribe are not included in the scope of analysis. This PEIS examines alternatives for designation of lands as available for application for commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources. For both oil shale and tar sands resources, there are three alternatives: Alternatives A (the no action alternative), B, and C. The alternatives vary in the amount of area available for application for leasing. The BLM has identified Alternative B for oil shale leasing and Alternative B for tar sands leasing as the preferred alternatives in the PEIS. For oil shale resources, Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, continues existing management. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the six existing oil shale Research, Demonstration, and Development (RD&D) projects will proceed on their current 160-acre lease parcels. Alternative A only includes the RD&D activities at these 160-acre sites; it does not evaluate future commercial leasing at these or any other locations. Each of these six projects has an associated preference right lease area for future potential commercial development. Under Alternative A, the RD&D leases require additional land use planning and site-specific NEPA analysis prior to granting the RD&D lessees use of the preference right lease area for commercial development. Under Alternative A, current BLM land use plans within the study area would not be amended to allow for application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. Further, the ROD for the PEIS would not identify the most geologically prospective resources, specific exclusion areas, land available for application for lease, and so forth. For commercial oil shale development to occur in the future, specific land use plans would need to be amended to identify areas available for lease. Such leasing would be subject to additional NEPA analyses and the oil shale regulations to be promulgated by the BLM. The BLM has developed two programmatic alternatives for identifying lands available for application for commercial leasing and for establishing a commercial oil shale leasing program. Programmatic Alternatives B and C apply different approaches to designating lands available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Under both programmatic oil shale alternatives, nine land use plans would be amended to:

(1)Identify the most geologically prospective oil shale resources within each field office;

(2)Make certain lands within these most geologically prospective areas available for application to lease;

(3)Identify any technology restrictions;

(4)Stipulate requirements for future NEPA analyses and consultation activities; and

(5)Specify that priority will be given to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial oil shale development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under Alternative B, about 2 million acres would be available for application for lease and under Alternative C, about 830,000 acres would be available for application. Under Alternative C, additional lands would be excluded from the potential area available for leasing. The lands that would be available under Alternative C include some of the lands that are available under Alternative B, but exclude lands that are identified as requiring special management or resource protection in existing land use plans. Site-specific NEPA analyses would be required under both alternatives prior to leasing and approval of plans of operations during the project development phase. These site-specific analyses will identify potential project-specific impacts and define appropriate lease stipulations and required mitigation measures. Included in this PEIS are potentially applicable mitigation measures that would be applied following the site-specific analyses, as appropriate. In addition, conservation measures agreed upon with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and documented in the PEIS would be applicable to all future commercial leases. For tar sands resources, Alternative A also is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, land use plans would not be amended to allow for leasing for commercial tar sands development, but current plans authorize leasing under the existing Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing

(CHL)program. The BLM has assumed no development of tar sands resources on public lands since there has been no tar sands development under the existing CHL in the last 20 years or more. At the time this PEIS was drafted, no commercial tar sands project proposals have been submitted to the BLM on existing CHL leases. On this basis, the BLM has determined that it is unlikely that commercial tar sands development will occur under the CHL program. The BLM has developed two programmatic alternatives for identifying lands available for application for commercial leasing and for establishing a commercial tar sands leasing program. Programmatic Alternatives B and C consist of different approaches to designating lands available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Under both alternatives, six land use plans in Utah would be amended to:

(1)Make certain lands within the STSAs available for application to lease;

(2)Stipulate requirements for future NEPA analyses and consultation activities; and

(3)Specify that priority will be given to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial tar sands development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under Alternative B, about 430,000 acres would be available for application for lease and under Alternative C, about 230,000 acres would be available for application. Site-specific NEPA analyses will be required under both alternatives prior to leasing and approval of plans of operations during the project development phase. These site-specific analyses would identify potential project-specific impacts and define appropriate lease stipulations and required mitigation measures. Included in this PEIS are potentially applicable mitigation measures that would be applied following the site-specific analyses, as appropriate. In addition, conservation measures agreed upon with the USFWS and documented in the PEIS would be applicable to all future commercial leases. The Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources PEIS is of interest to numerous Federal, Tribal, state, and local governments. The BLM initially invited about 50 agencies to participate in preparation of the PEIS as cooperating agencies. Fourteen agencies expressed an interest, and memorandums of understanding between these agencies and the BLM were executed to set forth the parameters of cooperating agency relationships with these agencies. The following are participating cooperating agencies in the preparation of this PEIS: • National Park Service • Bureau of Reclamation • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Public Health and the Environment • State of Utah • State of Wyoming • Garfield County, Colorado • Mesa County, Colorado • Rio Blanco County, Colorado • Duchesne County, Utah • Uintah County, Utah • City of Rifle, Colorado • Town of Rangely, Colorado. Paper and electronic (CD-ROM) copies of the PEIS are available at the following BLM locations: • Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 • Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 • Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone, Cheyenne, WY 82009 • Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078 • Price Field Office, 125 South 600 West, Price, UT 84501 • Richfield Field Office, 150 East 900 North, Richfield, UT 84701 • Monticello Field Office, 435 North Main, P.O. Box 7, Monticello, UT 84535 • White River Field Office, 220 E. Market Street, Meeker, CO 81641 • Glenwood Springs Field Office, 2425 S. Grand Ave., Suite 101, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506 • Kemmerer Field Office, 312 Highway 189 North, Kemmerer, WY 83101 • Rawlins Field Office, at 1300 North Third, PO Box 2407, Rawlins, WY 82301 • Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, WY 82901. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Michael Nedd, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection. [FR Doc. E7-24811 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-84-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Governors Island National Monument, New York, NY AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Governors Island National Monument, New York. Consistent with National Park Service laws, regulations, and policies, and the purpose of the National Monument, the Draft GMP/EIS describes and analyzes four alternatives (A-D) to guide the management of the Monument over the next 15 to 20 years. The alternatives incorporate various management prescriptions to ensure protection, access and enjoyment of the park's resources. Alternative A is a no action alternative. Alternative D is the National Park Service's preferred alternative. Alternative D proposes the National Monument be developed as a Harbor Center with partners as a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors to explore New York Harbor. The Draft GMP/EIS evaluates potential environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives. Impact topics include the cultural, natural, and socioeconomic environments. This notice also announces that a public meeting will be held to solicit comments on the Draft GMP/EIS during the public review period. The date, time and location will be announced on the park's Web site *http://www.nps.gov/gois* , in local papers and can also be obtained by calling 212.825.4162. DATES: There are several ways to view the document, which will be publicly available on or about October 15, 2007: • An electronic version of the document will be available for public review and comment on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment

(PEPC)Web site at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov* . • Downloadable PDF from the park's Web site *http://www.nps.gov/gois* . • Printed copies (these are limited in quantity) and CDs can be requested by contacting the park at 212.825.4162. The National Park Service will accept comments on the Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement from the public for a period of 60 days following publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** . Interested persons may check the park Web site at *http://www.nps.gov/gois* for date, time, and place(s) of public meetings to be conducted by the National Park Service, or by calling 212.825.4162. ADDRESSES: The document will be available for public review and comment online at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov* , and can be viewed at the following locations: Mid-Manhattan Library, 455 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Science, Industry and Business Library, 188 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. New Amsterdam Branch Library, 9 Murray Street, New York, NY 10007. Bronx Library Center, 310 East Kingsbridge Road, New York, NY 10458. St. George Library Center, 5 Central Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10301. Business Library, 280 Cadman Plaza West at Tillary St., Brooklyn, NY 11201. Carroll Gardens Library, 396 Clinton St. at Union St., Brooklyn, NY 11231. Central Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn, NY 11238. Red Hook Library, 7 Wolcott St. at Dwight St., Brooklyn, NY 11231. Central Library, 89-11 Merrick Boulevard, Jamaica, NY 11432. Flushing Library, 41-17 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11355. Jersey City Public Library, Documents Department, 472 Jersey Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07302. Newark Public Library, 5 Washington St., P.O. Box 0630, Newark, NJ 07101-0630. New Jersey State Library, U.S. Documents, 185 W. State St., P.O. Box 520, Trenton, NJ 08625-0520. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to Superintendent Linda Neal, Governors Island National Monument, Battery Maritime Building, Slip 7, 10 South Street, New York, NY 10004. The preferred method of comment is via the Internet at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov* . You may also fax your comments to 212.825.4161. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For over two centuries, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of New York City. The island's military history begins with the American Revolution and culminates with the U.S. Coast Guard's departure in 1996. In 1985 the northern 121 acres of the island were designated a National Historic Landmark District. Castle Williams and Fort Jay, within the district, are among the best remaining examples of early American coastal fortifications. On January 19, 2001, President William J. Clinton established the Governors Island National Monument by Presidential Proclamation 7402. On February 7, 2003, President George W. Bush issued Proclamation 7647, which re-established the monument and clarified its status. The Draft General Management Plan

(GMP)sets forth alternative visions (management alternatives) for the development and operation of Governors Island National Monument. This plan is the product of a process that integrates the aspirations of the public with the unique capabilities of the NPS to provide for the preservation and public enjoyment of the National Monument over the next 20 years. Dated: December 11, 2007. Dennis R. Reidenbach, Regional Director, Northeast Region, National Park Service. [FR Doc. E7-24831 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-14-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Environmental Impact Statement on Recreational Use of Off-Road Vehicles Along Nine Trails in the Nabesna Area of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The National Park Service

(NPS)is preparing an EIS on the recreational use of off-road vehicles

(ORV)along nine trails in the Nabesna area of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate a range of alternatives for managing recreational off-road vehicle use on the following trails: Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, Reeve Field, Boomerang Lake, Soda Lake, Suslota Lake, Copper Lake and Tanada Lake. The EIS will be used to guide the management of recreational ORV use on these trails in the Nabesna area of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. It may also form the basis for either a special regulation to designate ORV routes and areas or a compatibility finding to issue permits for ORV use in accordance with current regulations. The EIS will assess potential environmental impacts associated with a range of reasonable alternatives for managing recreational ORV impacts on park resources and values such as soils, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, visitor experience, scenic quality, cultural resources and subsistence opportunities. In addition to the No Action alternative, this EIS will evaluate a proposed action that would authorize recreational ORV use on trails that can be maintained to a standard that reduces or eliminates adverse impacts. Other alternatives include: authorizing recreational ORV use on some or all nine trails after making improvements to address degraded conditions along trail alignments, and not authorizing recreational ORV use on any trails. Public input is sought on this range of alternatives. This EIS is being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4331 *et seq.* ), and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500. *Scoping:* The NPS requests input from federal and state agencies, local governments, private organizations, recreational users, and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in this EIS. Scoping comments are being solicited. NPS representatives will be available to discuss issues, resource concerns and the planning process at public scoping meetings. Scoping meetings will be held in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Tok, Glennallen, and Slana, Alaska in early 2008. When public meetings have been scheduled, their dates, times, and locations will be announced in local newspapers and posted on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment

(PEPC)Web site at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/WRST.* Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this EIS should be received 60 days after the last scoping meeting referenced above. The draft EIS is projected to be available to the public in early 2009. Electronic comments may be submitted to the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment

(PEPC)Web site at *http://parkplanning.nps.gov/WRST.* Written comments also may be mailed or faxed to the address and phone number provided below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meg Jensen, Park Superintendent, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska 99573. Telephone

(907)822-5234, Fax

(907)822-7259. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 13.2 million acre Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve was established in 1980 at which time the nine trails under evaluation were already in existence and had use. As part of the general management planning for the park, ORVs were determined to be a means of surface transportation traditionally employed by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses. In 1983, the park began issuing permits for recreational use of these trails initially in accordance with 36 CFR 13.14(c) which was replaced by 43 CFR 36.11(g)(2) in 1986. The park annually issues approximately 200 recreational permits largely for sport hunters traveling to preserve areas. Subsistence users and inholders (there are 784,000 acres of non-federal lands within the park) also use ORVs on these trails. They are also used by hikers, and in the winter by skiers, mushers and trappers. Snowmachines are the typical motorized use in the winter months. Over the history of the park, research has been conducted to assess the conditions of the trails and to experiment with a variety of trail hardening materials. On June 29, 2006, the National Parks Conservation Association, Alaska Center for the Environment, and The Wilderness Society (Plantiffs) filed a lawsuit against the NPS in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska regarding recreational ORV use on the nine trails that are the subject of this EIS. The plaintiffs challenged the NPS issuance of recreational ORV permits asserting that the NPS failed to make the finding required by 43 CFR 36.11(g)(2), that such ORV use is compatible with the purposes and values of the Park and Preserve. They also claimed that the NPS failed to prepare an environmental analysis of recreational ORVs. In the May 15, 2007, settlement agreement, the NPS agreed to endeavor to complete an EIS and Record of Decision

(ROD)by December 31, 2010, during which time the NPS can issue permits authorizing recreational use of ORVs on the Suslota Lake Trail, Tanada Lake Trail, and a portion of the Copper Lake Trail only when the ground is frozen. The NPS may continue to issue permits for recreational ORV use of the remaining six trails through the year 2010. The litigation and settlement did not change the use of ORVs by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses. The trails remain open to other uses such as hiking, skiing, or horseback riding. Prior to the 2007 summer/fall season, all recreational ORV permit holders were contacted and apprised of the situation. Executive Order 11644, issued in 1972 and amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, states that federal agencies allowing ORV use must designate the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of ORVs may be permitted, and areas in which the use of ORVs may not be permitted. Agency regulations to authorize ORV use shall provide that designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Executive Order 11644 was issued in response to the widespread and rapidly increasing use of ORV on the public lands—“often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.” Therefore, the purpose of this EIS is to consider alternative management strategies for the recreational use of ORVs consistent with the park's enabling legislation and other applicable laws and regulations. Dated: December 12, 2007. Tim A. Hudson, Acting Regional Director, Alaska. [FR Doc. E7-24853 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-HC-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission will be held at 9:30 a.m., on Friday, January 18, 2008, at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Headquarters, 1850 Dual Highway, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. DATES: Friday, January 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Headquarters, 1850 Dual Highway, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Brandt, Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740, telephone:

(301)714-2201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission was established by Public Law 91-664 to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on general policies and specific matters related to the administration and development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. The members of the Commission are as follows: Mrs. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld, Chairperson Mr. Charles J. Weir Mr. Barry A. Passett Mr. James G. McCleaf II Mr. John A. Ziegler Mrs. Mary E. Woodward Mrs. Donna Printz Mrs. Ferial S. Bishop Ms. Nancy C. Long Mrs. Jo Reynolds Dr. James H. Gilford Brother James Kirkpatrick Dr. George E. Lewis, Jr. Mr. Charles D. McElrath Ms. Patricia Schooley Mr. Jack Reeder Ms. Merrily Pierce Topics that will be presented during the meeting include: 1. Update on park operations. 2. Update on major construction/development projects. 3. Update on partnership projects. The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons wishing further information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may contact Kevin Brandt, Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection six weeks after the meeting at Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Headquarters, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. Dated: November 1, 2007. Kevin D. Brandt, Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, National Historical Park. [FR Doc. E7-24834 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-JW-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: National Park Service, Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee (the Committee) will be held on Friday, February 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. at the Chase County Community Building, Swope Park, 1715 RD 210, Cottonwood Falls, Kansas. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to receive Committee input on the Environmental Assessment, General Management Plan Revision/Site Development Study for New Visitor Center, Administrative, and Maintenance Facilities and to discuss other current and future topics concerning the preserve. The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with the Committee a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons who wish to file a written statement or testify at the meeting or who want further information concerning the meeting may contact Superintendent Stephen T. Miller at

(620)273-6034. DATES: February 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: Chase County Community Building, Swope Park, 1715 RD 210, Cottonwood Falls, Kansas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Stephen T. Miller,

(620)273-6034. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established by Public Law 104-333 to advise the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service concerning the development, management, and interpretation of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. Stephen T. Miller, Superintendent, Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. [FR Doc. E7-24845 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-BE-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Northwest Area Water Supply Project, ND AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Announcement of Public Hearings. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation published a notice in the **Federal Register** on March 6, 2006 (71 FR 11226) announcing the commencement of work under the National Environmental Policy Act on an environmental impact statement for the Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS Project). We are now notifying the public that Reclamation has prepared a Draft EIS which is now available for review and comment. The Draft EIS provides information and analyses related to water treatment for the NAWS Project that would further minimize the transfer of potentially invasive species from the Missouri River basin into the Hudson Bay basin from potential treatment or conveyance failures. The Draft EIS analyzes the potential environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects of four alternatives. DATES: A 60-day public review period begins with the publication of this notice. Written comments on the Draft EIS are due by February 26, 2008, and should be submitted to Reclamation at the address given below. Public hearings will be held during February 2008 in North Dakota. See the Supplementary Information section for dates of the public hearings. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the Draft EIS to: Northwest Area Water Supply Project EIS, Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, P.O. Box 1017, Bismarck, ND 58502. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting addresses. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Waters, Northwest Area Water Supply Project EIS, Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, P.O. Box 1017, Bismarck ND 58502; Telephone:

(701)221-1206; or FAX

(701)250-4326. You may submit e-mail to *awaters@gp.usbr.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hearing Dates: • Monday, February 4, 2008, 7 p.m., Bismarck, North Dakota • Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 7 p.m., Minot, North Dakota • Thursday, February 7, 2008, 7 p.m., New Town, North Dakota Public Hearing Locations: • Bismarck—Best Western Ramkota, 800 South 3 rd Street, Bismarck, ND 58504 • Minot—Sleep Inn & Suites, 2400 10 th Street SW., Minot, ND 58701 • New Town—Four Bears Casino and Lodge, 202 Frontage Rd, Newtown, ND 58763 Public Review Locations: Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following locations: • Bismarck Public Library, 515 North 5 th Street, Bismarck, ND • Minot Public Library, 516 2 nd Avenue SW., Minot, ND • Dakotas Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 304 East Broadway, Bismarck, ND • Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Berthold Agency, 202 Main Street, New Town, ND • North Dakota State Library, 603 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND • Standing Rock Administrative Service Center, Building #1, North Standing Rock Avenue, Fort Yates, ND • Mohall Public Library, 112 Main Street East, Mohall, ND • Bottineau City Hall, 115 West 6 th Street, Bottineau, ND • Millennium Library, 251 Donald Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Background The Garrison Diversion Unit's Municipal, Rural and Industrial Water Supply (MR&I) program was authorized by the U.S. Congress on May 12, 1986, through the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. This act authorized the appropriation of $200 million of Federal funds for the planning and construction of water supply facilities throughout North Dakota. The NAWS project, initiated in November 1987, is being developed as a result of this authorization. The NAWS project is designed as a bulk water distribution system that will service local communities and rural water systems in 10 counties in northwestern North Dakota including the community of Minot. The NAWS project is an interbasin transfer of water from Lake Sakakawea, in the Missouri River basin in North Dakota to Minot, North Dakota, in the Hudson Bay basin. Reclamation completed an Environmental Assessment

(EA)and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project in 2001. Construction on the project began in April 2002. In October 2002, the Province of Manitoba filed a legal challenge in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC to compel the Department of the Interior to complete an EIS on the project. A Court Order dated February 3, 2005, remanded the case to Reclamation for completion of additional environmental analysis. During the pendancy of the litigation filed by Manitoba, construction continued on the project. Construction of the 45 miles of raw water core pipeline began in April 2002 and is substantially complete. The Court has also granted permission for the design and construction of other project features for the distribution system. These project features include a high service pump station and distribution pipeline in Minot, North Dakota and a distribution pipeline to the community of Berthold, North Dakota. Proposed Action Reclamation proposes to construct a biota water treatment plant for the NAWS project that would reduce the risk of transferring potentially invasive species from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin. As a part of this proposed action, Reclamation would implement construction methods and operational measures to further minimize the risk of invasive species transfer that may occur as a result of a failure in the treatment process or conveyance pipeline. Purpose and Need for the Federal Action The purpose of the proposed action is to adequately treat water from the Missouri River basin (Lake Sakakawea) using methods and measures that minimize the risk of transferring invasive species into the Hudson Bay basin. Previous environmental analyses have shown that the risk of the NAWS project transferring invasive species between these two drainage basins is very low. However, in response to the legal challenge by the Province of Manitoba, Canada, and the subsequent order from the U.S. District Court, Reclamation has conducted further environmental analyses of this issue. Alternatives Four water treatment alternatives are evaluated in the Draft EIS to meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Each of the alternatives includes a combination of treatment features to form a process that reduces the potential risk of the NAWS project transferring invasive species from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin. The alternatives considered in the EIS are generally listed in the order of their relative treatment inactivation/removal capability with the No Action Alternative providing the lowest level of treatment and microfiltration providing the highest level of treatment. The alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS include: • No Action. The preferred treatment alternative described in the Final EA would include chemical disinfection of raw Missouri River water prior to transfer into the Hudson Bay basin. This alternative includes additional safeguards of pipeline construction and operation to minimize the risk of transferring invasive species as a result of pipeline failure. Ultraviolet

(UV)disinfection is provided along with softening and filtration at the existing Minot water treatment plant. • Basic Treatment. This treatment alternative would include a pre-treatment (Coagulation, Flocculation, Sedimentation) process followed by chemical and UV disinfection prior to the water crossing the drainage divide. The purpose of the pre-treatment process is to reduce raw water turbidity which can influence the effectiveness of the disinfection processes. • Conventional Treatment. This treatment process would include a pre-treatment of Dissolved Air Flotation

(DAF)followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals (chlorine and chloramines) within the Missouri River basin. • Microfiltration. This treatment alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, pin floc) followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection processes prior to the water crossing the drainage divide. Public Disclosure Statement Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: December 10, 2007. Michael J. Ryan, Regional Director, Great Plains Region. [FR Doc. E7-24575 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Grassland Bypass Project Extension, Merced and Fresno Counties, CA AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) and notice of scoping meeting. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (Authority) are preparing a joint EIS/EIR, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, to evaluate effects of extending the Grassland Bypass Project (Project) until December 31, 2019. The Project's use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) was only authorized until December 31, 2009. Additionally, subsurface drainage flows discharged to Mud Slough (North) were to have met water quality objectives by October 1, 2010, as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region's (CVRWQCB) 1998 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. However, difficulty in acquiring final funding has delayed the development and availability of treatment and disposal technology to reduce selenium loads to meet the 2010 deadline. It is anticipated that the extension to 2019 would allow enough time to acquire funds and develop feasible treatment technology to meet Basin Plan objectives and Waste Discharge Requirements. A scoping meeting will be held to solicit input on alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. Written comments may also be sent. DATES: A scoping meeting will be held on Thursday, January 17, 2008 from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. in Los Banos, CA. Written comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR should be sent by January 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: The scoping meeting location is the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Board Room, 842 Sixth Street, Suite 7, Los Banos, CA 93635. Send written comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR to Ms. Laura Myers, Bureau of Reclamation, South-Central California Area Office, 1243 N Street, Fresno, CA 93721, via e-mail to *lmyers@mp.usbr.gov* , or faxed to 559-487-5130. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Myers, 559-487-5179. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior to 1996 when the interim Project was implemented, subsurface agricultural drainage water was conveyed through channels that were also used to deliver water to wetland habitat areas. This dual use limited Reclamation's ability to deliver fresh water to the wetlands. The interim Project was implemented in November 1995 through an “Agreement for Use of the San Luis Drain” (Use Agreement) (Agreement No. 6-07-20-w1319) between Reclamation and the Authority. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI No. 96-1-MP) was approved by Reclamation for the interim Project, and the environmental commitments set forth in the FONSI were made an integral component of the initial Use Agreement. The Use Agreement and its renewal in 1999 allowed for use of the Drain for a 5-year period that concluded September 30, 2001. A new Use Agreement (Agreement No. 01-WC-20-2075) was completed on September 28, 2001, for the period through December 31, 2009. This original Project, as well as the proposed extension, consolidates subsurface drainage flows on a regional basis (from the 97,000-acre Grassland Drainage Area); applies the drainage to salt tolerant crops to reduce the volume; utilizes a 4-mile channel to place it into the Drain at a point near Russell Avenue (Milepost 105.72, Check 19); and utilizes a 28-mile segment of the San Luis Drain to convey the remaining drainage flows around wetland habitat areas which it discharges it to Mud Slough (North) and subsequently to the San Joaquin River. The actions to be analyzed in the EIS/EIR include continued use of the Grassland Bypass Channel and a 28-mile segment of the San Luis Drain, continued discharges to Mud Slough (North), sediment management options within that San Luis Drain segment; ongoing use and development of areas utilized for application of subsurface drainage on salt tolerant crops, and programmatic consideration of future phases of the treatment and disposal program. The Project extension also includes a monitoring program with biological, water quality, and sediment components. Results of the monitoring program are currently reviewed by an Oversight Committee quarterly, or as necessary, to implement the Use Agreement. In order to continue to discharge into Mud Slough (North) in the State's China Island Wildlife Area, the Authority would need to extend or amend a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game, Reclamation would need to extend the Use Agreement with the Authority for the continued use of the San Luis Drain after 2009, the CVRWQCB would need to revise their Basin Plan objectives for 2010 and amend the existing Waste Discharge Requirements in order to allow for anticipated drainage discharge into Mud Slough North, and Reclamation and the Authority would need to remove existing and future sediments from the affected portion of the Drain. Special Assistance for Public Scoping Meeting If special assistance is required at the scoping meetings, please contact Susan Mussett at 209-826-9696, or via e-mail at susan.mussett@sldmwa.org. Please notify as far in advance of the meeting as possible to secure the needed services. If a request cannot be honored, the requestor will be notified. A telephone device for the hearing impaired

