Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; extension of comment period

10,810 words·~49 min read·/register/2008/01/08/08-17

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

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 61 and 69 [WC Docket No. 07-135; DA 07-5082] Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the date for filing reply comments from December 31, 2007, to January 16, 2008, to provide parties additional time to evaluate the extensive comments received and prepare their replies.

DATES: Reply comments are due on or before January 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file reply comments on or before January 16, 2008. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 07-135. Comments may be filed using:

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

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

(3)by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Slotten, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,

(202)418-1572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WC Docket No. 07-135, adopted on December 20, 2007, and released on December 20, 2007. The complete text of this Order is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at

(202)418-0531, TTY

(202)418-7365, or at *fcc504@fcc.gov.* The complete text of the decision may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, TTY

(202)488-5562, or e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Synopsis of Order 1. Reply comments are currently due on December 31, 2007, 72 FR 64179 (Nov. 15, 2007). We find that providing an additional sixteen days to file reply comments in this proceeding will facilitate the development of a more accurate and complete record. We note that it is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. Given the complexity of the issues that are raised, the large number of comments that were filed, and the intervening holidays, however, we find that good cause exists to provide all parties an extension of time from December 31, 2007 to January 16, 2008 for filing reply comments in this proceeding. 2. *Accordingly, it is ordered* that, pursuant to §§ 4(i), 4(j), and 5(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), and §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291, 1.46, reply comments in this matter shall be filed on or before January 16, 2008. 3. *It is further ordered* that the motions of FUTUREPHONE.COM, LLC., the National Telephone Cooperative Association and the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, and CTIA—the Wireless Association for Extension of Time are granted, as set forth herein. Federal Communications Commission. Dana R. Shaffer, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-117 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 192 [Docket No. PHMSA—2005—21305, Notice 2] RIN 2137-AE26 Pipeline Safety: Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Plastic Pipe Design Pressures AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to revise the Federal pipeline safety regulations to allow certain thermoplastic pipelines made from new Polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe to be designed using a higher design factor and to raise the design pressure limit for the same pipelines. Design pressure calculations and design pressure limitations for all other thermoplastic pipes (PE-polyethylene, PB-polybutylene, PVC-polyvinyl chloride, etc.) would remain unchanged. These rule changes would allow pipeline operators to operate certain pipelines constructed of new PA-11 pipe at higher operating pressures than currently allowed by the existing rules. This would allow pipeline operators to take advantage of the strength characteristics of PA-11 pipe. DATES: Anyone interested in filing written comments on this proposal must do so by February 7, 2008. PHMSA will consider late comments filed so far as practical. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2005-21305 and may be submitted in the following ways: • *E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov.* This site allows the public to enter comments on any **Federal Register** notice issued by any agency. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* DOT Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2005-21305, at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Sanders at

(405)954-7214, or by e-mail at *Richard.Sanders@dot.gov;* or Wayne Lemoi at

(404)832-1160, or by e-mail at *Wayne.Lemoi@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Theoretical Maximum Design Pressure for Plastic Pipe Plastic pipe is used to transport various products in both pressure and non-pressure applications. In pressure service, such as the transport of water or natural gas, the theoretical maximum internal design pressure for plastic pipes is independent of the product being transported. That is, the theoretical maximum design pressure of a plastic pipe is a function of

(1)the pipe's physical dimensions and

(2)the long-term hydrostatic strength

(LTHS)of the pipe material. The physical dimensions used to calculate the design pressure of a plastic pipe are its outside diameter and wall thickness. In practice these physical dimensions are often expressed by a standard dimension ratio (SDR), which is the ratio of a pipe's average specified outside diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness of the pipe. For a given pipe diameter, the higher the SDR the thinner the pipe wall. Typical SDRs are specified in industry standards developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The LTHS used to calculate the design pressure of a plastic pipe is usually represented in pipe design formulas by an assigned value known as the hydrostatic design basis (HDB). The HDB is a reflection of a plastic pipe's ability to resist internal pressure over long periods of time. The Hydrostatic Stress Board of the Plastics Pipe Institute

(PPI)assigns an HDB to a plastic pipe material based on testing of the material using the industry accepted test methods published by ASTM International. The HDB for various plastic pipes can be found in the PPI Technical Report, TR-4, *Recommended Hydrostatic Strengths and Design Stresses for Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings Compounds* (see *http://plasticpipe.org/publications/technical_reports.html* ). Allowable Design Pressure for Plastic Pipe For safety reasons, plastic pipe in any service is not allowed to operate up to its theoretical maximum internal design pressure. That is, the theoretical maximum design pressure for plastic pipe in service is reduced by a safety factor to calculate an allowable design pressure, which is the pressure at which a pipe can safely operate. Safety factors, commonly referred to as design factors, are generally built into plastic pipe design pressure formulas to account for unknowns in the pipeline operations and environment. For example, plastic pipes used in water service may use a design factor of 0.50, which reduces the allowable design pressure to 50 percent of the theoretical maximum design pressure. For transporting natural gas, the Federal pipeline safety regulations set the design factor at a more conservative 0.32 due to the increased hazards associated with transporting natural gas as compared to water. This design factor limits a plastic pipe's allowable design pressure to 32 percent of its theoretical maximum design pressure. This proposed rulemaking would increase the design factor for plastic pipe in natural gas service to 0.40 (40 percent) for certain PA-11 pipe. Design Pressure Limitations for Plastic Pipe in Natural Gas Service For plastic pipe used to transport natural gas, the allowable design pressure is limited by the Federal pipeline safety regulations in two ways. First, as explained above, the plastic pipe design pressure formula in § 192.121 contains a built-in limitation of 0.32, which limits the allowable design pressure to 32 percent of the theoretical maximum design pressure. Second, the allowable design pressure