(TDD)is available at 559-487-5933. Public Disclosure Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: December 17, 2007. Susan M. Fry, Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region. [FR Doc. E7-24822 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Red River Valley Water Supply Project, ND AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is notifying the public that Reclamation and the State of North Dakota have prepared a Final EIS for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project (RRVWSP). The purpose of the RRVWSP is to supply water to meet the water needs of the people and industries in the Red River Valley through the year 2050. The project's needs were established by Congress in the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. The project needs are defined as municipal, rural, and industrial supplies; water quality; aquatic environment; and water conservation measures. Reclamation published a Draft EIS on December 30, 2005. Following public comments on the Draft EIS and the addition of new information, Reclamation published a Supplemental Draft EIS on January 31, 2007. The comment period for the Draft EIS started on December 30, 2005 and continued through April 25, 2007 with review of the Supplemental Draft EIS. Revisions were made to the Final EIS to incorporate responses to comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS and new information. However, these revisions do not significantly impact the analysis or results presented in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The primary changes are inclusion of a final biological assessment prepared in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, an analysis of forecasted depletions and sedimentation on the Missouri River mainstem reservoir system, and a literature review of the best available climate change information. The Final EIS includes written responses to all public comments on both the DEIS and SDEIS. It also identifies the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative as Reclamation's and the State of North Dakota's preferred alternative. DATES: Reclamation will not make a decision on the proposed action until at least 30 days after the release of the Final EIS. After the 30-day waiting period, Reclamation will complete a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will state the selected action for implementation and will discuss factors and rationale used in making the decision. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Signe Snortland, telephone:

(701)221-1278, or FAX to

(701)250-4326, or *ssnortland@gp.usbr.gov* . Additional information including a complete copy of the Public Notice, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices are available on the Red River Valley Water Supply Project Web site at *http://www.rrvwsp.com* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final EIS considers five action alternatives and a no action alternative. Three of the action alternatives propose to use water from the Missouri River as an additional source of project water. The DEIS evaluated two treatment methods designed to reduce the risk of invasive species transfer (basic method and microfiltration). In response to comments on the DEIS, an additional treatment method, dissolved air flotation was evaluated in the SDEIS and FEIS. All of these treatment methods would be effective in removing or inactivating a broad range of organisms, including all of the potentially invasive species evaluated in the EIS. Estimated costs for construction, operation and maintenance of the treatment plant are provided. The Final EIS is available for public inspection at the following locations: Iowa • Des Moines Public Library, 100 Locust Street, Des Moines, IA Kansas • Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library, 1515 SW 10th Street, Topeka, KS Minnesota • Breckenridge Public Library, 205 7th Street North, Breckenridge, MN • East Grand Forks Library, 422 4th Street Northwest, East Grand Forks, MN • Moorhead Public Library, 118 5th Street South, Moorhead, MN • Perham Public Library, 225 2nd Ave. NE, Perham, MN • Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, PO Box 550, Red Lake, MN • St. Paul Public Library, 90 West 4th Street, St. Paul, MN • Warroad City Library, 202 Main Ave. NW, Warroad, MN • White Earth Reservation, 26246 Crane Road, White Earth, MN Missouri • Kansas City Public Library, 14 West 10th Street, Kansas City, MO • Missouri River Regional Library, 214 Adams Street, Jefferson City, MO Montana • Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, 316 N. 26th Street, Billings, MT Nebraska • Lincoln City Libraries, 136 South 14th Street, Lincoln, NE North Dakota • Alfred Dickey Public Library, 105 3rd Street SE, Jamestown, ND • Bureau of Indian Affairs, Turtle Mountain Agency, PO Box 60, Highway 5 West, Belcourt, ND • Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Berthold Agency, 202 Main Street, New Town, ND • Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Totten Agency, PO Box 270/Main Street, Fort Totten, ND • Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, 304 E. Broadway Ave., Bismarck, ND • Fargo Public Library, 102 3rd Street North, Fargo, ND • Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, 401 Highway 281 NE, Carrington, ND • Grand Forks Public Library, 2110 Library Circle, Grand Forks, ND • Leach Public Library, 417 2nd Ave. North, Wahpeton, ND • North Dakota State Library, 603 East Blvd. Ave., Bismarck, ND • Standing Rock Administrative Service Center, Bldg. #1, North Standing Rock Avenue, Fort Yates, ND • West Fargo Public Library, 109 3rd Street East, West Fargo, ND South Dakota • Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sisseton Agency, Veterans Memorial D, Agency Village, SD • South Dakota State Library, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, SD Province of Manitoba • Millennium Library, 251 Donald Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Province of Ontario • Kenora Branch Library, 24 Main Street South, Kenora, Ontario, Canada Dated: December 10, 2007. Michael J. Ryan, Regional Director, Great Plains Region. [FR Doc. E7-24590 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request December 17, 2007. The Department of Labor

(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: John Kraemer, OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Gear Certification (29 CFR part 1919). *OMB Control Number:* 1218-0003. *Agency Form Number:* OSHA-70. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profits. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,116. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 190. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $1,128,000. *Description:* The OSHA-70 Form is used by applicants seeking accreditation from OSHA to be able to test or examine certain equipment and material handling devices, as required under the maritime regulations, 29 CFR part 1917 (Marine Terminals), and 29 CFR part 1918 (Longshoring). The OSHA-70 Form provides an easy means for companies to apply for accreditation. For additional information, see related notice published on September 17, 2007 at 72 FR 52912. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance (29 CFR § 1910.66). *OMB Control Number:* 1218-0121. *Agency Form Number:* None. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profits. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 900. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 135,656. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The recordkeeping requirements of the Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance Standard (29 CFR 1910.66) include written emergency action plans and work plans for training; affixing load rating plates to each suspended unit, labeling emergency electric operating devices with instructions for their use, and attaching a tag to one of the fastenings holding a suspension wire rope; the inspection and testing of, and written certification for, building-support structures, components of powered platforms, powered platform facilities, and suspension wire ropes; and training employees and the preparation and maintenance of written training certification records. OSHA requires this information to be collected by employers in order to assure that employees who operate powered platforms receive uniform and comprehensive instruction and information in the operation, safe use, and inspection of this equipment. For additional information, see related notice published on October 5, 2007 at 72 FR 57072. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Standard on Manlifts (29 CFR 1910.68(e)). *OMB Control Number:* 1218-0226. *Agency Form Number:* None. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profits. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,000. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 37,801. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* 29 CFR 1910.68(e) specifies requirements for inspecting manlifts; and developing, maintaining, and disclosing inspection records. OSHA requires this information to be collected by employers for determining the cumulative maintenance status of a manlift and or taking the necessary preventive actions to ensure employee safety. For additional information, see related notice published on September 6, 2007 at 72 FR 51253. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24777 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request December 17, 2007. The Department of Labor

(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov* . Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Carolyn Lovett, OMB Desk Officer for the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), e-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Request for Information on Earnings, Dual Benefits, Dependents and Third Part Settlements. *OMB Control Number:* 1215-0151. *Agency Form Number:* CA-1032. *Estimated Number of Annual Respondents:* 50,000. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 16,667. *Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden:* $22,000. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Description:* In accordance with 20 CFR 10.528, DOL periodically requires each employee who is receiving compensation benefits to complete an affidavit as to any work, or activity indicating an ability to work, which the employee has performed for the prior 15 months. If an employee who is required to file such a report fails to do so within 30 days of the date of the request, his or her right to compensation for wage loss under 5 U.S.C. 8105 or 8106 is suspended until DOL receives the requested report. The information collected through the Form CA-1032 is used to ensure that compensation being paid is correct. Without this information, claimants might receive compensation to which they were not entitled, resulting in an overpayment of compensation. For additional information, see related notice published on August 29, 2007 at 72 FR 49737. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Worker Information—Terms and Conditions of Employment. *OMB Control Number:* 1215-0187. *Agency Form Numbers:* WH-516 and WH-516-Espanol. *Estimated Number of Annual Respondents:* 129,250. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 77,550. *Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden:* $93,060. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Farms. *Description:* Various sections of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., require respondents [i.e., Farm Labor Contractors (FLCs), Agricultural Employers (AGERs), and Agricultural Associations (AGASs)] to disclose employment terms and conditions in writing to:

(1)Migrant agricultural workers at the time of recruitment [MSPA section 201(a)];

(2)seasonal agricultural workers, upon request, at the time an offer of employment is made [MSPA section 301(a)(1)]; and

(3)seasonal agricultural workers employed through a day-haul operation at the place of recruitment [MSPA section 301(a)(2)]. See 29 CFR 500.75-.76. Moreover, MSPA sections 201(b) and 301(b) require respondents to provide each migrant worker, upon request, with a written statement of the terms and conditions of employment. See 29 CFR 500.75(d). MSPA sections 201(g) and 301(f) require providing such information in English or, as necessary and reasonable, in a language common to the workers and that the U.S. Department of Labor

(DOL)make forms available to provide such information. The DOL prints and makes Optional Form WH-516, Worker Information—Terms and Conditions of Employment, available for these purposes. See 29 CFR 500.75(a), 500.76(a). MSPA sections 201(a)(8) and 301(a)(1)(H) require disclosure of certain information regarding whether State workers' compensation or state unemployment insurance is provided to each migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. See 29 CFR 500.75(b)(6). For example, if State workers' compensation is provided, the respondents must disclose the name of the State workers' compensation insurance carrier, the name of the policyholder of such insurance, the name and the telephone number of each person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the time period within which this notice must be given. See 29 CFR 500.75(b)(6)(i). Respondents may also meet this disclosure requirement, by providing the worker with a photocopy of any notice regarding workers' compensation insurance required by law of the state in which such worker is employed. See 29 CFR 500.75 (b)(6)(ii). The Form WH-516 is an optional form that allows respondents to disclose employment terms and conditions in writing to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, as required by the MSPA. Respondents may either complete the optional form and use it to make the required disclosures to workers or use the form as a written reflection of the information workers may request from employers under the MSPA. Disclosure of the information on this form is beneficial to both parties in that it enables workers to understand their employment terms and conditions, while also providing respondents with an easy way to disclose the information required by the MSPA and its regulations. For additional information, see related notice published on September 12, 2007 at 72 FR 52166. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24810 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information included in the Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the individual listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Gerald B. Lindrew, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210,

(202)693-8410, FAX

(202)693-4745 (these are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Secretary of Labor has the authority, under section 502(c)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to assess civil penalties of up to $1,000 a day 1 against plan administrators who fail or refuse to file complete and timely annual reports (Form 5500 Series Annual Return/Reports) as required under section 101(b)(4) of ERISA related regulations. Pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.502c-2 and 2570.60 *et seq.,* EBSA has maintained a program for the assessment of civil penalties for noncompliance with the annual reporting requirements. Under this program, plan administrators filing annual reports after the date on which the report was required to be filed may be assessed $50 per day for each day an annual report is filed after the date on which the annual report(s) was required to be filed, without regard to any extensions for filing. 1 Adjusted to $1,100 per day pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. *See* 62 FR 40696, July 29, 1997. Plan administrators who fail to file an annual report may be assessed a penalty of $300 per day, up to $30,000 per year, until a complete annual report is filed. Penalties are applicable to each annual report required to be filed under Title I of ERISA. The Department may, in its discretion, waive all or part of a civil penalty assessed under section 502(c)(2) upon a showing by the administrator that there was reasonable cause for the failure to file a complete and timely annual report. The Department has determined that the possible assessment of these civil penalties may deter certain delinquent filers from voluntarily complying with the annual reporting requirements under Title I of ERISA. In an effort to encourage annual reporting compliance, therefore, the Department implemented the Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance

(DFVC)Program (the Program) on April 27, 1995 (60 FR 20873). Under the Program, administrators otherwise subject to the assessment of higher civil penalties are permitted to pay reduced civil penalties for voluntarily complying with the annual reporting requirements under Title I of ERISA. This ICR covers the requirement of providing data necessary to identify the plan along with the penalty payment. This data is the means by which each penalty payment is associated with the appropriate plan. With respect to most pension plans and welfare plans, the requirement is satisfied by sending a photocopy of the delinquent Form 5500 annual report 2 that has been filed, along with the penalty payment. 2 DFVC information collection provisions originally required submission of the first page of the Form 5500 annual report. Because of the recent revisions to the Form 5500, the information needed to process the DFVC filing is no longer confined to the first page of the Form 5500. DFVC filers using a 1999 or later Form 5500 must submit a copy of all pages of the Form 5500 (generally 4), dated with original signature but without any schedules or attachments. Under current regulations, apprenticeship and training plans may be exempted from the reporting and disclosure requirements of Part 1 of Title I, and certain pension plans maintained for highly compensated employees, commonly called “top hat” plans may comply with these reporting and disclosure requirements by using an alternate method by filing a one-time identifying statement with the Department. The DFVC Program provides that apprenticeship and training plans and top hat plans may, in lieu of filing any past due annual reports and paying otherwise applicable civil penalties, complete and file specific portions of a Form 5500, file the identifying statements that were required to be filed, and pay a one-time penalty. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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 submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval of this ICR will expire on April 30, 2008. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Agency:* U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program. *OMB Number:* 1210-0089. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Average Burden Hours/Minutes Per Response:* 21 minutes. *Number of Respondents:* 4,100. *Total Annual Responses:* 4,100. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 145. *Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance):* $107,300. Dated: December 7, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. E7-24802 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 77-4 ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration

(EBSA)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information, Class Exemption 77-4 for certain transactions between investment companies and employee benefit plans. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments regarding the collection of information. Send comments to Mr. Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202)693-8410 Fax:

(202)693-4745 (These are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Without the relief provided by this exemption, an open-end mutual fund would be unable to sell shares to or purchase shares from a plan when the fiduciary with respect to the plan is also the investment advisor for the mutual fund. As a result, plans would be compelled to liquidate their existing investments involving such transactions and to amend their plan documents to establish new investment structures and policies. In order to insure that the exemption is not abused and that the rights of participants and beneficiaries are protected, the Department has included in the exemption three basic disclosure requirements. The first requires at the time of the purchase or sale of such mutual fund shares that the plan's independent fiduciary receive a copy of the current prospectus issued by the open-end mutual fund and a full and detailed written statement of the investment advisory fees charges to or paid by the plan and the open-end mutual fund to the investment advisor. The second requires that the independent fiduciary approve in writing such purchases and sales. The third requires that the independent fiduciary, once notified of changes in the fees, re-approve in writing the purchase and sale of mutual fund shares. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor (Department) is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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 submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's approval of this ICR will expire on April 30, 2008. This notice requests comments on the extension of the ICR. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time in connection with this extension. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. *Agency:* Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 77-4 for Certain Transactions Between Investment Companies and Employee Benefit Plans. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collections. *OMB Numbers:* 1210-0049. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Total Respondents:* 431. *Total Responses:* 82,000. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Average Time Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Total Annual Burden:* 7,000 hours. Dated: December 10, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits SecurityAdministration. [FR Doc. E7-24803 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-8 AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-8 on investment of plan assets in certain types of short-term investments. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mr. Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202)693-8410; Fax

(202)693-4745. These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-8 permits the investment of plan assets that involve the purchase or other acquisition, holding, sale, exchange or redemption by or on behalf of an employee benefit plan in certain types of short-term investments. These include investments in banker's acceptances, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, certificates of deposit, and bank securities. Absent the exemption, certain aspects of these transactions might be prohibited by section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Provided that the requirements of the exemption are met, the exemption allows plans to invest in certain short term investments in debt obligations issued by certain persons who provide services to the plan or who are affiliated with such service providers that otherwise might be prohibited under sections 406 and 407(a) of ERISA. Without this exemption, these types of short term transactions might not be permitted. In order to ensure that the exemption is not abused, that the rights of participants and beneficiaries are protected, and that the conditions of the exemption have been satisfied, the Department has included in the exemption two basic disclosure requirements. Both affect only the portion of the exemption dealing with repurchase agreements. The first requirement calls for the repurchase agreements between the seller and the plan to be in writing. The second requirement obliges the seller of such repurchase agreements to agree to provide financial statements to the plan at the time of the sale and as future statements are issued. The seller must also represent, either in the repurchase agreement or prior to the negotiation of each repurchase agreement transaction, that there has been no material adverse change in the seller's financial condition since the date that the most recent financial statement was furnished which has not been disclosed to the plan fiduciary with whom the written agreement is made. Without the recording and disclosure requirements included in this ICR, participants and beneficiaries of a plan would not be protected in their investments, the Department would be unable to monitor a plan's activities for compliance, and plans would be at a disadvantage in assessing the value of certain short-term investment activities. II. Desired Focus of Comments The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; • 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. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval of this ICR will expire on March 31, 2008. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. *Agency:* Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-8 for Investment of Plan Assets in Certain Types of Short-Term Investments. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *OMB Number:* 1210-0061. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Total Respondents:* 45,969. *Total Responses:* 229,845. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Burden Hours:* 31,900. *Estimated Burden Costs:* $85,000. Dated: December 10, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Policy and Research. [FR Doc. E7-24804 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations: Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 96-62 AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments concerning the extension of a currently approved collection of information, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 96-62. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210,

(202)693-8410, FAX

(202)693-4745. These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides that the Secretary of Labor may grant exemptions from the prohibited transaction provisions of sections 406 and 407(a) of ERISA, and directs the Secretary to establish an exemption procedure with respect to such provisions. On July 31, 1996, the Department published Prohibited Transaction Exemption 96-62, which, pursuant to the exemption procedure set forth in 29 CFR 2570, subpart B, permits a plan to seek approval on an accelerated basis of otherwise prohibited transactions. A class exemption will only be granted on the conditions that the plan demonstrate to the Department that the transaction is substantially similar to those described in at least two prior individual exemptions granted by the Department and that it presents little, if any, opportunity for abuse or risk of loss to a plan's participants and beneficiaries. This ICR is intended to provide the Department with sufficient information to support a finding that the exemption meets the statutory standards of section 408(a) of ERISA, and to provide affected parties with the opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction, while at the same time reducing the regulatory burden associated with processing individual exemptions for transactions prohibited under ERISA. II. Review Focus The Department is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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 submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval of this ICR will expire on March 31, 2008. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Exemption 96-62; Accelerated Approval of an Otherwise Prohibited Transaction. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *OMB Number:* 1210-0098. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Individuals. *Total Respondents:* 42. *Total Responses:* 42. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 53. *Total Annual Costs (Operating and Maintenance):* $43,491. Dated: December 10, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Policy and Research. [FR Doc. E7-24806 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 98-54—Foreign Exchange Transactions Executed Pursuant to Standing Instructions AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the information collection provisions of Prohibited Transaction Exemption 98-54 (PTE 98-54). A copy of the information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the individual shown in the Addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the Addresses section on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Gerald B. Lindrew, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210,

(202)693-8410, FAX

(202)693-4745 (these are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background PTE 98-54 permits certain foreign exchange transactions between employee benefit plans and certain banks, broker-dealers, and domestic affiliates thereof, which are parties in interest with respect to such plans, pursuant to standing instructions. In the absence of an exemption, foreign exchange transactions pursuant to standing instructions would be prohibited under circumstances where the bank or broker-dealer is a party in interest or disqualified person with respect to the plan under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) or the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The class exemption has five basic information collection requirements. The first requires the bank or broker-dealer to maintain written policies and procedures for handling foreign exchange transactions for plans for which it is a party in interest which ensure that the party acting for the bank or broker-dealer knows it is dealing with a plan. The second requires that the transactions are performed in accordance with a written authorization executed in advance by an independent fiduciary of the plan. The third requires that the bank or broker-dealer provides the authorizing fiduciary with a copy of its written policies and procedures for foreign exchange transactions involving income item conversions and *de minimis* purchase and sale transactions prior to the execution of a transaction. The fourth requires the bank or broker-dealer to furnish the authorizing fiduciary a written confirmation statement with respect to each covered transaction within five days of execution. The fifth requires that the bank or broker-dealer maintains records necessary for plan fiduciaries, participants, and the Department and Internal Revenue Service to determine whether the conditions of the exemption are being met for a period of six years from the date of execution of a transaction. By requiring that records pertaining to the exempted transaction be maintained for six years, this ICR insures that the exemption is not abused, the rights of the participants and beneficiaries are protected, and that compliance with the exemption's conditions can be confirmed. The exemption affects participants and beneficiaries of the plans that are involved in such transactions as well as certain banks, broker-dealers, and domestic affiliates thereof. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor (Department) is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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 submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval of this ICR will expire on April 30, 2008. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 98-54 relating to Certain Employee Benefit Plan Foreign Exchange Transactions Executed Pursuant to Standing Instructions. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *OMB Number:* 1210-0111. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Respondents:* 35. *Responses:* 8,400. *Average Response Time:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 4,200. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $0. Dated: December 10, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. E7-24807 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations: Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption T88-1 AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments concerning the extension of a currently approved collection of information, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption T88-1. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210,

(202)693-8410, FAX

(202)693-4745. These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Prohibited Transaction Exemption T88-1 adopts, for purposes of the prohibited transaction provisions of section 8477(c)(2) of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), certain prohibited transaction class exemptions (the Class Exemptions) granted pursuant to section 408(a) of the Employee Income Security Act of 1974. This existing collection of information should be continued because, without the relief provided by this exemption, certain transactions described in the Class Exemptions might be prohibited under FERSA. The recordkeeping requirements incorporated within the class exemption are intended to protect the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. This ICR is intended to provide the Department with sufficient information to support a finding that the exemption meets the statutory standards of section 408(a) of ERISA, and to provide affected parties with the opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction, while at the same time reducing the regulatory burden associated with processing individual exemptions for transactions prohibited under ERISA. The exemption affects participants and beneficiaries of the plans that are involved in such transactions as well as the party entering into the transaction with the plan. II. Desired Focus of Comments The Department is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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 submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval of this ICR will expire on April 30, 2008. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* Prohibited Transaction Exemption T88-1. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *OMB Number:* 1210-0074. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Individuals. *Total Respondents:* 1. *Total Responses:* 1. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1. *Total Annual Costs (Operating and Maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: December 10, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Employee Benefits Security Administration, office of Policy and Research. [FR Doc. E7-24808 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Suspension of Benefits ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration

(EBSA)is soliciting comments concerning the extension without change of the information collection request

(ICR)included in the suspension of pension benefits regulation issued pursuant to the authority of section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which governs the circumstances under which pension plans may suspend pension benefit payments to retirees who return to work, or of participants who continue to work beyond normal retirement age (29 CFR 2530.203-3). A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments regarding the collection of information. Send comments to Mr. Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5718, Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone:

(202)693-8410 Fax:

(202)693-4745 (These are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 203(a)(3)(B) of ERISA governs the circumstances under which pension plans may suspend pension benefit payments to retirees that return to work or to participants that continue to work beyond normal retirement age. Furthermore, section 203(a)(3)(B) of ERISA authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. In this regard, the Department issued a regulation which describes the circumstances and conditions under which plans may suspend the pension benefits of retirees that return to work, or of participants that continue to work beyond normal retirement age (29 CFR 2530.203-3). In order for a plan to suspend benefits pursuant to the regulation, it must notify affected retirees or participants (by first class mail or personal delivery) during the first calendar month or payroll period in which the plan withholds payment, that benefits are suspended. This notice must include the specific reasons for such suspension, a general description of the plan provisions authorizing the suspension, a copy of the relevant plan provisions, and a statement indicating where the applicable regulations may be found, (i.e., 29 CFR 2530.203-3). In addition, the suspension notification must inform the retiree or participant of the plan's procedure for affording a review of the suspension of benefits. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor (Department) is particularly interested in comments that: • 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; • 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; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • 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 submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Office of Management and Budget's approval of this ICR will expire on April 30, 2008. This notice requests comments on the extension of the ICR. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time in connection with this extension. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. *Agency:* Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Title:* Suspension of Benefits Regulation pursuant to 29 CFR 2530.203-3. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *OMB Number:* 1210-0048. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Total Respondents:* 74,872. *Total Responses:* 74,872. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Total Annual Burden:* 18,718. *Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance):* $63,000. Dated: December 10, 2007. Joseph S. Piacentini, Director, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. E7-24809 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [ NOTICE 07-096] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The need for educational survey(s) is to inform NASA and specific projects about education and programmatic issues and topics leading to improved customer service for stakeholders. The NASA-funded education programs served are primarily from the Earth Science education initiatives. II. Method of Collection NASA will utilize a Web-based education survey to inform NASA and specific projects about education and programmatic issues and topics leading to improved customer service for its stakeholders. The NASA education programs served, including those from REASON (Research, Education and Applications Solutions Network) program are primarily from Earth Science initiatives. III. Data *Title:* NASA Education Customer Survey. *OMB Number:* 2700-XXXX. *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business and other for-profit, and Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 0.25 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1250. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $31,500. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

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

(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 respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary Cox, Executive Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24773 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [NOTICE: (07-097)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This information collection is an application form to be considered for an undergraduate or graduate scholarship. Students are required to submit an application package consisting of an application form, academic background, proposed area of study, curriculum vitae or personal statement, three letters of reference, and an essay or research proposal. II. Method of Collection NASA will utilize a Web-based application form with instructions and other application materials also on-line. All data will be collected via this web-based application (separate under graduate and graduate forms) and unless the user chooses to download the application form and other application materials and mail them in. III. Data *Title:* NASA Aeronautics Scholarship Program. *OMB Number:* 2700-XXXX. *Type of review:* New Collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 250. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 1.0 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 250 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0.00. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;

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

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

(NARA)publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a). DATES: Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before January 22, 2008. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments. ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting the Life Cycle Management Division

(NWML)using one of the following means: Mail: NARA (NWML), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. E-mail: *requestschedule@nara.gov* . Fax: 301-837-3698. Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurence Brewer, Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1539. E-mail: *records.mgt@nara.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form

(SF)115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent. No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value. Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request. Schedules Pending 1. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (N1-440-07-1, 11 items, 4 temporary items). Records created and maintained by the Office of the Administrator. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of the Administrator's calendar, public speeches, correspondence, and official briefing books. 2. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate (N1-563-07-23, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master file for an electronic information system used to manage applications for anti-terrorism technologies to be protected from certain liability claims. 3. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (N1-26-08-1, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Master files for an electronic information system used to monitor maritime activities of non-Coast Guard vessels. 4. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (N1-436-08-1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files and outputs for the Automated Commercial System, which monitors imports of listed products to track fraud and trafficking. 5. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (N1-NU-07-13, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Logistics activity and analysis reports relating to education, training, property control, accountability, and readiness. 6. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (N1-NU-07-16, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master file and outputs associated with an electronic information system used to track the development, maintenance, and administration of utilities and services. 7. Department of State, Overseas Buildings Operations (N1-59-07-9, 4 items, 2 temporary items). Director's calendar and daily schedule and copies of thank-you notes and letters of condolence, commendation, or congratulation sent by the Director. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of the Director's correspondence files and travel briefing books. 8. Department of State, Overseas Buildings Operations (N1-59-07-14, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Chief of Staff's calendar and daily schedule and administrative announcements distributed Bureau-wide. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of the Director's management and policy files. 9. Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (N1-559-08-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of the Foreign Travel Data Base. 10. Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, Agency-wide (N1-508-08-1, 7 items, 4 temporary items). Records include chronological files, scholar files, master copies of form letters, and compliance reports. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of Board of Trustees files, general correspondence, and publications files. 11. Environmental Protection Agency (N1-412-07-54, 12 items, 7 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The record series include local government reimbursement program records, indemnification requests from states for response action contractors, administrative decision records, claims against the fund documents, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)corrective action files, emergency planning case files background documents and emergency operations test files background documents. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. Also included are RCRA corrective action files for land disposals, emergency planning directives and plans, emergency operations test reports, and Section 103 notifications for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, for which paper recordkeeping copies previously were approved as permanent. 12. Environmental Protection Agency (N1-412-07-55, 5 items, 5 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The record series include formerly used defense sites documents, emergency prevention risk management plan implementation records, emergency planning trade secret files, solid waste management plans, and underground storage tanks site and facility files. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. 13. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters (N1-412-07-56, 8 items, 7 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The record series include environmental impact assessments of nongovernmental activities, **Federal Register** report files, federal facilities data system reports, federal facilities referrals files, federal agency liaison files, and executive orders and Office of Management and Budget circulars review and comments files. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. Also included are environmental impact statement files, for which paper recordkeeping copies previously were approved as permanent. 14. Environmental Protection Agency (N1-412-07-68, 27 items, 18 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The record series include administrative law judge's case files for routine cases, administrative law judge's repository files, **Federal Register** documents signed by the administrator, external discrimination complaints, congressional committees files, state territories and interstate group files, agency proposed legislation files, weekly legislative reports, public awareness background or working paper files, public affairs project files, program and program activity evaluation work files and reports, and agency program plans review files. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. Also included are administrative law judges' case files for landmark cases, legislative history files, congressional hearing testimony files, press releases and other public awareness official files, and program policy planning files, for which paper recordkeeping copies previously were approved as permanent. 15. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters (N1-412-08-3, 1 item, 1 temporary item). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to records regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The records relate to notification of hazardous waste imports into the United States and hazardous waste exports to foreign countries. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. 16. Federal Election Commission, Office of the General Counsel (N1-339-06-1, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to litigation cases filed by or against the Commission, including working papers and copies used for revisions. Proposed for permanent retention are the official case files. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium. 17. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Agency-wide (N1-280-07-5, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Content records and management or support records of the agency's public Web site and intranet Web site. 18. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Office of Arbitration Services (N1-280-08-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Arbitration case administration data, R-19 arbitrator's report and statement of fees forms case files, official roster of arbitrators and personal data questionnaire forms, and notice processing records. 19. Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People around the Globe

(HELP)Commission, Agency-wide (N1-220-08-1, 8 items, 4 temporary items). Travel briefing materials, audio recordings of selected meetings, and web site. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of meeting minutes and notes, drafts and final copies of the Commission's report, and outreach materials. 20. National Archives and Records Administration, National Personnel Records Center (N1-64-08-1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files and analytic/data warehouse for the Case Management and Reporting System, which manages response to customer requests for military records. 21. United States Institute of Peace, Task Force on UN Reform (N1-573-08-1, 8 items, 3 temporary items). Administrative records associated with the task force. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of background files, the final report, meeting and briefing books, congressional hearing files, and electronic program records. Dated: December 17, 2007. Michael J. Kurtz, Assistant Archivist for Records Services—Washington, DC. [FR Doc. E7-24805 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY Paperwork Reduction Act; Notice of Intent To Collect; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). ACTION: ONDCP provides opportunity for public comment concerning the collection of information to identify the Federal, State, and local resources assigned to drug control programs in our nation's largest cities. SUMMARY: This action proposes the collection of drug control information from federal, state, and local governments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background ONDCP previously collected information to establish a baseline of federal, state, and local drug control funding levels in the nation's largest metropolitan areas. The collection of this data will help ONDCP measure spending level changes, coordinate services, and develop National Drug Control Strategies. The project identifies in each affected city significant movements in key drug use measures, and encourages city administrators to use proven programs that increase efficiencies and effectiveness; promote coordination and collaboration; develop commitments; and, gather accurate performance measurement data. *Type of Collection:* Reinstatement with change of an approved data collection that expired. *Title of Information Collection:* Survey of drug treatment, drug use prevention, and law enforcement resources available to cities. *Frequency:* Annually by fiscal year. *Affected Public:* Instrumentalities of State, local, and tribal governments. *Estimated Burden:* Minimal since providers maintain the data for other purposes. II. Special Issues for Comment ONDCP especially invites comments on:

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

(b)ways to enhance information quality, utility, and clarity; and

(c)ways to ease the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. ADDRESSES: Address all comments in writing within 60 days to Michael Reles. Facsimile and e-mail are the more reliable means of communication. Mr. Reles's facsimile number is

(202)395-5176, and his e-mail address is *mreles@ondcp.eop.gov* . The Web site for the ONDCP is *http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov* . Mailing address is Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC 20503. For further information, contact Mr. Reles at

(202)395-6608. Signed at Washington DC on December 18, 2007. Daniel R. Petersen, Assistant General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-24870 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3180-02-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 36, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.” 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0158. 3. *How often the collection is required:* On occasion. It is estimated that there are approximately 2 NRC and 8 Agreement State reports submitted annually. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Irradiator licensees licensed by NRC or an Agreement State. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 75 (15 NRC Licensees and 60 Agreement State Licensees). 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 35,08 hours (6,988 hours for NRC Licensees [6,878 recordkeeping + 110 reporting] and 28,020 hours for Agreement State Licensees [27,510 recordkeeping + 510 reporting]), or 467 hours per licensee. 7. *Abstract:* 10 CFR part 36 contains requirements for the issuance of a license authorizing the use of sealed sources containing radioactive materials in irradiators used to irradiate objects or materials for a variety of purposes in research, industry, and other fields. The subparts cover specific requirements for obtaining a license or license exemption, design and performance criteria for irradiators; and radiation safety requirements for opening irradiators, including requirements for operator training, written operating and emergency procedures, personnel monitoring, radiation surveys, inspection and maintenance. Part 36 also contains the recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are necessary to ensure that the irradiator is being safely operated so that it poses no danger to the health and safety of the general public and the irradiator employees. Submit, by February 19, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirement may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of December 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-24873 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-6563] Notice of License Amendment Request by Mallinckrodt Inc., St. Louis, MO, and Opportunity To Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of license amendment, and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by February 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Buckley, Senior Project Manager, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-8F5, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:

(301)415-6607; fax number:

(301)415-5369; e-mail: *jtb@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has received, by letter dated November 20, 2007, a license amendment application from Mallinckrodt Inc. (Mallinckrodt), requesting authorization to excavate un-reacted Columbium-Tantalum (C-T) ore

(URO)from an area of its St. Louis, Missouri downtown site. Mallinckrodt holds License No. STB-401, a 10 CFR part 40, Possession-Only license. The buried URO at issue comprises approximately 300 cubic yards of material located at the area known as “Plant 6W”. Mallinckrodt plans to package and dispose of the material at an NRC-approved off-site disposal facility. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to Mallinckrodt dated December 10, 2007 (ML073400250), found the application acceptable to begin a technical review. If the NRC approves the amendment, the approval will be documented in an amendment to NRC License No. STB-401. However, before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report. Environmental findings will be documented in a separate Environmental Assessment. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license amendment regarding Mallinckrodt's request to excavate, and dispose of, URO located at its St. Louis, Missouri site. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding, and who desires to participate as a party, must file a request for a hearing and, a specification of the contentions, which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (August 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or, in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV,* or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request

(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.* Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.* Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.* A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209 or locally,

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include social security numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3)), then the requirements for paper documents set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by February 13, 2008. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed action. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action. 3. Emergency Planning—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 4. Physical Security—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 5. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E-Filing rule, within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for Mallinckrodt's Request for License Amendment to Remove URO from Plant 6W, is ML073390035. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 14th day of December 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-24878 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-012 and 52-013] South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company South Texas Project Site, Units 3 & 4; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) has submitted an application for combined licenses

(COLs)for its South Texas Project

(STP)site to build Units 3 & 4, located on approximately 12,200 acres in a rural area of Matagorda County, Texas, approximately 12 miles south-southwest of the city limits of Bay City, Texas, and 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, along the west bank of the Colorado River. The application for the COLs was submitted by STPNOC by letter dated October 1, 2007, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52. A notice of receipt of application, including the environmental report (ER), was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60394). A notice of acceptance for docketing of the application for COLs for STP was published in the **Federal Register** on December 5, 2007, (72 FR 68597). The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)will be preparing an environmental impact statement

(EIS)in support of the review of the application for COLs and to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process as defined in 10 CFR 51.29. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act,” the NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50, STPNOC submitted the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 51 and 52 and is available for public inspection at the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,* which provides access through the NRC's Electronic Reading Room

(ERR)link. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The application may also be viewed on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/south-texas-project.html.* In addition, the Bay City Public Library, 1100 7th Street, Bay City, Texas 77414 has agreed to make the ER available for public inspection. The following key reference documents related to the application and the NRC staff's review process are available through the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov:* a. 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions; b. 10 CFR part 52, Early Site Permits (ESP); standard design certifications; and combined licenses for nuclear power plants; c. 10 CFR part 100, Reactor Site Criteria; d. NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants; e. NUREG/BR-0298, Brochure on Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process; f. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations; g. Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations; and h. Fact Sheet on Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process. The regulations, NUREG-series documents, regulatory guide(s), and fact sheet can be found under Document Collections in the ERR on the NRC webpage. This notice advises the public that the NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare an EIS in support of the review of the application for COLs at the STP site. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (issuance of the COLs at the STP site) include no action and alternate sites. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 52.18 to prepare an EIS in connection with the issuance of COLs. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations found in 10 CFR part 51. The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the COLs and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft EIS for public comment. Participation in this scoping process by members of the public, local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the draft EIS will be used to accomplish the following: a. Define the proposed action which is to be the subject of the EIS; b. Determine the scope of the EIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed In-depth; c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant; d. Identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that are related to but are not part of the scope of the EIS being considered; e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action; f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule; g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and h. Describe how the EIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used. The NRC invites the following entities to participate in the scoping process: a. The applicant; b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved, or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards; c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards including the State Historic Preservation Officer; d. Any affected Indian tribe including the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer; e. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; f. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and g. Any person who intends to petition for leave to intervene. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC will hold a public scoping meeting for the EIS regarding STPNOC's COL applications. The scoping meeting will be held at the Bay City Civic Center, 201 7th Street, Bay City, Texas 77414, on Tuesday, February 5, 2008. The meeting will convene at 1:30 p.m., and will continue until 4:30 p.m., and again at 7:00 p.m., and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as necessary. The meeting will be transcribed and will include the following:

(1)An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the EIS, and the proposed review schedule;

(2)the opportunity for interested Government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the EIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions for one hour prior to the start of each public meeting at the Bay City Civic Center. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the COLs will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meeting on the NEPA scoping process by contacting Ms. Cristina Guerrero by telephone at 1

(800)368-5642, extension 2981, or by Internet to the NRC at *STP_COL@nrc.gov,* no later than January 29, 2008. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of the session. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. Public comments will be considered in the scoping process for the EIS. If special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, the need should be brought to Ms. Guerrero's attention no later than January 29, 2008, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated. Members of the public may send written comments on the environmental scoping process for the EIS to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. To be considered in the scoping process, written comments must be postmarked or delivered by February 18, 2008. Electronic comments may be sent by the Internet to the NRC at *STP_COL@nrc.gov.* Electronic submissions must be sent no later than February 18, 2008, to be considered in the scoping process. The staff will not consider comments submitted later than as specified above unless time permits. Comments will be available electronically and accessible through the NRC's ERR link *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* at the NRC Homepage. Participation in the scoping process for the EIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the EIS relates. Notice of a hearing regarding the application for COLs will be the subject of a future **Federal Register** notice. At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC will prepare a concise summary of the determination and conclusions reached, including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy of the summary to each participant in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for inspection through the ERR link. The staff will then prepare and issue for comment the draft EIS, which will be the subject of separate notices and a separate public meeting. Copies will be available for public inspection at the above-mentioned addresses, and one copy per request will be provided free of charge. After receipt and consideration of the comments, the NRC will prepare a final EIS, which will also be available for public inspection. Information about the proposed action, the EIS, and the scoping process may be obtained from Paul Kallan at

(301)415-2809 or *PBK1@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of December, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James E. Lyons, Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E7-24875 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Independent External Review Panel To Identify Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Materials Licensing Program: Meeting Notice AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: NRC will convene a meeting of the Independent External Review Panel to Identify Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

(NRC)Materials Licensing Program from January 14 through January 18, 2008. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public session includes:

(1)The NRC's license reviewer training and oversight programs and

(2)the NRC's Agreement State program. A copy of the agenda for the meeting can be obtained by e-mailing Mr. Aaron T. McCraw at the contact information below. *Purpose:* Continue the panel's assessment of the NRC's licensing program by exploring license reviewer training and oversight and the Agreement State program. *Date and Time for Closed Sessions:* January 18, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. This session will be closed so that NRC staff and the Review Panel can discuss safeguards information and pre-decisional information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(3) and 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B), respectively. *Date and Time for Open Sessions:* January 14, 2008, from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m; and January 15-17, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Address for Public Meeting:* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Building, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Specific room locations will be indicated for each day on the agenda. *Public Participation:* Any member of the public who wishes to participate in the meeting should contact Mr. McCraw using the information below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron T. McCraw, e-mail: *atm@nrc.gov,* telephone:

(301)415-1277. Conduct of the Meeting Mr. Thomas E. Hill will chair the meeting. Mr. Hill will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting: 1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Mr. McCraw at the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by January 7, 2008, and must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting. 2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman. 3. The transcript and written comments will be available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, telephone

(800)397-4209, on or about May 8, 2008. 4. Persons who require special services, such as those for the hearing impaired, should notify Mr. McCraw of their planned attendance. This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10, *U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,* Part 7. Dated: December 17, 2007. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-24869 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Personnel Demonstration Project; Pay Banding and Performance-Based Pay Adjustments in the National Nuclear Security Administration AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice of approval of a demonstration project final plan. SUMMARY: Chapter 47 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), directly or in agreement with one or more agencies, to conduct demonstration projects that experiment with new and different human resources management concepts to determine whether changes in human resources policy or procedures would result in improved Federal human resources management. The National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA)and OPM will test a pay banding system in which within-band pay progression is based on performance. The final project plan has been approved by NNSA, the Department of Energy, and OPM. DATES: This demonstration project will be implemented on March 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Nuclear Security Administration: Rosa Benavidez, Demonstration Project Leader, (202-586-1622), Office of Human Capital Management Programs, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585. U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Patsy Stevens, Systems Innovation Group Manager, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,

(202)606-1574, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7456, Washington, DC 20415. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background In May 2006, NNSA responded to OPM's solicitation of interest in undertaking a demonstration project to experiment with and test the concept of performance-based pay increases. NNSA already had substantial experience with such a mechanism. NNSA's enabling statute *(National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106-65, as amended)* provided the NNSA Administrator with the authority to establish not more than 300 scientific, engineering, and technical positions as necessary to carry out the Administrator's responsibilities, and to appoint individuals to these positions and fix their compensation without regard to title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) [hereafter in this notice referred to as the “NNSA excepted service system”]. In developing an employment system to support this authority, NNSA opted for pay banding and designed a performance-based pay system. NNSA has made full use of its excepted service system authority and considers pay-for-performance a highly effective tool to attract, reward, and retain high performers. OPM's solicitation was opportune. NNSA now desires to test the feasibility of expanding pay-for-performance among the ranks of its larger General Schedule

(GS)workforce. At the same time, NNSA sees the demonstration project as an opportunity to streamline the traditional position classification system that governs GS positions by banding together one or more GS grades. NNSA had done similar banding when it established its excepted service system some years before. When NNSA submitted its official proposal to OPM in August 2006, pay banding was a vital part of the plan. 2. Overview The NNSA Demonstration Project proposal was approved by OPM and publicized in the **Federal Register** on February 28, 2007. With OPM's preliminary approval given, and knowing that NNSA would receive critical comments from the public and have about 6 months to refine its plan, NNSA's Administrator asked the agency's top program managers to re-examine projected career paths and proposed pay bands to ensure they effectively met the varying mission requirements and management needs found in NNSA's primary nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and naval reactors propulsion programs. NNSA's Office of Human Capital Management Programs facilitated this re-examination. The agency's top managers were briefed on the various management and mission implications of the project, and discussions with managerial stakeholder groups were held to elicit insights and perspectives on how to ensure the project makes credible and meaningful contributions to enhancing the overall excellence of NNSA's twenty-first century workforce. Meanwhile, there was a 30-day public comment period immediately following publication of the proposed demonstration project plan in the **Federal Register** , culminating in a public hearing on April 4, 2007, held at the Department of Energy

(DOE)headquarters in Washington, DC. A total of 55 individuals, mostly NNSA employees, one NNSA sub-organization, and one labor organization, submitted written comments and questions. Two additional individuals provided comments and asked questions at the public hearing. Many of these commenters offered multiple comments and questions. A total of 170 different comments and questions were received, with some of them duplicative. Comments covered a number of different management and human resources topical areas, and in some cases, pertained to more than one topic. Two broad topics relating to pay bands and pay-related issues received the largest number of comments and questions by a considerable margin. There were 45 comments on pay-related issues and 39 on issues relating to pay bands. Other topical issues earning numerous comments/questions included staffing (17), position classification (14), management accountability (14), excepted service (10), employee relations (7), employee equity (6), performance management (5), and reduction in force (4). An additional 25 comments and questions did not fall into one of the above topical areas. Every comment and question received was extremely important, as each helped to focus NNSA's top leadership during the Administrator's re-examination of the project plan and helped the leadership to better understand the long-term management and employee implications of the project. Public comments and questions often served as a catalyst to raising additional questions on the part of top management. As a result of public comments received, NNSA has made a number of substantive refinements to its plan and a few clarifying editorial and textual changes as well. 3. Summary of Comments and Responses Comments are arranged into 11 broad topical areas that correspond to the topics identified in the previous section and are presented not in an order dictated by the number of comments received, but in an order that reflects the logic of the project's design scheme and contents; i.e., in a topical order beginning with pay banding and devolving through pay, position classification, staffing, performance management, employee matters, and management matters. NNSA's responses are generic summaries relative to the major issues raised by comments/questions, rather than point-by-point responses.

(a)Career Paths and Pay Bands There were several comments about proposed career paths, several comments about the constituent job series in each career path, several comments about proposed pay band pay rates, many comments about the lack of pay band symmetry across career paths, and many comments about the structure of proposed pay bands relative to the pay band structure in NNSA's excepted service system.

(1)Career Paths *Comments:* Several commenters wondered why NNSA didn't establish a supervisory career path to recognize and reward supervision or have more targeted and occupationally narrower career paths, as the Defense Department's National Security Personnel System does. *Response:* In designing proposed career paths, NNSA wanted to take the broadest approach that made sense, given the nature of the work performed and the nature of the occupations requiring this work. The broader the design approach, the more employees are treated alike and the simpler it is to administer pay banding. Employee equity and systemic simplification are central goals of this project. In deciding on the original career path proposal, NNSA opted to essentially build its career paths around OPM's white-collar “PATCO” categories with one exception. The PATCO scheme encompasses extremely broad groupings of white-collar occupational categories, largely based on differences in the nature of work and the essential job knowledge required to successfully perform the work (for instance, whether work accomplishment requires certain educational attainments, or analytical ability, or subject-matter competencies, and so on). OPM defines each distinct occupational job series according to whether work is professional (“P”), administrative (“A”), technical (“T”), clerical (“C”), or falls into a miscellaneous others (“O”) category. NNSA's original proposal simply lumped into two broad primary career paths all “professional” occupations and all “administrative” occupations, respectively, while combining all “clerical” and “technician” occupations into a third composite career path, irrespective of whether positions in these career paths possessed classifiable supervisory duties. There is no distinct PATCO category for supervision. The notable exception to this extremely broad general approach was an extremely narrow fourth career path, which covered only the GS-084 Nuclear Material Courier occupation. Notwithstanding the inclusion of only one job series, this career path covers a sizable block of employees. There are about 300 couriers scattered throughout the United States. In light of the comments received regarding career paths, NNSA's top managers have reconsidered and refined certain elements of the original proposal, including career paths. NNSA has reconstituted its two primary career paths into an *Engineering and Scientific Career Path* and a *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* and is establishing a fifth career path for interns enrolled in NNSA's Future Leaders Program. The most populous jobs in NNSA are engineering, followed by scientific. As of August 2007, there were 205 GS-801 employees, 64 GS-840 employees, and another 24 employees in positions classified in other GS-0800 occupations. There were also 64 GS-1301 employees and 7 in other GS-1300 occupations. All together, there were 364 General Schedule employees in engineering and scientific occupations, in complement to the additional 425 engineering and scientific employees appointed under NNSA's excepted service system authority and through two other DOE excepted service authorities. Because engineering and scientific employees perform work vital to NNSA's primary nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and naval reactors missions, and because this cadre—engineers and scientists serving under either the General Schedule or the excepted service system—predominates in NNSA in comparison to other professional occupations (e.g., foreign affairs specialists, industrial hygienists, attorneys, and the like), the agency's top managers have decided to reconstitute the *Engineering and Scientific Career Path* to exclude other “professional” occupations. These other professional occupations are now incorporated into the reconstituted *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* . Future Leaders are recruited with academic achievement and diversity in mind and traditionally have been appointed under several competitive and excepted service authorities, with varying conditions of employment and advancement opportunities unique to each respective appointing authority. Establishing a *Future Leaders Career Path* , into which all interns will be appointed and advanced, and making all participants subject to pay banding will be of great benefit to NNSA and the interns. Not only will the human capital management practices attendant to these employees be standardized, but so will development and advancement opportunities—one set of rules and expectations for all Future Leader interns. In lieu of a supervisory career path, or a supervisory pay differential, NNSA will seek to recognize and reward supervisory performance by providing supervisory bonuses as described in the project plan.

(2)Occupational Series in Career Paths *Comments:* Several commenters wanted to know how NNSA decided which job series to assign to which career paths. In particular, there were questions relating to why certain “administrative” occupations were treated separately from “professional” occupations, since in the opinion of some commenters, the work accomplished in NNSA, regardless of whether performed, for example, by an engineer or program analyst, or an accountant or budget analyst, was pretty much the same. *Response:* As explained in the response immediately above, NNSA's original career path proposal conformed generally to OPM's PATCO categories. OPM assigns each authorized job series to one of these categories for definitional and pay purposes. In constructing its three broad career paths in the original proposal, NNSA simply used the same PATCO series assignments as does OPM. In light of comments received regarding the proposed demonstration project plan, NNSA has reconsidered and refined certain elements of the original proposal, including the constituent job series that make up respective career paths. For instance, only professional positions whose occupational job series are found in OPM's “GS-0800 Engineering and Architecture Group” and “GS-1300 Physical Sciences Group” are to be included in NNSA's redesigned *Engineering and Scientific Career Path* . After further reflection, NNSA could not agree that such professional occupations as GS-510 accountants, GS-690 industrial hygienists, and GS-905 attorneys, employees who primarily “support” the main missions of NNSA, belonged in the same career path as engineers and scientists, those who do the pre-eminent mission work of NNSA. Further, it was not felt that GS-130 foreign affairs specialists, with their significantly “non-technical” knowledge base, albeit professional employees who perform primary mission work, should be grouped in the same career path as engineers and scientists. Similarly, such professional occupations as GS-1102 contract specialist and GS-1515 operations research analyst are to be included in NNSA's redesigned and expanded *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* .

(3)Pay Rates *Comments:* Some commenters pointed out that the pay rates associated with NNSA's proposed pay bands were lesser in value than corresponding pay rates found in the demonstration projects and alternative personnel systems of other Federal agencies, or even in comparison with the pay rates in NNSA's own excepted service system. Several commenters felt this rendered NNSA uncompetitive in the labor market versus these other systems, and several considered lower pay rates unfair and not consistent with the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” *Response:* NNSA looked at two basic occupational questions in considering these comments: 1. Historically, has NNSA been able to attract and retain critical skills to carry out important work within the traditional GS grade and pay structure? 2. Is NNSA losing employees to pay-banded agencies with enhanced pay rates? In looking at the first question, what NNSA found was that there is no directly correlative data relating to ability “to attract and retain critical skills,” but there is plenty of anecdotal information. NNSA experiences instances of recruitment difficulty in two basic circumstances,

(1)when a local private employer successfully competes for a top prospect by offering a higher starting salary than NNSA can, and

(2)at locations that are considered geographically isolated and remote, and where top candidates are scarce. But despite these instances, NNSA has not experienced a general pattern of recruitment difficulty because NNSA's important national security work has an intrinsic attraction to prospective candidates, and because NNSA makes selective good use of Government-wide recruitment incentives. The second question was answered through a straightforward analysis of the data: NNSA is not losing current employees to any significant degree to agencies with enhanced pay rates, such as to the National Security Personnel System

(NSPS)in the Department of Defense. In fact, during the past two years, NNSA has gained 13 employees (not including senior executives) from NSPS, while losing only 9 to NSPS. Based on these findings, NNSA's initial approach to establishing pay band pay rates is affirmed. NNSA remains committed to its demonstration project principle to construct pay band thresholds and boundaries, and associated pay rates, consistent with OPM's official classification criteria and the Government's prevailing pay structure. While the notion of pay rates in excess of the current rates permissible under the traditional GS pay system is attractive to many managers and employees, implementing enhanced pay rates on a broad scale is not compelling now on the evidence in hand. Nor is NNSA prepared at this time to undertake systematic occupational market studies to validate the need for enhanced pay rates or to develop NNSA-only position classification criteria and standards, which are prerequisites to obtaining OPM's approval to institute enhanced pay rates. However, we note that the demonstration project includes an authority to establish special staffing supplements, in lieu of locality payments, in order to increase pay when necessary to address serious recruitment and retention difficulties associated with a particular category of jobs.

(4)Pay Band Structures *Comments:* Perhaps no other topic generated so many comments and often conflicting opinions. Many commenters felt that NNSA's proposal failed to live up to the project's goal to achieve greater parity with NNSA's own excepted service pay-banded system, not only due to differences in pay band pay rates but also due to differences in how GS grades were to be bundled. Others took strong exception to the differences in proposed pay-band structures for “professional” and “administrative” positions, feeling that because, in their opinions, such work was of equivalent value to NNSA, it was unfair not to have identical pay bands, while others took a contrary view, feeling that engineers and scientists should not be in the same career path as other professional and administrative occupations. Still others offered that when NNSA proposed only single-grade pay bands (such as a GS-13 pay band, a GS-14 pay band, and a GS-15 pay band in the proposed “administrative” career path), this defeated the purpose of pay banding, that in fact it was not “pay banding” at all but just more of the same bureaucratic classification practice. Some commenters proposed their own pay band structures. Several commenters suggested that NNSA establish supervisory pay bands with higher pay rates to recognize the value of supervision and to incentivize the voluntary movements of technical employees into leadership positions. *Response:* NNSA found much to agree with in the many comments received on this topic. These comments led NNSA to reconsider the proposed pay-band structures, while recognizing that no matter what NNSA did in response to comments, there was no practical way to reconcile all viewpoints or satisfy everyone's concerns. Consequently, NNSA revised some, though not all, of its earlier pay-band structures, where the work and employee promotional patterns supported doing so. NNSA agreed that the exercise of supervision compounds the complexities and value of a position's work and should be recognized in some way. NNSA is therefore adopting a supervisory bonus mechanism as part of its performance policies. In reconsidering NNSA's fundamental approach to pay bands, NNSA weighed the various and often competing arguments, only to affirm in the end the original approach. Upon closer study, NNSA found that lying just beneath the surface of a seemingly attractive “equity” argument on behalf of identical pay bands was the more powerful reality that all work is not equivalent in grade value across occupations and organizations, that in fact there can be meaningful differences in the inherent level of work performed by professional and administrative employees, and that fulfilling the principle of “equal pay for substantially equal work” actually results in pay band structures that reflect these meaningful differences. Positions attributable to a given career path will have traditional grading patterns, and employee recruitment and promotion patterns, in common with other positions in the career path, but not in common with positions in other career paths. Consequently, NNSA not only revised its career paths but is revising the attendant pay band structures, as follows: *I. Engineering and Scientific Career Path:* Encompasses all professional positions classified in the GS-0800 and GS-1300 job series, subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band II (GS-9 through GS-11) • Pay Band III (GS-12/GS-13) • Pay Band IV (GS-14/GS-15) *II. Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path:* Encompasses all OPM-recognized professional occupations, except GS- 0800 engineers and GS-1300 scientists, requiring positive education requirements, and all other subject-matter, business, and administrative occupations characterized by a traditional two-grade interval pattern of grade progression. All positions encompassed within this career path are subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band II (GS-9 through GS-12) • Pay Band III (GS-13/GS-14) • Pay Band IV (GS-15) *III. Technician and Administrative Support Career Path:* Encompassing technician, secretarial, assistant, and clerical occupations, and similar positions characterized by a traditional one-grade interval pattern of grade progression. All positions encompassed within this career path are subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-1 through GS-4) • Pay Band II (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band III (GS-9) *IV. Nuclear Materials Couriers Career Path:* Encompassing all positions classified into the GS-084 job series, subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-8 through GS-10) • Pay Band II (GS-11) • Pay Band III (GS-12) • Pay Band IV (GS-13) *V. Future Leaders Career Path:* Encompassing the positions of all interns enrolled in NNSA's 2-year Future Leaders Program, in various engineering, scientific, professional, technical, and administrative occupations. All positions encompassed within this career path are subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band II (GS-9 through GS-11) • Pay Band III (GS-12/GS-13) 1 1 Although all Future Leaders will have career ladders to pay band III in either the *Engineering and Scientific Career Path* , or the *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* , a control point equating to the salary of GS-12 step 10 will be established for those Future Leaders with a Masters Degree in business-related and administrative fields to enable these individuals to be converted from band III of the *Future Leaders Career Path* to band II of the *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* upon successful completion of the 2-year program. The arguments in favor of readjusting NNSA's original pay-band proposals were several. (The only pay bands not altered from the original are those associated with career path III.) The readjustment in the *Engineering and Scientific Career Path* not only better reflects the pre-eminent work done in NNSA by engineers and scientists, but is more consistent with the actual promotional patterns found in the demographics of the workforce. Most General Schedule engineers and scientists in NNSA are either at GS-14, or GS-15, with development patterns that often see GS-14 positions advance to GS-15 levels of work. Such advancement occurs traditionally under both competitive and noncompetitive promotional procedures, when such traditional job factors as Guidelines, Complexity, Scope and Effect, and others, have evolved under the weight of natural employee growth and maturation to the highest levels creditable (e.g., levels 2-5, 3-5, 4-6, and so on) under respective engineering and scientific standards and guides. In an agency with highly technical national security missions and one-of-a-kind nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and naval reactor propulsion programs, it is not surprising to find engineering and scientific positions expanding in scope and responsibility due to recognizable increases in technical job expertise and project authority, which so often accrue to such positions over time. Out of 364 GS engineers and scientists, there are 147 GS-14 and 148 GS-15 positions that are graded in almost every case, including many classified supervisors, on their paramount non-supervisory work assignments. Similarly, agency program managers, agreeing with many of the comments received on this subject, questioned the validity and effectiveness of the separate single-grade “bands” at the GS-13, -14, and -15 levels previously proposed for the now reconstituted *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* . As NNSA looked at the actual distributions of professional, subject-matter, and administrative positions that would be covered within this broad career path, as well as relevant employee promotional patterns, NNSA realized that this path's pay-band structure also required adjusting. The new pay-band patterns in this career path are more consistent with the demographics of the actual workforce today; the majority of positions found in this career path are graded at GS-13 and GS-14, about 640 encumbered positions at this writing. Combining GS-13 and -14 into band III therefore makes better sense to NNSA than the original proposal did, given the relationship between these two grades among the many occupations covered by the career path. Generally, the main difference in NNSA between GS-13 and GS-14 in actual classification practice is that the Supervisory Controls and Guidelines factors are credited one level higher at GS-14, the two factors most readily influenced by the greater freedom from supervision and guidelines that invariably comes to a position through seasoning, through greater maturity of judgment, and through a derivatively more confident and authoritative incumbent performance. Combining these two grades into a single pay band, covering the majority of employees serving in positions in this important career path, shifts the focus of employee pay advancement from position classification and merit promotion criteria to performance-based criteria, one of the chief goals of this demonstration project. This shift in pre-eminence from classification and promotion criteria to performance also occurs, of course, in the examples of other pay bands in other occupational career paths, and serves in the aggregate to underscore how pay-banding intrinsically enhances the potential effectiveness of a performance-based pay system. A review of actual promotional patterns supports combining GS-13 and -14 into one pay band. Of the 328 GS-14 employees serving in occupations that will be covered by the *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* , 80 were promoted from NNSA GS-13 positions in the same occupational series and line of work. With respect to the *Nuclear Materials Couriers Career Path* , NNSA's Office of Human Capital Management Programs worked diligently with the top managers from the Office Secure Transportation, the NNSA organization in which the couriers are assigned, to arrive at a pay-band pattern that better met both management's mission needs and employee advancement expectations. In developing pay bands for the new *Future Leaders Career Path* , the Future Leaders Program Manager was heavily consulted.

(5)Comparisons With NNSA Excepted Service System Pay Bands *Comments:* Many commenters questioned why NNSA proposed pay bands for General Schedule engineering and scientific positions that did not correspond to the pay band structure in NNSA's own excepted service system, pointing out, in their opinions, that the work was identical. *Response:* To understand the different pay band structures between General Schedule and NNSA's excepted service system engineering and scientific positions, the fundamental distinction between these two systems must be understood. While it is true that many current excepted service system engineers and scientists are former General Schedule engineers and scientists, and that both General Schedule and excepted service system employees can currently be found working in the same facilities and offices, what needs to be kept in mind when comparing the two systems is the very nature of the authorities through which respective employees are appointed and paid. The NNSA Act (P.L. 106-65, as amended) gives the Administrator the authority to appoint employees to scientific and engineering positions and to pay them without regard to title 5, United States Code, when the Administrator deems it necessary to accomplish his statutory responsibilities. By design, these positions are established in unusual occupational circumstances (either extreme difficulty of work, or extreme difficulty in recruitment), and do not represent the engineering and scientific work common to many occupational settings in NNSA. Furthermore, excepted service system employees in concept have been held to a higher performance threshold (as befitting a performance-based pay system) than their General Schedule counterparts, which NNSA believes has resulted in an overall improvement in excellence and mission accomplishment—the reason NNSA now seeks to expand the applicability of pay-for-performance. At the same time, these excepted service system employees do not possess traditional civil service entitlements, such as “career status,” or certain protections having to do with reduction in force and other employment matters—a key design difference between the two systems. Although it is true that NNSA could request that OPM approve pay rates exceeding those traditionally associated with GS grades under the authority of the demonstration project, as discussed in subsection C above, NNSA is not now prepared to undertake systematic occupational market studies to validate the need for enhanced pay rates or to develop NNSA-only position classification criteria and standards.

(b)Excepted Service *Comments:* There were other comments comparing the demonstration project to NNSA's existing excepted service system, aside from concerns relating to proposed pay bands and pay rates. A number of commenters expressed the view that NNSA's current General Schedule employees be permitted the opportunity to volunteer for the demonstration project, just as General Schedule engineers and scientists had the opportunity to volunteer to enter the NNSA excepted service system at the time of its inception a few years ago. Similarly, others suggested that NNSA provide an opportunity for current excepted service employees to volunteer for the demonstration project, and in essence, volunteer out of the excepted service system. There were various reasons given for this latter suggestion. The absence of “career status” (and the resulting inability to apply for many of NNSA's promotional opportunities), and the absence of “second-round” RIF protections, were mentioned. Also, some excepted service employees feel topped out in terms of pay potential. *Response:* Providing an opportunity to volunteer in or out of the demonstration project, or the excepted service system for that matter, is not tenable today. Because NNSA is experimenting with a pay-banding and pay-for-performance system that, were it to be successful, would replace entire segments of the General Schedule workforce, allowing employees to volunteer to participate in the demonstration project would be unwieldy to manage, impractical to administer, and, more compelling, not in the best interest of efficient Government. Furthermore, NNSA intends to continue to make full use of its unique excepted service employment authority in those circumstances and for those purposes that the *NNSA Act* envisions. From a practical standpoint, excepted service employees who have not previously competed for competitive appointment and who do not already have career status will have to apply for demonstration project positions through an appropriate appointing authority.

(c)Pay and Pay Pools *Comments:* This was the other topical issue receiving many comments. The most frequent pay comment, by far, had to do with the issue of annual comparability pay increases, locality pay, and the effects of performance on these annual pay events. NNSA had proposed one pay pool from which general pay adjustments and performance-based pay increases were to have been funded and paid out all at one time, and many commenters felt the plan was unclear in describing the interrelationships among these pay events. Other comments concerned

(1)the effects of budgetary constraints on the amounts and timing of payouts;

(2)the apparent lack of pay-setting guidelines with respect to hiring new employees and promoting existing employees;

(3)the apparent lack of a financial incentive for an NNSA employee to be reassigned to another NNSA job or location to fill a critical need;

(4)the pay implications of supervisory incompetence, caprice, or favoritism in appraising employee performance; and

(5)the effect of pay banding on premium pay for overtime work for the courier workforce, the payment of night differential for work performed beyond the first-40-hour tour of duty, and other pay matters relating to the unique irregular work schedules of the couriers. *Response:* NNSA agrees that the original proposal was not as clearly presented as it should have been, and furthermore, has reconsidered certain mechanical features of its pay provisions, making several changes to the plan accordingly. NNSA will establish two pay pools, one from which to fund annual general pay adjustments and the second from which to fund performance-based payouts. Each pay pool will have its own payout schedule, though in close proximity to the end of the calendar year and to each other. In conjunction with establishment of two pay pools, NNSA is increasing the maximum number of shares for performance payouts, from 3 shares to 4. NNSA is also changing the share distribution pattern (number of shares linked to performance level) from 3-2-1-0 to 4-3-2-1-0. An employee with a Significantly Exceeds Expectation (level “5” performance under NNSA's performance management program) may receive 3 or 4 shares, an employee with a Fully Meets Expectations (level “3” performance under NNSA's performance management program) rating and no critical element rate at the Needs Improvement level may receive 1 or 2 shares, and all other employees receive 0 shares. As under the original proposal, any increased locality pay or staffing supplement percentages will be applied on top of eligible employees' adjusted base rates outside of the pay pool process. Furthermore, NNSA will provide a limited flexibility to increase an employee's pay upon accepting an intra-pay band reassignment. These changes, along with NNSA's pay-setting guidelines, will be described in detail in *NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual* , which shall be published in accompaniment to this project plan. The pay-setting guidelines will ensure that the use of demonstration project pay flexibilities will be judicious and appropriate. NNSA's administration of the demonstration project will be under OPM's continuous oversight, with rigorous evaluations of pay-setting and other project provisions and applications. Supervisors will be afforded extensive training to ensure they have the competence to make fair and valid employee appraisals, and they will be held accountable for doing so during their own performance appraisals. As for the courier workforce, pay banding will have no effect whatsoever on their tours of duty, their administrative work schedules, or on their eligibility under current law and regulation to receive premium pay, night differentials, and other pay benefits and incentives.

(d)Position Classification *Comments:* Several commenters wondered how upholding the use of OPM's traditional position classification criteria and standards will lend itself to streamlining the “cumbersome, labor-intensive, and difficult to comprehend” system, as the project plan calls it. They imply that part of the problem with the present system is just these criteria and standards, and they don't see how NNSA will be able to reduce documentation requirements, eliminate use of the Factor Evaluation System format (which typically increases the length of position descriptions threefold), or reduce traditional procedural steps. Others wondered how NNSA's pay-banding system would safeguard equal pay for equal work when a selecting official will be free to set pay for a new appointee anywhere in a band. Some noted that current employees might be penalized in comparison to a new hire's potential for a pay increase, as pay increases for internal promotees are limited to 8 percent, and this limitation may actually offer an employee less money than customarily received when moving from one GS grade to the next during a conventional promotion. Others were concerned about the effect on an employee's existing promotion potential in a traditional career-ladder position when converting to a pay-banded position, when that potential falls outside the band of the position to which the employee converts. One person asked what impact there would be on the conversion to pay banding of a position currently graded outside the proposed maximum band range of a given career path. Others were concerned about the right of employees to appeal their placement into a career path and pay band. *Response:* The comments in this topical area, while more process oriented than comments in other topical areas, underscore the need to clarify just how position classification works in a pay-banding environment. The comments, especially those about career ladders and equal pay for equal work, warrant more discussion. In general, OPM's position classification standards and guides remain the single most concise and valuable analytical tools with respect to defining occupations and evaluating assignments of white-collar work, not only in the Federal sector, but in general. They remain models for other levels of Government, and even private industry, to emulate in developing their own local job-evaluation schemes. OPM's standards and guides do not in themselves contribute to the classification system's breakdown and inefficiency. Rather, it is the towering emphasis today on compensation as a tool for attracting and retaining the best talent in a hypercompetitive labor market that has hammered the rigid grade-bound classification system into a contorted and broken program. All the hammering has brought resistance, inertia, and resignation among managers and classifiers alike. Pay banding, in bundling several grades and pay rates together into one band when appropriate, will go a long way to lift the deadly onus off the classification program. But this is only the start of the classification program's streamlining. There will be a number of genuine and potentially significant opportunities under the demonstration project to simplify the administration of the classification program. Not delegating classification authority to managers, as most other demonstration projects and alternative personnel systems have done, is a significant simplification. Job analysis is no less sophisticated than are most other technical disciplines in the modern workplace. Efficient classification practice requires substantial training and years of seasoning. NNSA believes that it makes far better sense not to expend countless resources and endless hours trying to train and encourage supervisors to become seasoned classifiers, but rather, to hone their skills as leaders of the men and women they supervise and to retain classification authority and skills in the personnel office. Furthermore, there is nothing in OPM's existing doctrines and requirements that will not permit the simplification of position description formats or the synopsizing of traditional evaluation documents. Add pay banding to the flexibility that already exists, and there is a significant opportunity to streamline. Pay banding can group two or more levels of traditional work and associated pay rates into one pay band when appropriate, thereby compressing expanses of work and pay rates into fewer classification units and easing attendant classification practices and protocols, with less documentation, particularly when future automation comes on line. It is true that successful streamlining doesn't happen by itself and won't happen overnight. NNSA has considerable design and development work to do in building an effective pay-banding classification system, but not having to develop its own classification standards and guides will contract NNSA's design and development challenges immeasurably. This system will be built around demonstration project career paths and will feature two unique concepts, the “core pay band descriptor” and the “core position description.” A descriptor is a generic benchmark description used to illustrate the ranges of complementary work levels within a pay band. The assignment of a specific position to a particular pay band will be made on the basis of a core pay band descriptor. Core pay band descriptors will be based on the OPM job family standard and functional classification guide that most directly corresponds to the work encompassed within an occupational series. A core position description is simply an abbreviated benchmark description of a common set of core duties and responsibilities typical of large numbers of positions within each career path and pay band across NNSA's various organizational and functional settings. NNSA will publish its pay-banding classification policies in its companion document to this project plan, *NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual* , and will supplement these policies with handbook guidance as needed. This guidance will more fully describe NNSA's streamlined pay-banding classification system and will better describe the simplified position description concept with samples. Briefings tailored to managers, employees, and the personnel staff, respectively, will also be developed to accompany the development of the system and application of NNSA's classification policies. The compressed occupational construct of a pay band renders concerns about undermining the civil service system's classification principles unfounded, as several gradations of work are possible within a given pay band. In essence, pay banding assumes that different employees in the same career path, job series, and pay band of a properly classified position can operate at differing levels—within reason—due to variations in incumbent maturity (seasoning), and performance. In this circumstance, equal pay for substantially equal work is not compromised, even though one employee may be earning higher pay than another employee in the same pay band. In a fundamental respect, this is really no different than the disparities in pay that occur between employees in the same properly classified GS-13 position where one employee is earning a GS-13, step 2, rate and another is earning a GS-13, step 9, rate. The 8 percent limitation on a pay increase as a result of internal promotion is a standardized policy that will apply in most situations. Most other pay-banding systems set similar controls on pay increases. NNSA considered a higher percentage, and even considered a range of percentages, from lower to higher, but decided on the fixed 8 percent minimum increase to mitigate the opportunity for disparate employee treatment at such an important career event. While NNSA expects most internal promotion actions to adhere to this standard, like most rules, there will be the flexibility to allow an exception, with proper justification, and higher-management approval. This flexibility will be described in detail in the staffing and pay policies that will be published in accompaniment to this project plan. There will continue to be “career ladders” under NNSA's pay-banding system, though instead of grade intervals, there will be band intervals. A “laddered” position is simply a position advertised during recruitment at a certain level of full performance that is filled through selection and appointment at a lower pay band. NNSA is developing staffing policies that will “grandfather” employees who at the time of conversion to the appropriate pay band have not reached their promotion potential. These employees will be eligible for an in-band pay increase similar to a promotion increase under the General Schedule system until they reach their full promotion potential. “Full promotion potential” is a traditional position classification and personnel staffing concept that will continue to have validity under NNSA's demonstration project, and it means the highest grade, or pay band, of a career-ladder position for which an incumbent previously competed under the Government's merit system principles and an agency's merit promotion plan. Once an NNSA employee who converted to pay banding under this demonstration project receives an in-band pay increase or a promotion that takes him or her to a pay level equivalent to the highest GS grade in the formerly applicable career ladder, the employee will be considered to have reached the full performance level, and the grandfather provision will cease to apply. Future in-band pay increases for such an employee would then be based solely on performance, consistent with all other demonstration project employees. Of course, just as a GS employee is not guaranteed a career-ladder promotion without the supervisor's certification, the promotions and special grandfathered in-band increases for demonstration project employees will not be guaranteed, and they will be issued new performance plans with each pay increase. Only current NNSA employees who convert at the inception of pay banding will be afforded the benefit of having their career ladders grandfathered. The specific terms and conditions of this benefit will be published in the policies and procedures manual that will implement this project plan. As NNSA prepares to implement the demonstration project, NNSA is reviewing current position classification outcomes, and potential discrepancies and inconsistencies, with the intent to correct any that are found prior to implementation to assure a smooth conversion process. Under the demonstration project, employees retain their traditional position classification appeal rights. A classification appeal is a formal request by an employee in writing for a review of the official job series, pay band, or pay system, of the employee's current position to correct what the employee believes is an erroneous classification. Any employee in a position covered by chapter 51 of 5 U.S.C., and by NNSA's Demonstration Project, can file a classification appeal.

(e)Staffing *Comments:* Most of the 17 staffing comments crossed over into other topical areas already treated, such as the structure of relative pay bands across career paths, and the impact of employee conversion to pay banding on pre-existing promotion potential as a result of having successfully competed for a career-ladder position. Other comments concerned such issues as pay-setting and band and grade assignment upon converting to a pay-banding position from a GS position, and vice versa, upon converting back to GS from pay banding. Many commenters pointed out that the language in the February 28 **Federal Register** notice pertaining to such practical staffing and pay matters was vague. One person expressed concern at the quality of applicants under pay banding, should candidates only need to meet the minimum qualification requirements associated with the lowest grade level in a multi-graded band, and believed that the candidate screening process would suffer as a result. *Response:* It is understandable that many commenters found NNSA's proposed project plan vague and unclear in parts. NNSA's demonstration project plan, in both its proposed and final incarnations, is designed to mainly answer the “what” of a matter, not the “how.” This is why there have been many references in these responses, as well as throughout the text of the project plan, to a policies and procedures manual. But this response is not to dodge the issues. Most of the comments received during the public comment period have been invaluable in guiding NNSA's development of its companion policies and procedures. By design, a demonstration project is an experiment. Frankly, there is more than one way to execute and effect almost any feature of this experiment, and though modeling previous successful experiments and viable alternative personnel systems can be extremely useful, there are still mechanical subtleties and finer points of interpretation in matters of pay banding, staffing, and pay that NNSA must come to terms with. Having said this, it can be said after the past 6 months of rigorous development and refinement, that NNSA has gained competence and sureness about how to effectively execute the innumerable features and applications of this project. With respect to questions about conversion, NNSA GS employees will be converted to the career path and pay band that is equivalent to their current job series and grade, irrespective of pre-existing promotion potential, as discussed in the preceding subsection. In no case will an employee lose pay upon conversion; in fact, at conversion, most employees will receive an increase in pay reflecting the prorated value of their next scheduled within-grade increase

(WIGI)based on the amount of time they have served in their respective waiting period. The project plan gives NNSA authority to establish the rules governing pay-setting for employees who convert out of the demonstration project and move to a GS position. Those technical conversion-out rules will be provided in NNSA's manual of implementing policies and procedures and will be forwarded to other Federal agencies should an NNSA pay-banded employee move to a GS position in another agency. In general, demonstration project employees moving to a GS position will be converted to a GS-equivalent grade and rate before they leave the demonstration project and thus will be treated as GS employees under GS pay-setting rules. NNSA is also developing staffing guidelines to aid managers, selecting officials, and personnel office staff on processes to use in evaluating candidate qualifications, and to identify the more qualified candidates from among applicants. We expect that this will take time as we train staff, develop operating procedures, and evaluate their effectiveness. This will be true of most other operational features and applications of the project. It will be some time following project implementation and employee conversion before NNSA is proficient in most demonstration project matters, though NNSA is taking great pains and care to ensure that start-up and transition are implemented as smoothly as possible.

(f)Performance Management *Comments:* Most of the several comments received on performance management concerned the adaptability of NNSA's existing performance management program to the demonstration project. There were concerns expressed about the timing of implementation—too soon—about the readiness of NNSA's supervisors to fulfill their responsibilities to appraise their subordinates fairly—not ready—about the subjectivity of NNSA's four-level rating scheme—can't make distinctions—and so on. A labor union suggested ways to improve NNSA's appraisal program. *Response:* The project is scheduled to be implemented on March 16, 2008. Once implementation occurs, there will be complete instructions on what to expect, and how to proceed, midway through the rating year as it will be. As NNSA prepares to implement the demonstration project, agency management holds many of the same reservations as did commenters. When NNSA was established seven years ago as a separately organized agency within DOE, NNSA inherited a variety of then existing performance management programs, between headquarters and a multitude of field offices. Four appraisal cycles ago, NNSA consolidated and standardized all GS and equivalent appraisal programs into one. At the onset of each new rating year since then, NNSA has made changes in its program based on the lessons learned from the previous rating cycle. As NNSA's program has evolved from year to year, it has been necessary to conduct focus groups and supervisory training. This upcoming year, during the transition to the demonstration project, will be no exception. And NNSA thinks this is a good thing. It is doubtful there would ever be an ideal time to embark on such a project. NNSA believes waiting for such a time will be a precious opportunity lost. By design, the demonstration project is an experiment. Many things are supposed and anticipated, but few things are known for sure in advance. They need to be tried and tested. This NNSA intends to do, realizing that it is likely that there will continue to be a need for improvements in design and execution for the next several years to come, not only concerning the existing performance management program, but to the demonstration project as a whole.

(g)Reduction in Force *Comments:* There were several questions concerning the mechanics of reduction in force

(RIF)under the demonstration project, and the impact on employee RIF entitlements. One person asked whether demonstration project employees and excepted service employees would compete together in a RIF. Another asked whether employee protections would be lessened under the demonstration project. A third person asked specifically whether there would be “bumping” rights. *Responses:* Not only will there be bumping rights for demonstration project employees, but all other traditional employee protections are retained under the demonstration project. There is only one substantive change from traditional rules, having to do with a further subdivision of an NNSA competitive area by career path. Currently in NNSA, the decision to undertake RIF is made by the Administrator, respective Site Office Managers, the Service Center Director, and the heads of the Naval Reactors Offices in Pittsburgh, PA, and Schenectady, NY. Consequently, each of these management officials is considered to be the head of a competitive area for RIF purposes. (The Administrator has actually delegated the authority to take and direct personnel actions to these officials, while retaining this authority for all headquarters components, except Naval Reactors, which has a unique dual reporting arrangement with the Secretaries of Energy and Navy.) What this means from a practical management standpoint is that Site Offices, the Service Center, and the Pittsburgh and Schenectady Naval Reactors Offices are considered to be under separate administration for RIF purposes, while the Administrator remains the head of the headquarters competitive area. The existing competitive area standard in NNSA under current Federal regulation, and DOE policy, is “a subdivision of the agency under separate administration within the local commuting area [5CFR351.402].” The concept of “local commuting area” further defines the competitive area standard. Regulations permit agencies to subdivide competitive areas according to commuting area, the geographic proximity within which normal patterns of applicant recruitment and worker commutation can be expected to occur, even when the management official with the authority to take and direct personnel actions is located elsewhere. This is what NNSA does currently, and this part won't change under the demonstration project. Therefore, employees in one NNSA competitive area would not now compete with employees in another competitive area, nor would employees in different commuting areas within the same competitive area compete with each other. Under the demonstration project, NNSA will institute one additional competitive area subdivision, by career path, so that the employees in one career path would not compete with employees in another career path in a given RIF. NNSA's non-demonstration project employees, such as bargaining unit employees at headquarters, or all excepted service employees, are not affected by this competitive area change. They continue to be subject to traditional RIF rules, and applicable collective bargaining agreements, and would not compete with demonstration project employees in a given RIF.

(h)Employee Relations *Comments:* The several comments in this topical area concerned whether employees have the right of appeal, or to grieve, their performance ratings, and whether employees whose ratings are less than Fully Meets Expectations will have an opportunity to improve. *Response:* The demonstration project has no direct bearing on NNSA's performance management program, though the program continues to be refined based on lessons learned from previous rating cycles. Under NNSA's performance management policies, employees whose ratings are less than Fully Meets Expectations are provided structured opportunities to improve their performance. An employee who is dissatisfied with an official rating can request a reconsideration, under NNSA's policies and procedures.

(i)Employee Equity *Comments:* Commenters generally felt that the demonstration project will actually produce contrary results. Instead of encouraging workers to higher levels of excellence, it will actually discourage workers who benefit now from the employment stability that the traditional civil service system provides. They suggested that the net effect of basing pay increases on performance will allow for faster pay progression in the short-term, with the ultimate effect of increasing salary costs to such a degree that there won't be sufficient funds to properly reward employees in the future. Two persons agreed with basing pay increases on performance, but had concerns about the equity of the process, and disagreed that performance pay increases should be combined with the annual comparability pay adjustment. *Response:* NNSA shares some of these same concerns, and views these concerns as challenges. Perhaps the biggest challenge the agency faces is earning and keeping the trust of its employees during this time of profound change, while ensuring that the demonstration project is not perceived as a disincentive. Perhaps the next biggest challenge is ensuring that supervisors are properly trained in their key responsibilities under the demonstration project, and that they are held accountable when they don't uphold these responsibilities. And two other significant challenges are ensuring that there are adequate cost controls in place, and that ample funds are appropriated to support meaningful levels of performance-based pay increases. NNSA does not minimize the significance of these challenges, but does not shrink from them either. As already discussed, NNSA is establishing two pay pools, and will administer annual pay adjustments and performance-based pay increases separately.

(j)Management Accountability *Comments:* A uniform thread runs through the many comments submitted on management accountability. Commenters expressed disbelief that managers will be held accountable for not rendering objective and fair performance ratings, and some said they have yet to see measures put in place, or actions taken, to assure accountability. One person wanted to know how OPM will oversee accountability and conduct ongoing evaluations. *Response:* Chapter 47 of title 5 requires an evaluation of the results of each demonstration project and its impact on improving public management. This project plan has been revised to include additional details about the project evaluation. In addition, NNSA will be held to scrutiny under DOE's human capital management accountability regimen. Aside from these layers of oversight, NNSA is dedicated to changing the management culture. One of the Administrator's highest goals is to make NNSA an Employer of Choice. NNSA will encourage openness between managers and employees, will provide extensive training to supervisors, will institute a regimen of employee communications, and will hold supervisors accountable through the performance management process. Supervisors, like everyone else in NNSA, will be held to higher standards.

(k)Other *Comments:* The comments in this category did not fall neatly under any other topic, and mainly reflected employee anxiety, or asked extremely process-oriented questions that will be responded to via other media. A general concern in various comments was the desire for more specificity. In some cases, NNSA has made changes that provide more specific information. (See section 4, “Changes to Demonstration Project Plan.”) Two specific comments warrant NNSA's response: a letter from a labor organization, and a thoughtful comment about the merit system principles. *Response:* The labor organization offered an extensive critique of recent pay-for-performance initiatives in Government, and then offered suggestions concerning NNSA's proposal. NNSA shares the union's deep concern for the welfare of affected employees, and for advancing the public's interest in protecting nuclear security. NNSA will consider all suggestions for improving the demonstration project, and for making it a success. Should NNSA decide to apply the demonstration project to its bargaining unit employees in the future, it will honor its collective bargaining obligations. One person expressed concern that NNSA and OPM were not giving due adherence to the statutory merit system principles [5 U.S.C. 2301]. We disagree. As explained earlier, NNSA is relying on OPM's position classification criteria and standards and is adhering to the classification principle in 5 U.S.C. 5101(1) of “equal pay for substantially equal work,” which is akin to the merit principle in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(3) of “equal pay should be provided for work of equal value.” NNSA has a profound regard for the merit system principles and has taken great pains in the design of this project to safeguard these principles. We note that the merit principle in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(3) also states that “appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.” Thus, the performance-based pay features of this demonstration project support this merit principle. 4. Changes to Demonstration Project Plan What follows is a list enumerating the substantive changes to NNSA's demonstration project, and major textual changes to the plan. The page numbers referenced are those found in the February 28, 2007, **Federal Register** Notice. Some of the changes have been described in the preceding responses to specific comments. Other changes provide additional detail, provide clarification, or correct technical problems.

(1)*Page 9038:* The Table of Content is revised to reflect the addition of three new sections, III.A. 3., “Position Classification Appeals,” III.D., “Supervisory Bonuses”, and VII., “Project Modification.”

(2)*Page 9039:* The “executive summary” is rewritten to reflect NNSA's final project goals.

(3)*Page 9040:* NNSA has decided to create separate pay pools for comparability adjustments and performance payouts.

(4)*Page 9041:* August 2006 data is superseded with August 2007 data in the table, “Covered Employees by Occupational Series and Grade.”

(5)*Page 9042:* The design principles are rewritten to eliminate ill-defined and inadequately developed principles.

(6)*Page 9043:* Career path and pay band structures are revised, consistent with the NNSA's response herein under the “pay band structures” subsection.

(7)*Page 9043:* A new section III.A.3., “Position Classification Appeals,” is added.

(8)*Page 9044:* The pay increase preclusion for maximum rate employees who receive less than an SEE performance rating is modified to permit a 50 percent increase.

(9)*Page 9044:* A locality rate cap 5 percent higher than the statutory pay cap is provided for top-rated performers in the upper range extension.

(10)*Page 9044:* The section “rate of basic pay upon promotion” is clarified.

(11)*Page 9044:* The date of performance-based pay adjustment is changed to “the first day of the last full pay period in each calendar year.”

(12)*Page 9044:* The pay retention provisions in the section “other pay administration provisions” are modified to provide 100 percent of the annual comparability pay adjustment for up to 2 years for employees who are reduced in band through no fault of their own.

(13)*Page 9045:* NNSA clarifies that it may request that OPM establish a new staffing supplement for a category of NNSA employees.

(14)*Page 9045:* The performance-rating reconsideration process is to be referenced, rather than stipulated, in the plan.

(15)*Page 9046:* There are to be two pay pools.

(16)*Page 9046:* The share distribution pattern (linked to levels of performance) is revised to take into account the effect of the establishment of separate pay pools for comparability adjustments and performance payouts and to provide additional flexibility.

(17)*Page 9046:* The section “pay adjustments” is modified to reflect the impact of establishing two pay pools, with staggered payouts.

(18)*Page 9047:* The section “employees who do not receive a pay adjustment” is modified to eliminate general references to employee notification and redress procedures, which will be handled through NNSA's own performance-rating reconsideration process.

(19)*Page 9047:* The mechanism for withholding a pay increase from an employee who receives a less than fully Meets Expectations rating is modified; in the unlikely event that an employee whose basic pay is frozen as a result of a less than Fully Meets Expectations rating moves to another demonstration project position with a different locality pay schedule or staffing supplement, the employee's frozen base and locality pay or staffing supplement would be adjusted in accordance with *NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual* .

(20)*Page 9047:* A new section III.D., “Supervisory Bonuses,” is added.

(21)*Page 9048:* A new section VII, “Project Modification,” is added.

(22)*Page 9049:* Several changes are made and citations are added in the “waiver of laws and regulations required” segments. Linda M. Springer, Director. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Introduction A. Purposes and Approach B. Problems with the Present System C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits D. Participating Organizations E. Participating Employees F. Project Design III. Personnel System Changes A. Pay Banding Classification and Pay System 1. Establishment of Career Paths and Pay Bands 2. Position Classification 3. Position Classification Appeals 4. Minimum Qualifications Requirements 5. Elimination of Fixed Steps 6. Rate Range 7. Rate of Basic Pay Upon Initial Appointment 8. Rate of Basic Pay upon Promotion 9. Rate of Basic Pay in Noncompetitive Lateral Actions 10. Other Pay Administration Provisions 11. Staffing Supplements B. Performance Appraisal 1. Program Requirements 2. Supervisory Accountability 3. Reconsideration of Ratings C. Performance-based Pay Increases 1. Pay Pools 2. Performance Shares 3. Performance Pay Increases 4. Employees Who Cannot Receive a Performance Pay Increase D. Supervisory Bonuses E. Reduction-in-Force IV. Training V. Conversion A. Conversion to the Demonstration Project B. Conversion to the General Schedule System VI. Project Duration VII. Project Modification VIII. Project Evaluation IX. Costs X. Waiver of Laws and Regulations Required A. Title 5, United States Code B. Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations I. Executive Summary This project was designed by NNSA in consultation with OPM. The goals of this demonstration project are to—

(1)Improve hiring by allowing NNSA to compete more effectively for high quality employees through the judicious use of higher entry salaries;

(2)Motivate and retain staff by providing faster pay progression for high-performing employees;

(3)Improve the usefulness and responsiveness of the position classification system to managers;

(4)Increase the efficiency of administering the position classification system through a simplified pay-banded application of the current General Schedule grade structure, and reduce the procedural steps and documentation requirements traditionally associated with classifying positions;

(5)Eliminate automatic pay increases (i.e., annual adjustments that normally take effect the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1) by making pay increases performance-sensitive, so that only Fully Successful (known as “Fully Meets Expectations” in NNSA) and higher performers will receive pay adjustments, and the best performers will receive the largest pay adjustments;

(6)Integrate with, build upon, and advance the work of several key human capital management improvement initiatives and projects currently underway in NNSA, including— a. Advancing the ongoing refinement of NNSA's four-year old enterprise-wide performance management program, which currently features a pilot for automating yearly performance ratings, to the next logical level, encompassing performance-based pay adjustments, b. Achieving greater parity, though not complete harmony, with NNSA's mature excepted service pay-banded and pay-for-performance system (e.g., will have lower pay band maximum rates; no automatic pay increases, etc.), c. Building on the simplified position description

(PD)format and automated PD library that are already in place, d. Continuing to develop improved performance management skills among first-line supervisors through increased program rigor, additional training, and better guidance materials, to better develop standards that reflect differences in performance, e. Establishing a system of career-enhancing career paths for the purpose of developing, advancing, and retaining employees, f. Building on the new workforce analysis and planning system, already in place to identify FTE needs and competency needs and skills gaps, to conduct a valid occupational analysis to construct meaningful pay bands. The demonstration project will modify the General Schedule

(GS)classification and pay system by identifying several broad career paths, establishing pay bands which may cover more than one grade in each career path, eliminating longevity-based step progression, and providing for annual pay adjustments based on performance. The proposed project will test

(1)the effectiveness of multi-grade pay bands in recruiting, advancing, and retaining employees, and in reducing the processing time and paperwork traditionally associated with classifying positions at multiple grade levels, and

(2)the application of meaningful distinctions in levels of performance to the allocation of annual pay increases. II. Introduction A. Purposes and Approach The purposes of the proposed project are to—

(1)Modify the GS classification system by establishing pay bands which may cover more than one grade; and

(2)Modify the GS pay system to provide larger annual pay increases to employees who are better performers based on performance distinctions made under a credible, strategically-aligned performance appraisal system/program and thereby improve the results-oriented performance culture within the organization. NNSA's approach to achieving these purposes is to integrate with and build upon the several ongoing human capital management initiatives and projects that are already underway, and to design a GS pay banding and performance-based pay adjustment system that—

(1)Complements and increases parity with the statutory NNSA excepted service employment system already in place, and

(2)Profits from the successes, mistakes, and lessons of other agency demonstration projects, past and current. B. Problems With the Present System Position Classification Rigidity, Incomprehensibility, and Procedural Excesses Although the GS classification system is not a compensation system per se, the classification and pay systems are inextricably intertwined. In practice, the GS classification system is the primary determinant of an employee's basic pay. Furthermore, NNSA believes in the principles underlying the GS classification system (i.e., equal pay for substantially equal work, and variations in pay based on the work actually performed, rather than on who performs the work) and believes that these principles are as valid and applicable to the Federal civil service system today as when originally enacted into law in 1923, and when the General Schedule was established in 1949. As Ismar Baruch wrote in a classic groundbreaking 1941 report, *Position Classification in the Public Service:* * * * the very nature of governmental jurisdictions places them in a position of peculiar responsibility to the public at large. Individual actions without plan or system and based merely upon the expediency of the moment are undesirable. Public personnel policies and transactions affecting positions and employees should be supportable by facts and logic in the light of broad considerations applicable to the service as a whole. Further, in the management of public personnel affairs, considerations of fairness and equity require uniform action under like circumstances, particularly in the establishment of pay rates. This in essence is what the Federal position classification system was designed to achieve, and has achieved in principle, if not practice, ever since these words were first written. Thus, rather than “scrapping” the current GS classification system and starting over, NNSA believes that modifying the system to accommodate the work and workforce of the 21st century is a more prudent and workable approach. Pay banding does this. The current GS classification system is cumbersome, labor intensive, and difficult to comprehend. As OPM's April 2002 white paper, *A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for Modernization* , points out, the GS classification system was designed during the World War II years when civil servants were predominantly “process-obsessed” file clerks. Public servants in the middle of the 20th century performed work that tended to be mechanical and repetitive in nature, consisting of job tasks readily observable and measurable. Today, work tends to be knowledge-based and highly specialized, and does not lend itself to easy categorization based on readily observable characteristics. Nonetheless, as an employee progresses from the entry level to the full-performance level in a given occupation today, under the traditional classification system, a separate position description is still required for each grade. For example, an entry level GS-5 Engineer with promotion potential to GS-12 requires five different position descriptions (or statements of differences) covering grade intervals GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, GS-11, and GS-12. Additionally, each position description should be accompanied by a position evaluation report certifying that the duties and responsibilities of the position meet the requirements for classification into the series and grade. Often, the difference between a higher-graded and lower-graded position in the same career progression may be the level of supervision an employee receives, or the increasing gradations in the scope and effect of an employee's work on agency missions and programs, or some other interpretative degree of occupational difficulty and responsibility. As a result, managers who assign work and who are responsible for describing such assignments of work, and the position classifiers who evaluate assignments of work against OPM's and applicable agency classification criteria, often view the practice attendant to the current GS classification system as an exercise in semantics, and PD writing, for the purpose of “beating the system” to award the highest grade possible to a position, instead of as a management tool by which to make meaningful and significant distinctions between levels of work. The current GS classification system also directly impacts the effectiveness of agency recruitment activities. Recruiting for a vacancy which may be filled at any level from the entry level to the full-performance level requires a separate position description for each grade, separate qualifications requirements for each grade, separate applicant assessment and rating tools (often referred to as “crediting plans”) for each grade, and separate lists of best-qualified candidates (often referred to as “certificates”) for each grade. For example, recruiting for a single GS-5/12 Engineer vacancy requires five different position descriptions (GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, GS-11, and GS-12) and five different “crediting plans,” and will result in the agency issuing multiple “certificates.” Thus, Federal managers and applicants for Federal employment often view the system as cumbersome, time consuming, and unresponsive. Modifying the current system to supplant sequential grade progression with valid, rational, and credible pay bands will

(1)provide much needed management relief from the seeming arbitrariness, rigidity, and document heaviness of the current classification system,

(2)provide managers with much needed flexibility, and

(3)offer applicants and employees greater opportunities for advancement and inducements to retention, while retaining the public policy principles and management values underlying the current civil service system. A Need for Performance-Based Pay Increases Additionally, the current GS pay system provides annual pay increases to all employees, even those whose performance is less than Fully Successful. Similarly, periodic within-grade pay increases are virtually automatic. Although an employee's performance must be determined to be at an “acceptable level of competence” in order for the employee to receive a within-grade increase (WGI), this is only a single-level threshold and no further distinctions in levels of performance play a role. All performance levels above the threshold are treated the same for purposes of determining the amount of the increase and the rate at which an employee advances through the rate range of his or her grade. NNSA and OPM do not believe it is a wise use of the limited resources available for the compensation of Federal employees—nor does it serve taxpayers effectively or treat employees fairly—to pass on the same pay adjustments, year after year, to all employees regardless of differences in their performance. The current GS pay system does provide one limited tool to address distinctions in levels of performance— namely, quality step increases (QSIs). QSIs are discretionary adjustments that are not integrated into the normal pay adjustment process; thus, limited funds are available to provide QSIs, and the decision-making process may not be very transparent. In addition, there is no flexibility as to the amount of the QSI; a full step increase is required. Also, QSIs may be used only for those with the highest rating of record. In summary, QSIs alone cannot be relied upon to establish an effective link between pay and performance based on meaningful distinctions among different levels of performance. Under these constraints of the GS pay system, agencies are severely limited in their ability to establish a results-oriented performance culture as contemplated under the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF). Within the HCAAF, a results-oriented performance culture effectively plans, monitors, develops, rates, and rewards employee performance, consistent with the merit system principle that “appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance” (5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(3)). C. Changes Required/Expected Benefits The proposed demonstration project will respond to the GS classification system problems identified above by compressing the 15 GS grades into pay bands that may cover multiple grades. Although this “compression” is neither designed nor intended to eliminate the fundamental statutory grading distinctions embedded in the traditional position classification system, it will considerably reduce the excessive rigidity inherent in the current system, making it substantially less cumbersome, less labor intensive, less time consuming, and easier to comprehend and apply. Importantly, banding the GS grade structure shifts the emphasis for employee pay advancement from position classification factors and merit promotion criteria to performance factors, one of the chief goals of this demonstration project. Because a pay banding system uses broader work levels, the system can be viewed as having more of a rank-in-person emphasis; that is, it permits a more direct relationship between an incumbent's actual (or anticipated) individual level of job performance and a given position's particular level of pay. By permitting the advancement of employees within given bands without the necessity of advertising promotional opportunities, and without the need for handling employee applications in accordance with publicized merit promotion procedures, the attainment of some of the project's process simplification and streamlining objectives is also furthered. The proposed demonstration project will respond to the pay problem identified above by eliminating fixed steps within each of the pay bands and by making annual GS pay adjustments performance-sensitive. Pay adjustments will be funded from two pay pools: One consisting of the amount that would otherwise be used to pay the annual GS pay adjustment, and the second consisting of the amounts that would otherwise be used to pay WGIs and QSIs to employees covered by the demonstration project. The second pay pool also may include funds saved through the elimination of promotion increases for promotions between grades that are consolidated into the same band. A share mechanism will be used to allocate pay increases among employees with different levels of performance, and managers will be expected to control costs (and will be held accountable for doing so in their own performance plans). Implementation of the proposed pay system will result in larger pay increases going to employees who demonstrate higher performance. By regularly rewarding better performance with better pay, participating organizations will strengthen their results-oriented performance cultures. Among other things, they will be better able to retain their good performers and recruit new ones. D. Participating Organizations It is expected that every major headquarters and field organization in NNSA will participate. This includes HQ, program, and support components, including NNSA's cadre of nuclear materials couriers, who are deployed at various locations in the United States, eight geographically dispersed Site Offices and two special purpose Naval Reactors Offices (in Pittsburgh, PA, and Schenectady, NY), and the Service Center in Albuquerque, NM. Each of these units is committed to operating a credible, robust performance appraisal program aligned to the organization's strategic goals and objectives, by providing the necessary training and resources. These organizations have demonstrated this commitment the past three years, as NNSA implemented a comprehensive performance management program enterprise-wide. E. Participating Employees The demonstration project will cover all GS non-bargaining unit employees in the participating organizations identified in the preceding paragraph. (The only bargaining unit in NNSA is at headquarters, and currently includes 16 positions.) Included in the coverage are Schedule A and B Excepted Service employees. Not included are Schedule C Excepted Service employees and Excepted Service employees authorized under the NNSA Act, National Defense Authorization Acts, and the DOE Organization Act. Table 1 shows the number of employees available through September 2007 who are subject to coverage under this project by occupational series and grade. Table 1.—Covered Employees by Occupational Series and Grade OCC Series GS Grade 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 GS total 00018 1 7 3 11 00028 1 1 3 2 7 00080 1 6 3 36 30 40 12 128 00084 30 54 80 66 52 22 304 00086 2 2 4 00099 1 1 00130 3 4 14 40 43 104 00132 3 5 2 10 00201 1 2 2 7 19 9 7 47 00203 1 6 1 8 00260 1 3 1 5 00299 1 2 3 00301 3 24 39 41 49 29 26 211 00303 4 5 4 10 3 14 22 6 68 00318 2 10 10 5 2 29 00326 2 5 7 00335 1 1 00340 1 20 21 00341 1 1 2 00342 2 2 00343 5 6 21 36 49 30 147 00344 1 1 00346 2 3 3 8 00361 1 1 00391 1 1 00399 1 2 3 00401 1 1 00501 1 4 3 3 1 12 00505 3 3 00510 1 10 15 22 3 51 00511 1 4 1 6 00525 1 1 2 00560 1 1 9 15 18 7 51 00561 1 1 00599 2 2 00610 1 1 2 00671 1 1 00690 2 2 4 00801 6 26 91 82 205 00802 1 1 1 3 00803 2 2 00804 1 2 3 00810 1 2 3 00819 3 1 4 00830 1 1 00840 2 3 10 14 35 64 00850 1 1 00854 1 2 4 1 2 10 00905 1 3 8 14 26 00950 3 3 00986 1 1 00999 2 2 01035 1 5 1 7 01082 1 1 01099 1 1 2 01101 1 2 1 1 5 5 3 18 01102 6 13 29 36 15 99 01103 3 4 1 2 10 01106 1 1 01150 1 1 01170 1 1 1 1 4 01176 1 1 01199 1 1 1 1 4 01222 1 2 1 4 01301 5 33 26 64 01306 1 3 4 01310 3 3 01412 1 1 01515 1 1 01712 11 10 4 25 01750 1 1 01910 1 6 5 1 1 14 02003 1 1 02010 1 1 2 02101 4 15 6 25 02130 9 1 10 02210 1 2 2 15 13 2 35 Grand Total 4 5 9 19 9 29 53 46 107 80 141 251 368 468 347 1936 Management has provided initial notice to affected employees and will continue consultation throughout project implementation. F. Project Design The project is designed to

(1)fundamentally simplify the position classification system as the key to improving recruitment, retention, and classification activities,

(2)ensure that no participating employee with a rating of record of less than Fully Meets Expectations will receive a pay increase, and

(3)ensure that funds available for pay adjustments will be allocated on the basis of performance, the better performers receiving the greater performance payouts. To ensure expeditious and effective project implementation and completion, NNSA will model, to the extent feasible and appropriate, programmatic features and operating systems and procedures relating to NNSA's own pay-banded, pay-for-performance excepted service system; in addition, NNSA will review the successes, mistakes, and lessons from the experiences of other agency demonstration projects, notably the current Department of Defense

(DoD)laboratory projects, which are based on the foundational China Lake project; the National Institute of Standards and Technology permanent Alternative Personnel System; and DoD's new National Security Personnel System (one of the participating Air Force labs shares Kirtland AFB with NNSA). Two basic design principles will underpin this project: • NNSA will not establish its own classification standards, but rather, will construct band thresholds and boundaries consistent with OPM's official classification criteria. To streamline documentation, NNSA will establish core pay band descriptors and core position descriptions based on the OPM job family standard and functional classification guide that most directly corresponds to the work encompassed within an occupational series. The descriptor is a generic benchmark description used to illustrate the ranges of complementary work levels within a pay band. The assignment of positions to pay bands will be made on the basis of the core pay band descriptor. • NNSA will not delegate classification authority to managers. NNSA understands that not delegating classification authority runs counter to the experiences of other agency demonstration projects. Nonetheless, it is much more efficient to leave the exercise of this authority and all attendant administration activities in the trained hands of the resident human resources

(HR)staff. NNSA sees little value in turning managers into classifiers, but rather, believes the value is in preparing managers to become better supervisors. NNSA's pre-eminent managerial goal is to develop a seasoned cadre of Federal managers who can practice the art of supervision at an uncommonly high level (i.e., the supervisor who is more mentor than taskmaster, who can nurture subordinates and unleash their potential for superior performance through the instruments of performance appraisal and reward programs). III. Personnel System Changes The 15-grade GS position classification system established under 5 U.S.C. chapter 51 and the GS pay system established under 5 U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter III, will be modified as described in the following sections. Except as otherwise provided in this plan, demonstration project employees will be considered to be GS employees in applying other laws, regulations, and policies. NNSA does not currently have employees covered by law enforcement officer

(LEO)special base rates. Should any law enforcement officers be covered by this demonstration project in the future, they will not be considered to be General Schedule employees for the purposes of applying LEO special base rates authorized by section 403 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990; a separate career path would be established for these employees, and band ranges for any such LEOs will take LEO special base rates into account. A. Pay Banding Classification and Pay System 1. Establishment of Career Paths and Pay Bands NNSA may establish, and adjust over time, career paths that group one or more occupational categories together and provide a common banding structure ( *i.e.* , set of work levels and rate ranges) for occupations within a given career path. Initially, NNSA intends to establish five career paths. Each career path will be subdivided into pay bands. Each pay band will correspond to one or more GS grades. NNSA may establish, and adjust over time, a career path's pay band structure. NNSA's initial career path and pay bands are:

(1)*Engineering and Scientific Career Path:* Encompasses all professional positions (with the exception of professional positions in the Future Leaders Career Path) classified in the GS-800 and GS-1300 job series, subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band II (GS-9 through GS-11) • Pay Band III (GS-12/GS-13) • Pay Band IV (GS-14/GS-15)

(2)*Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path:* Encompasses all OPM-recognized two-grade interval occupations, except GS-800 engineers and GS-1300 scientists. All positions in this career path are subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band II (GS-9 through GS-12) • Pay Band III (GS-13/GS-14) • Pay Band IV (GS-15)

(3)*Technician and Administrative Support Career Path:* Encompasses all OPM-recognized one-grade interval occupations, excepting positions classified in the GS-084 Courier series (see below). All positions in this career path are subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-1 through GS-4) • Pay Band II (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band III (GS-9)

(4)*Nuclear Materials Couriers Career Path:* Encompasses all positions classified into the GS-084 job series, subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-8 through GS-10) • Pay Band II (GS-11) • Pay Band III (GS-12) • Pay Band IV (GS-13)

(5)*Future Leaders Career Path:* Encompasses the positions of all interns enrolled in NNSA's 2-year Future Leader Program, in various engineering, scientific, business, and administrative occupations. All positions in this career path are subdivided into the following pay bands: • Pay Band I (GS-5 through GS-8) • Pay Band II (GS-9 through GS-11) • Pay Band III (GS-12/GS-13) 2 2 Although all Future Leaders will have career ladders to pay band III in either the *Engineering and Scientific Career Path,* or the *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path,* a control point equating to the salary of GS-12 step 10 will be established for those Future Leaders with a Masters Degree in business-related and administrative fields to enable these individuals to be converted from band III of the *Future Leaders Career Path* to band II of the *Professional, Technical, and Administrative Career Path* upon successful completion of the 2-year program. NNSA will coordinate changes in career paths or pay banding structures with OPM. After coordination with OPM, NNSA will give affected employees advance notice and an opportunity to comment before effecting a change with respect to career paths or banding structure. 2. Position Classification Application of the 15-grade GS position classification system established under 5 U.S.C. chapter 51 will be simplified by allowing a position to be assigned to a specific pay band if the duties and responsibilities of the position meet (or exceed) the requirements for classification into the lowest grade included in that specific pay band. For example, an 801, Engineer, position assigned to Pay Band 1 (GS-5 through GS-8), need only meet the requirements for classification at the GS-5 level. Position descriptions will include examples of higher-level duties and responsibilities to which employees are fully intended to progress. NNSA will establish pay band boundaries consistent with OPM's existing position classification standards, grade-evaluation criteria, and grading practices. 3. Position Classification Appeals An individual employee may request that NNSA or OPM reconsider the classification (i.e., pay system, occupational series, official title, or pay band) of his or her official position of record at any time, consistent with procedures currently prescribed under 5 CFR part 511, subpart F. A full description of the classification appeals process for the NNSA demonstration project will be included in the *Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual* that will accompany this project plan. 4. Minimum Qualifications Requirements Application of the *OPM Operating Manual: Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions* is simplified by allowing a candidate to qualify for a specific pay band if the candidate meets (or exceeds) the requirements for the lowest grade included in that specific pay band. For example, a candidate for an 801 Engineer position assigned to Pay Band 1 (GS-5 through GS-8), need only meet the qualifications requirements for a GS-801 Engineer position at the GS-5 level. For NNSA demonstration project employees and employees of other Federal agencies who are in sufficiently similar pay banding systems, the common OPM requirement of one year of experience “at the next lower grade in the normal line of progression for the occupation” is changed to “at the next lower pay band in the normal line of progression for the occupation.” Federal employees in the General Schedule pay system, Federal employees in other pay systems comparable to the General Schedule, and non-Federal applicants must meet the common OPM requirement of one year of experience “at the next lower grade in the normal line of progression for the occupation.” 5. Elimination of Fixed Steps The 10 fixed steps of each GS grade will not apply to employees participating in the demonstration project. The fixed-step system was designed to reward longevity. A pay banding system is an important element of any effort to make pay more performance-sensitive. No employee's pay will be reduced as a result of becoming covered by the demonstration project. However, demonstration project employees will no longer receive longevity-based within-grade pay increases at prescribed intervals. Instead, they will be granted annual performance adjustments as described in section III.C. below. 6. Rate Range The normal minimum and maximum rates of the rate range for each pay band will equal the applicable step 1 rate and step 10 rate, respectively, for the lowest and highest grades, respectively, in the General Schedule that are included in the pay band. The minimum rate of the pay band is extended 5 percent below the normal minimum for employees with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations (FME). Such an employee's rate may fall below the normal pay band minimum when that minimum increases as a result of a pay band adjustment, but the employee cannot receive a pay adjustment, or performance pay increase, because the employee's rating of record is below Fully Meets Expectations, as described in section III.C.4. The maximum rate of each pay band is extended 5 percent above the normal maximum for all employees with a rating of record at the highest level (currently called “Significantly Exceeds Expectations”

(SEE)in NNSA). This upper range extension will help ensure that the range of available pay rates will be adequate to recognize truly outstanding performance. The upper range extension is reserved for employees with a SEE rating. If an employee in the upper range extension is rated below the SEE level, special provisions apply, as described in section III.A.10. In addition to rates of basic pay, employees may receive locality payments or staffing supplements as described in section III.A.10 or III.A.11, respectively. 7. Rate of Basic Pay Upon Initial Appointment Upon appointment to a demonstration project position under Delegated Examining, Direct-Hire Authorization, or other authority primarily designed for initial entry into the Federal service (e.g., Veterans Employment Opportunity Act, 30% Disabled Veteran Appointment), an appointee's pay rate may be set at any rate within the normal pay band range. In exercising this flexibility, NNSA will consider the appointee's qualifications, competing job offers, NNSA's need for the appointee's talents, the appointee's potential contributions to NNSA mission accomplishment, and the rates received by on-board employees. This flexibility will allow NNSA to compete more effectively with private industry for the best talent available, though managers will be expected to use this flexibility with great judiciousness and prudence. 8. Rate of Basic Pay Upon Promotion Upon promotion to a higher pay band, an appointee's pay rate generally will be set at a rate within the normal pay band range to which the appointee is being promoted that provides a pay increase of 8 percent, unless a greater increase is necessary to set pay at the normal range minimum. NNSA may establish exceptions to this policy to deal with employees receiving a retained rate, employees who are re-promoted shortly after a demotion, employees with exceptional performance warranting a larger increase with higher management approval, etc. In exercising this flexibility, NNSA will consider the appointee's qualifications, competing job offers, NNSA's need for the appointee's talents, and the appointee's potential contributions to NNSA mission accomplishment. A demonstration project employee who moves to a higher pay band (defined as a pay band with a maximum base rate for the normal range that is higher than the maximum rate of the normal range of the employee's pay band before the move) in a different career path is considered to have been promoted under policies prescribed by NNSA. NNSA may adopt policies providing a promotion-equivalent increase to a Federal employee outside the demonstration project who is selected, through merit promotion plan procedures, to fill a higher-level position (as defined in NNSA policies) covered by the demonstration project. NNSA employees, who at the time of conversion into the demonstration project are in a career ladder to a higher GS grade (i.e., have not reached the top level of that career ladder), will be eligible for special in-band pay increases under the authority of this demonstration project. The in-band pay increases will be sufficient to ensure that an employee's base rate under the demonstration project is equivalent to the base rate which the employee would have received had the employee and position remained in the General Schedule. Only one in-band pay increase may be received in a 52-week period. This “grandfathering” benefit will cease to be applicable when the employee reaches equivalence with the top GS grade of the formerly applicable career ladder. Only current NNSA employees who convert at the inception of pay banding will be afforded this “grandfathering” benefit. The specific terms and conditions of this benefit will be established by NNSA in *NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual* that will implement this project plan. NNSA may establish special rules for computing the promotion increase for promotions involving positions covered by a staffing supplement that take into account the staffing supplement and locality pay, subject to guidance provided by OPM. 9. Rate of Basic Pay in Competitive and Noncompetitive Lateral Actions When a non-demonstration project employee from NNSA or DOE is reassigned into a demonstration project position, NNSA may provide an immediate increase in the rate of basic pay to reflect the prorated value of the employee's next scheduled within-grade increase or similar within-range adjustment under the former pay system, consistent with the requirements in section V.A. Similarly, when an employee transfers into NNSA from another Federal agency, NNSA may provide an immediate increase in the rate of basic pay to reflect the prorated value of the employee's next scheduled within-grade increase or similar within-range adjustment, also consistent with section V.A. When a demonstration project employee is selected through competitive procedures to fill another demonstration project position that is at the same pay band as the employee's current position, or has no greater pay potential, NNSA may provide an immediate pay increase up to 5 percent upon reassignment. The increase to pay must be based on a review of the employee's current salary, salary history, performance evaluations, and qualifications. Justification and review requirements for such an increase will be reflected in the staffing and pay-setting policies found in *NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual.* 10. Other Pay Administration Provisions Performance-based pay increases described in section III.C will be made to the scheduled annual rate of pay. These increases will be made on the first day of the last full pay period in each calendar year. Annual general pay adjustments will be effective on the first day of the first full pay period in January of each year. Locality-based comparability payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304 will be paid on top of the scheduled annual rate of pay in the same manner as those payments apply to other GS employees (except as described in the following paragraph). Staffing supplements may apply as described in section III.A.11. A locality rate cap 5 percent higher than the normal EX-IV statutory cap is established to accommodate those employees in the upper rate range extension, whose current rating of record is SEE. This higher cap will only apply to employees whose pay rate is in the upper range extension. If the locality rate for an employee at the normal band maximum is affected by the EX-IV cap, resulting in an “effective locality pay percentage” that is less than the regular locality pay percentage, the locality rate for an employee in the upper rate range extension of the same band will be computed using that same effective locality pay percentage. (For example, if the regular locality pay percentage is 30 percent, but the EX-IV cap causes the amount of locality pay actually received by an employee at the regular band maximum to be 20 percent, that effective locality pay percentage of 20 percent would be used to compute locality pay for an employee in the upper range extension of the same band.) If an employee in the upper range extension receives a Fully Meets Expectations

(FME)annual rating of record following the previous year's SEE rating, the employee will be converted to a retained rate status and will receive 50 percent of the increase in the adjusted rate for the normal range maximum (including any applicable locality payment or staffing supplement). The employee will receive the 50 percent adjustment each year he or she receives an FME rating of record until the employee's pay falls at or below the normal maximum rate of the pay band. Employees receiving a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations are prohibited from receiving any increase in basic pay including any annual adjustment in the scheduled rate of pay, locality pay, or staffing supplement, except as necessary to prevent their frozen rate from falling below the 5 percent threshold of the lower band extension. A frozen rate of pay does not result in a reduction in pay and therefore is not subject to adverse action procedures in chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code. In no case may an employee's rate of basic pay fall below the 5 percent lower band extension. If an employee's frozen rate of pay falls below the bottom threshold of the lower range extension, it will be adjusted by the dollar amount of the annual adjustment in the scheduled rate of pay necessary to bring their adjusted frozen rate back within the lower extended range. *NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual* will address how a frozen locality payment or staffing supplement will be adjusted if an employee moves to a demonstration project position with a different locality pay schedule or staffing supplement. When an employee receives a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations, their existing rate of basic pay including any applicable locality pay or staffing supplement is frozen until they receive a new rating of record of Fully Meets Expectations. If NNSA chooses to give such an employee a new rating of record of FME before the end of the current appraisal period, the employee is entitled to an increase in the rate of basic pay effective on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after the date the new rating is final, as described in section III.C.4. Subject to guidance provided by OPM, NNSA will establish supplemental pay administration rules for determining an employee's rate of pay upon initial appointment, promotion, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or other position change, as needed. In addressing geographic conversions and simultaneous pay actions, such rules must be consistent with 5 CFR 531.205 and 5 CFR 531.206, respectively. The grade retention provisions in 5 U.S.C. 5362 and 5 CFR part 536 are not applicable (i.e., no band retention). The pay retention rules in 5 U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536 apply to demonstration project employees, subject to the following exceptions:

(1)Enhanced pay retention (as described in the next paragraph) applies to an employee who is entitled to a retained rate as a result of an involuntary reduction in band through no fault of his or her own;

(2)An employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations may not receive an increase in his or her retained rate under 5 U.S.C. 5363(b)(2)(B);

(3)An employee in the upper range extension who is rated below Significantly Exceeds Expectations will be converted to a retained rate before processing any other pay action;

(4)The cap on retained rates is equal to the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule plus 5 percent (instead of the EX-IV cap established under 5 CFR 536.306) in order to accommodate employees in the upper range extension whose rating of record falls below SEE; and

(5)The range maximum rate used in computing retained rate adjustments will always be the applicable adjusted rate for the normal range maximum (including any applicability locality payment or staffing supplement), not the upper range extension maximum, regardless of the employee's rating of record. Enhanced pay retention applies to employees who become entitled to a retained rate as a result of an involuntary reduction in band under conditions that would have met the requirements for grade retention if the employee were covered by 5 CFR 536.201-536.202. Under enhanced pay retention, an employee's retained rate will be determined as prescribed in 5 CFR 536.304. However, an employee's retained rate will be increased by 100 percent (instead of 50 percent) of the dollar amount of any increase in the normal maximum rate of the employee's band during the 2-year (i.e., 104-week) period beginning on the date the employee's retained rate is established. After the 2-year period of enhanced pay retention, the regular 50-percent adjustment rule in 5 U.S.C. 5363(b)(2)(B) and 5 CFR 536.305 will apply, as modified by the provisions in this section. The 50-percent adjustment rule will be applied by measuring the dollar change in the applicable adjusted rate for the normal maximum rate of the band (linked to applicable GS step 10 rate). If an employee is receiving a retained rate that is less than the applicable adjusted maximum rate (including any applicable locality payment or staffing supplement) for the upper range extension for the employee's band, and if that employee receives a rating of record of Significantly Exceeds Expectations, the employee's retained rate will be terminated and converted to an equal adjusted rate (base rate in upper range extension plus applicable locality payment or staffing supplement). This conversion must be processed before any other pay adjustment. For a retained rate employee with a rating of record of Significantly Exceeds Expectations, if a retained rate adjustment provided at the time of a range adjustment results in the retained rate falling below the applicable adjusted rate for the upper range extension maximum, the employee's retained rate will be terminated, and the employee's pay will be set at the maximum rate of the upper range extension. For a retained rate employee with a rating of record of Fully Meets Expectations, if a retained rate increase provided at the time of a range adjustment results in the retained rate falling below the applicable adjusted rate for the normal band maximum, the employee's retained rate will be terminated, and the employee's pay will be set at the normal band maximum rate. For a retained rate employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations, the retained rate is frozen and not subject to adjustment. When such an employee's retained rate falls below the applicable adjusted rate for the normal band maximum, the employee's retained rate will be terminated, and the employee's pay will be set at an adjusted rate equal to the retained rate (i.e., the rate is not set at the range maximum). As required by 5 CFR 536.304(a)(2) and 536.305(a)(2), any general pay adjustment, including a retained rate adjustment as described in the preceding paragraphs, must be processed before any other simultaneous pay action (such as a geographic pay conversion). When applicable, the saved pay rules in 5 U.S.C. 3594 and 5 CFR 359.705 for former SES members continue to apply to demonstration project employees, except that

(1)an employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations may not receive an increase in his or her saved rate under 5 U.S.C. 3594(c)(2); and

(2)the 50-percent adjustment rule must be applied in the same manner as it is applied for a retained rate under 5 U.S.C. 5363, subject to the modifications described in the preceding paragraphs. The rules regarding termination of a saved rate when it falls below the applicable adjusted maximum rate must be parallel to those governing termination of a retained rate under 5 U.S.C. 5363, subject to the modifications described in the preceding paragraphs. The enhanced pay retention provisions described in the preceding paragraphs do not apply to saved rates under 5 U.S.C. 3594. NNSA may adopt supplemental pay administration policies governing matters not specifically addressed in this plan, subject to any OPM guidance. 11. Staffing Supplements An employee who is assigned to an occupational series and geographic area covered by an OPM-established special rates schedule, and who meets any other applicable coverage requirements, will be entitled to a staffing supplement if the maximum adjusted rate for a covered position in the GS grades corresponding to the employee's band is a special rate that exceeds the applicable maximum GS locality rate. The staffing supplement is added on top of the rate of basic pay in the same manner as locality pay. An employee will receive the higher of the applicable locality payment or staffing supplement. For employees being converted into the demonstration project, the employee's total pay immediately after conversion will be the same as immediately before, but a portion of the total will be in the form of a staffing supplement. Adverse action and pay retention provisions will not apply to the conversion process as there will be no change in the total salary rate. The staffing supplement is calculated as described below. Upon conversion, the demonstration base rate will be established by dividing the employee's former GS adjusted rate (the higher of special rate or locality rate) by the staffing factor. The staffing factor will be determined by dividing the maximum special rate for the banded grades by the GS base rate corresponding to that special rate (step 10 GS base rate for the same grade as the special rate). The employee's demonstration staffing supplement is derived by multiplying the demonstration base rate by the staffing factor minus one. Therefore, the employee's final demonstration special staffing rate equals the demonstration base rate plus the special staffing supplement; this amount will equal the employee's former GS adjusted rate. Simplified, the formula is this: Staffing factor = (Maximum special rate for banded grades) / (GS base rate corresponding to that special rate) Demonstration base rate = (Former GS adjusted rate [special or locality rate]) / (Staffing factor) Staffing supplement = demonstration base rate × (staffing factor − 1) Salary upon conversion = demonstration base rate + staffing supplement [sum will equal existing rate] If a special rate employee is converted to a band where the maximum GS adjusted rate for the banded grades is a locality rate, when the employee is converted into the demonstration project, the demonstration base rate is derived by dividing the employee's former special rate by the applicable locality pay factor (for example, in the Washington-Baltimore area, the locality pay factor is 1.175 in 2006). The employee's demonstration locality-adjusted rate will equal the employee's former GS adjusted rate. Any General Schedule or special rate schedule adjustment will require recomputation of the staffing supplement. Employees receiving a staffing supplement remain entitled to an underlying locality rate, which may over time supersede the need for a staffing supplement. If OPM discontinues or decreases a special rate schedule, pay retention provisions will be applied, as appropriate. Upon geographic movement, an employee who receives the special staffing supplement will have the supplement recomputed; any resulting reduction in the supplement will not be considered an adverse action or a basis for pay retention. Established salary including the staffing supplement will be considered basic pay for the same purposes as a special rate under 5 CFR 530.308—e.g., for purposes of retirement, life insurance, premium pay, severance pay, and advances in pay. It will also be used to compute workers' compensation payments and lump-sum payments for accrued and accumulated annual leave. Staffing supplement adjusted rates are subject to the Executive Schedule level IV cap that applies to GS locality rates and special rates (except as provided in the following paragraph). Adjusted rates that include a staffing supplement are subject to an Executive Schedule level IV cap, except for employees in the upper range extension whose rating of record is SEE. For those with a base rate in the 5 percent upper range extension, an adjusted rate cap 5 percent higher than the normal EX-IV cap is established. This higher cap will apply only to employees receiving a rate within the upper range extension. If the adjusted rate for an employee at the normal band maximum is affected by the EX-IV cap, resulting in an “effective staffing supplement percentage” that is less than the regular staffing supplement percentage, the adjusted rate for an employee in the upper rate range extension of the same band will be computed using that same effective staffing supplement percentage. (For example, if the regular staffing supplement percentage is 35 percent, but the EX-IV cap causes the amount of the staffing supplement actually received by an employee at the regular band maximum to be 20 percent, that effective staffing supplement percentage of 20 percent would be used to compute the staffing supplement for an employee in the upper range extension of the same band.) OPM may approve staffing supplements for categories of employees within the NNSA demonstration project who are not in approved special rate categories for GS employees, consistent with the provisions in 5 U.S.C. 5305(a) and (b). B. Performance Appraisal NNSA recognizes the importance of maintaining highly credible performance management systems. NNSA will use a performance management program under the Department of Energy appraisal system that has been approved by OPM consistent with chapter 43 of title 5, United States Code. Throughout the duration of the demonstration project, the effectiveness of performance management within the project will be monitored by examining metrics and assessments that will be included in the demonstration project evaluation plan. 1. Program Requirements The NNSA performance appraisal program requires written performance plans for each covered employee containing the employee's performance elements and standards. The performance plan links the performance elements and standards for individual employees to the organization's strategic goals and objectives. Ongoing feedback and dialogue between employees and their supervisors regarding performance is required. In addition, the program provides for, at a minimum, one mid-year progress review. The NNSA appraisal program, including its performance levels and standards, provides for making meaningful distinctions in performance. The program currently uses a four-level rating pattern to both summarize performance and to appraise performance at the element level. Its summary level pattern under 5 CFR 430.208(d) uses Levels 1, 2, 3, and 5, which NNSA has labeled Does Not Meet Expectations, Needs Improvement, Fully Meets Expectations, and Significantly Exceeds Expectations, respectively. Employees must be covered by their performance plan for at least 90 days before they can be assigned a rating of record. Supervisors and managers apply the appraisal program in a way that makes appropriate differentiations in performance. These differentiations reflect overall organizational performance. Employees receive a written performance appraisal (i.e., a rating of record) annually. Forced distributions of ratings are prohibited. Each annual appraisal period will begin on October 1 and end on the following September 30. Performance appraisals will be completed in a timely manner to support pay decisions in accordance with section III.C. Additional guidance on the NNSA performance appraisal program is provided through internal operations manuals. Performance appraisal is an evolutionary process, and changes may be made during the course of the demonstration project based on findings from our ongoing evaluations and reviews. Any changes will be communicated to affected employees, and they will be given a chance to comment before NNSA implements the changes. 2. Supervisory Accountability Supervisors are responsible for providing appropriate consequences for employee performance by addressing poor performance and recognizing exceptional performance. The performance plans for supervisors and managers include the degree to which supervisors and managers plan, assess, monitor, develop, correct, rate, and reward subordinate employees' performance. It is recognized that specific training must be provided to prepare supervisors and managers to exercise these responsibilities. NNSA has provided supervisory training each of the past three years on philosophical and procedural aspects of its new and still evolving performance management program ( *i.e.* , the lessons learned in the administration of each performance appraisal cycle have resulted in refinements each subsequent year). NNSA understands that this demonstration project will heighten the need for continuing supervisory training to support the accurate and realistic appraisal of performance. 3. Reconsideration of Ratings To support fairness and transparency for the program and its consequences, employees have an opportunity to request reconsideration of a rating of record. Such requests will be administered through a reconsideration process outlined in NNSA's Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual. This procedure will be the sole process for addressing complaints regarding overall summary ratings and ratings of individual elements. C. Performance-Based Pay Increases 1. Pay Pools Funds that otherwise would be spent on the annual GS pay adjustment, WGIs, and QSIs for demonstration project employees will instead be placed into two pay pools:

(1)the general pay increase pool will include funds that otherwise would be spent on the annual scheduled rate pay adjustment and

(2)the performance pay pool will include funds that would otherwise be used to pay WGIs and QSIs. The performance pay pool also may include funds saved through the elimination of promotion increases for promotions between grades that are consolidated into the same band. All employees with a rating of Fully Meets Expectations or higher are entitled to an adjustment in the scheduled rate of pay equal to the annual pay adjustment, which is also used to adjust NNSA pay ranges. This general increase is funded by the general increase pool. Employees who receive a rating below FME will be eligible for the annual pay adjustment, should a new rating be assigned after a period of time under a performance improvement plan. Additional pay increases will be funded from the performance pay pool using a share mechanism

(1)to ensure that employees with higher ratings of record receive greater pay increases than employees with relatively lower ratings of record and

(2)to control costs without resorting to a forced distribution of ratings. Each employee will be assigned a certain number of shares, based on his or her rating of record in accordance with section III.C.2. Participating organizations will establish pay pools for allocating performance pay increases. NNSA will determine which participating employees are covered by any pay pool and determine the dollar value of each pay pool. In setting the value of pay pools, NNSA will initially allocate an amount for performance pay increases equal to the estimated value of the WGIs, QSIs, and applicable promotion increases that otherwise would have been paid to participating employees. In computing the estimated value of WGIs and QSIs, NNSA may use estimated Governmentwide averages as computed by OPM. 2. Performance Shares NNSA will establish rating/share patterns for each pay pool—that is, the relationship between a rating of record and the number of shares. NNSA rating/share patterns will ensure that a higher rating of record receives a higher performance payout percentage for employees in the normal rate range. NNSA may adjust rating/share patterns over time after coordination with OPM and after giving affected employees advance notice. A change in the rating/share pattern may be applied in computing performance-based pay adjustments based on an appraisal period only if it takes effect at least 120 days before the end of that appraisal period. Initially, the number of shares for each rating level will be as follows: 4 shares are assigned to a Significantly Exceeds Expectations summary rating when an employee receives SEE ratings in all critical elements; 3 shares are assigned when an employee receives a summary rating of SEE, but one or more critical elements are rated at FME; 2 shares are assigned to an FME summary rating when one or more critical elements are rated at SEE; and 1 share is assigned to an FME summary rating when no critical element is rated below FME. Employees who receive a final summary rating of FME with one critical element rated at the NI level are not eligible for any shares from the performance pay pool. No shares may be assigned to any rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations, since no pay increase is payable to employees with such a rating of record. After the ratings of record and shares are assigned to employees, the value of a single share can be calculated. In addition to performance-based pay increases, demonstration project employees remain eligible to receive both monetary and non-monetary forms of recognition, so long as employees are not rewarded twice for the same contributions using incentive awards authorities under chapter 45 of title 5. Additionally, supervisors may receive supervisory bonuses, as referenced in section III.D. of this plan. NNSA will adopt supplemental award administration policies not specifically covered by this plan. 3. Performance Payout *In general:* NNSA will determine the value of one performance share, expressed as a percentage of the employee's rate of basic pay, based on the value of the pay pool and the distribution of shares among pay pool employees. An individual employee's performance payout is determined by multiplying the determined percentage value of a performance share by the number of shares assigned to the employee. The performance payout is computed as a percentage of the employee's rate of base pay as in effect on the date determined in NNSA policies. On the first day of the last full pay period in each calendar year, this amount must be paid as an increase in the employee's rate of basic pay, but only to the extent that it does not cause the employee's rate to exceed the maximum rate of the employee's rate range. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, employees in the upper band extension rated below the highest rating level are subject to special rules as described in section III.A.6 and III.A.10. Any portion of an employee's performance payout amount that cannot be delivered as a basic pay increase will be paid out as a lump sum (with no charge to the pay pool). Such a lump-sum payment is not basic pay for any purpose and is not a cash award under chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code. An employee who does not have a rating of record for the appraisal period most recently completed will be treated the same as employees in the same pay pool who received the modal rating for that period, subject to NNSA proration policies. NNSA may establish policies on prorating the performance pay increases and/or lump-sum payments for an employee who, during the period between annual pay adjustments, was

(1)hired or promoted,

(2)in leave-without-pay status,

(3)on a part-time work schedule, or

(4)in other circumstances that make proration appropriate. Those policies may establish a minimum employment period as a condition to receive any amount of a performance payout. If an employee's rating of record that is the basis for a performance payout is retroactively revised (after the regular effective date of performance payouts) through the reconsideration process, the employee's performance payout must be retroactively recomputed using the share value as originally determined. This also applies to the retroactive correction of a critical element previously rated as Needs Improvement, when that element rating resulted in zero shares being given to an employee with a Fully Meets Expectations rating of record. Any such retroactive corrections are not funded out of the pay pool and do not affect the performance payouts provided to other employees in the pay pool. In setting the size of a future pay pool, management will take into account past and projected corrections. *Special provisions for employees returning to duty after a period of service in the uniformed services or in receipt of workers' compensation benefits:* Special pay-setting provisions apply to employees who do not have a rating of record to support a pay adjustment but who are returning to duty status after a period of leave without pay or separation during which the employee

(1)was serving in the uniformed services (as defined in 38 U.S.C. 4303 and 5 CFR 353.102) with legal restoration rights (e.g., 38 U.S.C. 4316), or

(2)was receiving workers' compensation benefits under 5 U.S.C. chapter 81, subchapter I. In these cases, NNSA will determine the employee's prospective rate of basic pay upon return to duty by making performance pay adjustments for the intervening period based on the modal rating of record for employees in the same pay pool. The performance pay increases during the intervening period may not be prorated based on periods covered by this provision. In addition, a performance pay increase that is effective after the employee's return to duty may not be prorated based on periods covered by this provision. A lump-sum payment for a period including actual service performed after the employee's return to duty must be prorated (based on service covered by this provision) under the same agency proration policies that apply generally to periods of leave without pay. *Special provisions for employees receiving a retained rate:* An employee receiving a retained rate under 5 U.S.C. 5363 or 5 U.S.C. 3594 is not eligible for a basic pay increase except in conjunction with a rate range adjustment, as described in section III.A.10. At the discretion of the Administrator or the Administrator's designee, a retained rate employee may receive the same lump-sum payment approved for an employee in the same pay pool who is at the applicable range maximum and who has the same performance rating of record and number of shares. 4. Employees Who Cannot Receive a Performance Pay Increase Employees with a rating of record at Fully Meets Expectations with one or more elements rated at the Needs Improvement level are prohibited from receiving a performance payout. Employees with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations are prohibited from receiving a performance payout or general pay adjustment. When an employee's pay is frozen because of performance below Fully Meets Expectations, his or her pay rate may fall below the normal minimum rate of the pay band, since that range minimum may be increasing. However, in no case may an employee's rate of basic pay be reduced more than 5 percent below the normal range minimum. Details on adjusting the basic rate of pay to stay within the 5 percent extended minimum rate range can be found in III.A.10. If NNSA later chooses to give such an employee a new rating of record of Fully Meets Expectations before the end of the next appraisal period, as a result of the successful completion of a formal improvement plan, the employee is entitled to the same *percentage* of basic pay as the percentage that would have applied if the employee had been rated FME at the time the general pay adjustment was denied. This provision only applies to the annual general pay adjustment and is not retroactive. Under no circumstances is an employee eligible for a performance payout based on share distribution until the next appraisal period closes. D. Supervisory Bonuses NNSA may provide supervisors with annual supervisory bonuses. A supervisory bonus may not exceed 5 percent of the employee's rate of basic pay. A supervisory bonus is not basic pay for any purpose, nor may it be used in computing a lump-sum annual leave payment under 5 U.S.C. 5551-5552. A supervisory bonus is not an award under 5 U.S.C. chapter 45; it is a special lump-sum payment established under the demonstration project authority. Bonus expenditures will be funded through other NNSA funding sources. NNSA may establish supplementary policies and procedures to implement these bonuses, subject to OPM guidance. E. Reduction-in-Force 1. If, during the life of the demonstration project, NNSA enters into a reduction-in-force (RIF), the RIF will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1302, 3502, and 3508 and 5 CFR part 351, except as follows:

(a)Each of the five career paths in each NNSA local commuting area will constitute separate competitive areas (i.e., separate from the other career paths, and separate from the competitive areas of other NNSA employees);

(b)NNSA will establish competitive levels consisting of all positions in a competitive area which are in the same pay band and classification series, and which are similar enough in duties, qualification requirements, pay schedules, and working conditions so that the incumbent of one position may be reassigned to any of the other positions in the level without undue interruption. Each demonstration project competitive level will become a Retention List for purposes of competition when employees are released from their competitive levels, displaced by higher-standing employees, or placed during the exercise of assignment rights.

(c)Assignment rights will be modified by substituting “one pay band” for “three grades” and “two pay bands” for “five grades.”

(d)NNSA will use retention standing when it chooses to offer vacant positions within the meaning of 5 CFR 351.704. 2. Prior to conducting a RIF, NNSA will issue and implement a policy for the establishment and operation of an agency-level reemployment priority list

(RPL)designed to assist current NNSA competitive service demonstration project employees who will be separated as a result of a RIF and, subsequently, former NNSA competitive service demonstration project employees who have been separated as a result of a RIF, or who have fully recovered from a compensable injury after more than one year, in their efforts to be reemployed at NNSA, by affording them priority consideration over certain outside job applicants for NNSA competitive service demonstration project vacancies. NNSA will develop and adopt supplemental RIF administration procedures to augment the RIF policies stipulated by this plan. IV. Training As NNSA has learned during the past three years of implementing and refining a new performance management program, training for all involved will be essential to the success of the demonstration project. Training will be provided to employees, supervisors, and managers before the project is launched and throughout the life of the project. It is important that employees perceive the performance management program as fair and transparent; therefore, supervisors and managers will be trained extensively in setting and communicating performance expectations; monitoring performance and providing timely feedback; developing employee performance and addressing poor performance; rating employees' performance based on expectations; and involving employees in the development and implementation of the performance appraisal program. Supervisors and managers will be held accountable for the effective management of the performance of employees they supervise through performance expectations set for and appraisals made of their own performance in this regard. All employees will be trained in the performance appraisal process and the pay adjustment mechanism. Various types of training are being considered, including videos, on-line tutorials, and train-the-trainer concepts. V. Conversion A. Conversion to the Demonstration Project 1. Employees whose positions become covered by the demonstration project will convert into the career path and pay band covering the occupational series and grade of their position of record. Employees will convert to the demonstration project with no change in their total rate of pay (including basic pay, plus any applicable locality payment, special rate supplement, or staffing supplement). Special conversion rules apply to special rate employees as described in section III.A.10, Staffing Supplements. Any simultaneous pay action that is scheduled to take effect under the GS pay system on the date of conversion must be processed before processing the conversion to the pay banding system. NNSA implementing policies will provide procedures for converting an employee on grade retention under 5 U.S.C. 5362 or receiving a retained rate under 5 U.S.C. 5363 or a saved rate under 5 U.S.C. 3594 to the demonstration project. 2. Immediately after conversion, eligible employees will receive an increase in basic pay reflecting the prorated value of the next scheduled within-grade increase (WGI). The prorated value is determined by calculating the portion of the time-in-step employees have completed towards the waiting period for their next WGI. This WGI “buy-in” adjustment will not be paid to

(1)employees who are at the step 10 rate for their grade immediately before conversion to the demonstration project,

(2)employees who are receiving a retained rate of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5363 or saved rate under 5 U.S.C. 3594 immediately before conversion to the demonstration project, or

(3)employees whose rating of record is below Fully Meets Expectations. 3. Adverse action provisions under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, subchapter II, do not apply to reductions in pay upon conversion into the demonstration project as long as the employee's total rate of pay (including basic pay, plus any applicable locality payment, special rate supplement, or staffing supplement) is not reduced upon conversion. 4. The first performance-based pay increase under the project's pay adjustment mechanism will be effective on the first day of the last full pay period in calendar year 2008. 5. For employees who enter the demonstration project by lateral reassignment or transfer (i.e., not by conversion of position), NNSA may apply parallel pay conversion rules, including rules for providing a prorated adjustment reflecting time accrued toward a GS within-grade increase or similar within-range adjustment under another pay system. If conversion into the demonstration project is accompanied by a geographic move, the employee's pay entitlements under the former pay system in the new geographic area must be determined before performing the pay conversion. B. Conversion to the General Schedule System NNSA implementing policies will provide procedures for converting an employee's pay band and pay rate to a GS-equivalent grade and rate of pay if the employee moves out of the demonstration project to a GS position. The converted GS-equivalent grade and rate of pay will be determined before any geographic move, promotion, or other simultaneous action that occurs simultaneously with conversion back to the GS system. The new employing organization must use the converted GS-equivalent grade and rate of pay in applying various pay administration rules that govern how pay is set in the GS position (e.g., rules for promotion and highest previous rate under 5 CFR part 531, subpart B, and pay retention under 5 CFR part 536). The converted GS grade and rate of pay are deemed to have been in effect at the time the employee left the demonstration project pay banding system. The rules for determining the converted GS grade for pay administration purposes do not apply to the determination of an employee's GS-equivalent grade for other purposes, such as reduction-in-force or adverse action. NNSA will perform the computations for employees who remain within NNSA and DOE. NNSA may perform the computations, as a courtesy, for employees who move to other Federal agencies. At a minimum, NNSA will provide a copy of the conversion procedures to gaining Federal agencies for their use. If an employee moves out of the demonstration project to a non-GS system, the employee's pay will be set under the pay-setting rules governing that system. VI. Project Duration The initial implementation period for the demonstration project will be 5 years. However, with OPM's concurrence, the project may be extended for additional testing or terminated before the expiration of the 5-year period. VII. Project Modification Demonstration projects require modification from time to time as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. NNSA may modify and adjust over time features and elements of this project plan. NNSA will coordinate such modifications with OPM and gain its approval prior to implementing the modification. Depending on the nature and extent of the modification, OPM may require that the modification be published as a notice in the **Federal Register** . VIII. Project Evaluation Chapter 47 of title 5, United States Code, requires an evaluation of the results of the demonstration project. NNSA, in coordination with OPM, will develop a plan to evaluate the demonstration project to determine the extent to which the pay increases paid to participating employees reflect meaningful distinctions among their levels of performance and the extent to which the project is achieving its other stated goals. Workforce data will be analyzed to make this assessment and to determine whether the project is resulting in any adverse impact on particular groups of employees. Key indicators, including leadership commitment, communication, stakeholder involvement, training, planning, mission alignment, and the rewarding of performance, will be assessed to ensure compliance with stated project goals. To evaluate and assess this project, NNSA intends to use a new approach developed by OPM and piloted during OPM's 2007 assessments of the Department of Defense's and Department of Homeland Security's Alternative Personnel Systems (APSs). This new approach is entitled the “Alternative Personnel Systems Objectives-Based Assessment Framework.” Because demonstration projects are APSs, this Framework will be applicable. The Assessment Framework is an evaluation structure for determining the extent to which an agency is adequately preparing for and progressing on the goals and objectives of its APS. It describes assessment components, dimensions, elements, and indicators that may be adapted to address the project's specific requirements. The Framework complements the approach used in previous demonstration projects where the evaluation assessed both the implementation and impact of specific interventions and determined whether these interventions were effective and likely to be beneficial Governmentwide. It uses a standard approach that assesses project implementation and the extent to which personnel system changes are meeting their intended objectives. The Assessment Framework allows stakeholders, including OPM, to draw conclusions about the success of the project. It includes a set of qualitative and quantitative standards which, based on past experience in both the public and private sectors, and input from key stakeholders in both OPM and other agencies, are essential to successfully implementing significant human capital reforms. There are two major components to the Framework: Preparedness and Progress. The Preparedness component assesses an agency's readiness to implement a demonstration project. The Progress component assesses the extent to which the agency has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, the project's goals and objectives. Each of the components includes five dimensions or key attributes. The dimensions of the Preparedness component are Leadership Commitment, Open Communication, Training, Stakeholder Involvement, and Implementation Planning. Agencies that provide adequate emphasis and effort in the Preparedness dimensions are well positioned to successfully implement a demonstration project or other APS. The dimensions of the Progress component are Mission Alignment, Results-Oriented Performance Culture, Workforce Quality, Equitable Treatment, and Implementation Plan Execution. Agencies that demonstrate Progress in achieving these broad goals are successfully implementing their APS. The following table depicts the Assessment Framework, including the dimensions (key attributes of the Preparedness and Progress components) and elements (specific features that define dimensions) for each component. APS Objectives-Based Assessment Framework Dimension Element Preparedness LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT: Agency leaders are actively engaged in promoting and gaining workforce acceptance of the program, as well as prioritizing program implementation. Agency leaders provide appropriate resources for program implementation and are held accountable for effective execution Engagement—The extent and sufficiency of senior leader efforts to promote, provide information about, and gain widespread acceptance of the APS across an agency workforce via leadership outreach and communication programs. Accountability—Agency leaders identify APS implementation as an agency priority, and are responsible for playing an active role in the design, development and/or implementation of the APS. Resources—Agency leaders ensure an agency has established an appropriate organizational framework with sufficient resources and authorities to effectively design, develop, and implement the APS. Governance—Agency leaders ensure a clear governance process is established for the APS program, including an effective mechanism for resolving conflicts and finalizing decisions, and this governance process is being used to address disagreements regarding APS design, development, and implementation issues. OPEN COMMUNICATION: Agency provides accurate, up-to-date information on system features and implementation plans. Active outreach efforts are undertaken to provide information to employees and to address questions and concerns. Effective mechanisms are in place for gathering and considering feedback Information Access—Agencies ensure comprehensive information is available via a website accessible by all employees regarding key APS design features, training materials, rollout schedules, and other APS issues. Outreach—Agencies conduct regular outreach sessions such as town meetings, webinars, electronic newsletters and other information channels that provide employees with up-to-date information on APS status and issues. Feedback—Agencies provide employees with an accessible mechanism for providing feedback on APS features and issues, and establish practical procedures for considering this feedback. TRAINING: Agency developers and executes a comprehensive training strategy for effective training on relevant components of the program to users via a range of delivery methods Planning—An agency establishes a comprehensive training strategy that addresses the full range of APS components, tools, and roles. Delivery—An agency implements the training strategy to ensure all staff receive training appropriate for their role in the APS, with special emphasis on ensuring supervisors acquire the performance management competencies required to administer the APS effectively. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT: Stakeholders are actively involved in the program design and evaluation process and play a supportive role in the implementation of the program Inclusion—Agencies engage a broad spectrum of key stakeholder groups to capture a wide range of perspectives regarding APS design features, and to foster buy-in and support for the APS across these stakeholder groups. IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING: Agency establishes and implements a comprehensive planning process that coordinates activities across key work streams, such as HR business processes and procedures, tools and technology infrastructure, and change management, while providing mechanisms for assessing status and managing risk Work Stream Planning and Coordination—Agencies require an effective planning process that identifies and defines key work streams, highlights critical dependencies, provides for the management and mitigation of risk, and facilitates regular assessments of status against key milestones. HR Business Processes and Procedures—Prior to rolling out an APS, an agency documents the business processes and procedures associated with all APS components, such as staffing, pay pool administration, and performance management. Tools and Technology Infrastructure—Agencies develop appropriate technology tools and infrastructure to enable administering the APS. Structured Approach—Agencies develop a comprehensive change management strategy that addresses managing the mechanisms for people side of change. Progress MISSION ALIGNMENT: The program effectively links individual, team, and unit performance to organizational goals and desired results Line of Sight—The degree to which employee performance expectations are linked to agency mission. Accountability—Identifies not only whether or not the linkage is present in performance plans, but also whether or not employees are actually accountable for achieving them. RESULTS-ORIENTED PERFORMANCE CULTURE: The program promotes a high performance workforce by differentiating between high and low performers and rewarding employees on the basis of performance while effectively managing payroll costs Differentiating Performance—The extent to which performance ratings cover a full distribution of likely levels, versus clustering at the higher end of the scale. Pay for Performance—The relationship between pay raises and awards/bonuses and performance rating levels. Cost Management—The extent to which reliable cost estimates are associated with decisions and the extent to which decision makers are accountable for cost management. WORKFORCE QUALITY: Agency retains its high performers, keeps employees satisfied and committed, attracts high-quality new hires, and transitions its low performers out of the organization Recruitment—The extent to which the agency can improve its ability to recruit employees with the appropriate skills, based on the perceptions of supervisory employees. Flexibility—The agency's Progress in providing supervisors with the personnel flexibility needed to re-deploy their staff, and the extent to which this flexibility is used. Retention—The ability of an agency to use the tools provided by the APS to increase the rewards to high performers, thereby helping assure that they remain with the agency, and to provide appropriately lower rewards to lower performers such that they either improve their performance or decide to leave the agency. Satisfaction and Commitment—Based on the premise that an agency's mission performance is increased when its workforce is both committed and satisfied. EQUITABLE TREATMENT: The program promotes an environment of fairness and trust for employees, consistent with the Merit System Principles and free of Prohibited Personnel Practices Fairness—The objective is to measure the impact of the APS on the perceived fairness of agency-related practices. Transparency—This element will assess whether pay for performance processes and procedures are available and understood by stakeholders. Trust—The literature and historical data suggest that employee trust is essential to success not only of the APS, but also an agency's overall effectiveness. This element will assess the impact of the APS on the level of trust employees have for their supervisors. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN EXECUTION: Agency demonstrates Progress in implementing the program in accordance with its comprehensive planning process Work Stream Planning and Status—This element will assess the execution of the implementation process in accordance with the planning process, with attention to key work streams, critical dependencies, management and mitigation of risk, and regular assessment of status. Performance Management System Execution—This element will provide an assessment of the extent to which the performance management components of the APS are being as intended. Employee Support for APS—While not definitive as to the overall effectiveness of the APS, employee support is a strong indicator of implementation Progress and will be assessed. In addition to dimensions and elements, NNSA's final Evaluation Plan, to be approved by OPM, will stipulate the indicators (characteristics used to measure or assess the agency's performance against the elements), the assessment criteria (standards by which the individual indicators are judged), and planned data sources to be used to evaluate the project. Assessment criteria will be used to assess indicators; indicators will be used to assess elements, and elements will be used to assess dimensions. An example of indicators, assessment criteria, and data sources is included in the table below: Progress Dimension Element Indicator Assessment criteria Data sources Results-Oriented Performance Culture Pay for Performance Extent to which pay/bonuses are linked to performance (e.g., mean pay increases and bonuses by performance level/band) Following program implementation, there is a high association between performance ratings and salary increases (allowing for pay band limits) Following program implementation, there is a high association between performance ratings and bonuses Payout matrices, salaries, bonuses, and performance ratings from workforce data. Perception of association between performance rating and financial reward Continuing improvement over baseline/prior year's work Employee Survey. Awards/pay raises in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. The evaluation process will be conducted in two main phases over a 5-year period—formative and summative evaluation. The formative evaluation phase will include baseline data collection (i.e., collecting “current state” measures prior to the implementation of the project) and analyses, implementation and progress evaluation, and interim assessments. The formal reports and interim assessments will provide information on the project implementation and operation, as well as current information on the impact of the project on veterans and EEO groups, Merit System Principles, and Prohibited Personnel Practices. The summative evaluation will focus on an overall assessment of the demonstration project outcomes after five years. The final report will provide information on how well the interventions achieved the desired goals and will provide recommendations on broader Federal Government application. The project will be examined during each phase of the evaluation to assess that costs are being managed effectively. Moreover, cost discipline will be examined during each phase of the evaluation to ensure spending remains within acceptable limits. The evaluation will also address the extent to which the project has incorporated the elements required by section 1126 of Public Law 108-136 (5 U.S.C. 4701 note) for pay-for-performance systems in demonstration projects:

(1)Adherence to merit principles set forth in section 2301 of title 5;

(2)a fair, credible, and transparent employee performance appraisal system;

(3)a link between elements of the pay-for-performance system, the employee performance appraisal system, and the agency's strategic plan;

(4)a means for ensuring employee involvement in the implementation and operation of the pay-for-performance system;

(5)adequate training and retraining for supervisors, managers, and employees in the implementation and operation of the pay-for-performance system;

(6)a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback and dialogue between supervisors, managers, and employees throughout the appraisal period, and setting timetables for review;

(7)effective safeguards to ensure that the management of the system is fair and equitable and based on employee performance; and

(8)a means of ensuring that adequate agency resources are allocated for the design, implementation, and administration of the pay-for-performance system. IX. Costs A. Buy-in Costs There will be added costs resulting from the within-grade increase “buy-in” provision described in section V; however, those costs will be offset to some degree by the elimination of within-grade step increases that otherwise would have occurred. B. Recurring Costs All funding will be provided through the organization's budget. No additional funding will be requested specifically for this project; all costs will be charged to available funds through existing appropriations, including those incurred in the areas of project development, training, and project evaluation. X. Waiver of Laws and Regulations Required A. Title 5, United States Code *Chapter 35, section 3594:* Saved pay for former members of the Senior Executive Service (only to the extent necessary to

(1)bar employees with a rating of record lower than Fully Meets Expectations from receiving saved rate increases under 5 U.S.C. 3594(c)(2);

(2)provide a saved rate that is less than the maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement) of the upper range extension for an employee who receives a rating of record of Significantly Exceeds Expectations will be terminated and converted to an equal adjusted rate;

(3)provide the range maximum rate used to compute saved rate adjustments is the normal range maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement); and

(4)provide when a frozen saved rate for an employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations falls below the applicable adjusted rate for the normal band maximum, the saved rate will be terminated and the employee's pay will be set at an adjusted rate equal to the saved rate). *Chapter 51:* Classification (except that

(1)sections 5111 and 5112 are retained with “grade” replaced by “pay bands” and

(2)for the purpose of applying any other laws, regulations, or policies that refer to GS employees or to chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, the modified classification system established under this plan must be considered to be a GS classification system under chapter 51; this includes, but is not limited to, the reference to the General Schedule in section 5545(d) (relating to hazard pay)). *Chapter 53, section 5302(1)A,

(8)and (9):* Definitions (only to the extent necessary to provide that employees under the demonstration project are not considered to be GS employees for the purposes of annual adjustments under section 5303 or similar provisions of law governing annual adjustments for employees covered by section 5303). *Chapter 53, section 5303:* Annual adjustments to pay schedules. *Chapter 53, section 5304:* Locality-based comparability payments (only to the extent necessary to

(1)provide a locality rate that may not exceed the rate for EX-IV plus 5 percent for employees in the upper range extension;

(2)apply an “effective” locality pay percentage for employees in the upper range extension under circumstances described in the plan); and

(3)allow a frozen locality pay percentage for employees with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations, as provided in the plan *Chapter 53, section 5305:* Special pay authority. *Chapter 53, sections 5331-5336:* General Schedule pay rates (except that, for purposes of applying any other laws, regulations, or policies that refer to GS employees or to subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States, Code, the modified pay system established under this plan must be considered to be a GS pay system established under such subchapter III; this includes, but is not limited to, references to the General Schedule in section 5304 (relating to locality pay), section 5545(d) (relating to hazard pay), and sections 5753-5754 (dealing with recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives)). *Chapter 53, section 5362:* Grade retention. *Chapter 53, section 5363:* Pay retention (only to the extent necessary to

(1)replace “grade” with “band;”

(2)bar employees with a rating of record lower than Fully Meets Expectations from receiving retained rate increases under 5 U.S.C. 5363(b)(2)(B);

(3)provide that pay retention provisions do not apply to conversions into the demonstration project from the General Schedule or other pay system, as long as the employee's total pay rate is not reduced;

(4)provide the pay (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement) of an employee in the upper range extension who is rated below Significantly Exceeds Expectations will be converted to a retained rate before processing any other actions;

(5)provide a retained rate that is less than the maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement) of the upper range extension for an employee who receives a rating of record of Significantly Exceeds Expectations will be terminated and converted to an equal adjusted rate;

(6)provide the range maximum rate used to compute retained rate adjustments is the normal range maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement);

(7)provide a retained rate under the enhanced pay retention provisions in section III.A.10. will be increased by 100 percent of the dollar amount of any increase in the normal maximum rate of the employee's band during the two-year period beginning on the date the employee's retained rate is established; and

(8)provide when a retained rate for an employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations falls below the applicable adjusted rate for the normal band maximum, the retained rate will be terminated and the employee's pay will be set at an adjusted rate equal to the retained rate) *Chapter 55, section 5542(a):* Overtime rates (only to the extent necessary to provide that the GS-10 minimum special rate (if any) for the special rate category that would otherwise apply to an employee (but for the existence of the demonstration project) is deemed to be the “applicable special rate of pay” in determining the overtime hourly rate cap) *Chapter 55, section 5547:* Limitation on premium pay (only to the extent necessary to provide that an applicable staffing supplement is added to the GS-15, step 10, rate in lieu of the applicable locality payment) *Chapter 75, section 7512(34):* Adverse actions (only to the extent necessary to replace “grade” with “band”) *Chapter 75, section 7512(4):* Adverse actions (only to the extent necessary to provide that adverse action provisions do not apply to conversions into the demonstration project from the General Schedule or other pay system, as long as the employee's total rate of pay is not reduced) Note: If any of the provisions of title 5, United States Code, listed above are amended during the period this demonstration project is in effect, NNSA may choose to terminate the waiver of one or more such provisions with respect to employees participating in the project, without formally modifying the project itself. NNSA must notify OPM when any such waiver is terminated. B. Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations *Part 210, subpart A, section 210.102(b)(12):* Reassignment (only to the extent necessary to modify the definition of reassignment to include the movement of an NNSA demonstration project employee from one position to another position with a pay adjustment). *Part 300, subpart F, section 300.604:* Restrictions (only to the extent necessary to restrict advancement to a higher pay band to candidates who have completed a minimum of 52 weeks in positions no more than one pay band lower than the position to be filled) *Part 330, subpart B, section 330.201:* Establishment and maintenance of Reemployment Priority List

(RPL)(only to the extent necessary to establish and maintain a reemployment priority list exclusively for NNSA competitive service demonstration project employees) *Part 351, subpart D, section 351.402:* Competitive area (only to the extent necessary to permit the use of career paths in conjunction with organizational units and geographic locations when establishing competitive areas) *Part 351, subpart D, section 351.403:* Competitive level (only to the extent necessary to substitute “same pay band” for “same grade”) *Part 351, subpart G, section 351.701:* Assignment involving displacement (only to the extent necessary to substitute “one pay band” for “three grades” and “two pay bands” for “five grades”) *Part 359, subpart G, section 359.705:* Pay (only to the extent necessary to

(1)bar employees with a rating of record lower than Fully Meets Expectations from receiving a saved rate increase under 5 CFR 359.705(d)(1);

(3)provide the range maximum rate used to compute saved rate adjustments is the normal range maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement); and

(4)provide when a saved rate for an employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations falls below the applicable adjusted rate for the normal band maximum, the saved rate will be terminated and the employee's pay will be set at an adjusted rate equal to the saved rate) *Part 430, subpart B, section 430.203:* Definitions (only to the extent necessary to allow an additional rating of record to support a pay decision under section III.C.3 or 4 of this project plan) *Part 511, subpart B:* Coverage of the General Schedule *Part 530, subpart C:* Special Rate Schedules for Recruitment and Retention *Part 531, subpart B:* Determining Rate of Basic Pay *Part 531, subpart D:* Within-Grade Increases *Part 531, subpart E:* Quality Step Increases *Part 531, section 531.604:* Determining an employee's locality rate (only to the extent necessary to

(1)allow a frozen locality pay percentage for employees with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations, as provided in the plan; and

(2)apply an “effective” locality pay percentage for employees in the upper range extension under circumstances described in the plan) *Part 531, section 531.606:* Maximum limits on locality rates (only to the extent necessary to provide a locality rate may not exceed the rate for EX-IV plus 5 percent for employees in the upper range extension). *Part 536, subpart B:* Grade Retention *Part 536, subpart C:* Pay Retention (only to the extent necessary to

(1)replace “grade” with “band;”

(2)bar employees with a rating of record lower than Fully Meets Expectations from receiving retained rate increases under 5 CFR 536.305;

(4)provide that a retained rate may not exceed the rate for EX-IV plus 5 percent;

(5)provide the pay (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement) of an employee in the upper range extension who is rated below Significantly Exceeds Expectations will be converted to a retained rate before processing any other actions;

(6)provide a retained rate that is less than the maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement) of the upper range extension for an employee who receives a rating of record of Significantly Exceeds Expectations will be terminated and converted to an equal adjusted rate;

(7)provide the range maximum rate used to compute retained rate adjustments is the normal range maximum rate (including any locality adjustment or staffing supplement);

(8)provide a retained rate under the enhanced pay retention provisions in section III.A.10. will be increased by 100 percent of the dollar amount of any increase in the normal maximum rate of the employee's band during the two-year period beginning on the date the employee's retained rate is established; and

(9)provide when a retained rate for an employee with a rating of record below Fully Meets Expectations falls below the applicable adjusted rate for the normal band maximum, the retained rate will be terminated and the employee's pay will be set at an adjusted rate equal to the retained rate). *Part 550, sections 550.106-107:* Biweekly and annual maximum earnings limitation (only to the extent necessary to provide that an applicable staffing supplement is added to the GS-15, step 10, rate in lieu of the applicable locality payment. *Part 550, section 550.113(a):* Computation of overtime pay (only to the extent necessary to provide that the GS-10 minimum special rate (if any) for the special rate category that would otherwise apply to an employee (but for the existence of the demonstration project) is deemed to be the “applicable special rate of pay” in determining the overtime hourly rate cap). *Part 550, section 550.703:* Definitions (to the extent necessary to modify paragraph (c)(4) of the definition of “reasonable offer” by replacing “two grade or pay levels” with “one pay band level” and “grade or pay level“ with “pay band level”). *Part 752, section 752.401(a)(3):* Adverse actions (only to the extent necessary to replace “grade” with “band”). *Part 752, section 752.401(a)(4):* Adverse actions (only to the extent necessary to provide that adverse action provisions do not apply to conversions into the demonstration project from the General Schedule or other pay system, as long as the employee's total rate of pay is not reduced. Note: If any of the provisions of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, listed above are revised during the period this demonstration project is in effect, NNSA may choose to terminate the waiver of one or more such provisions with respect to employees participating in the project, without formally modifying the project itself. NNSA must notify OPM when any such waiver is terminated. [FR Doc. 07-6144 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 41

Traces to 41 documents

U.S. Code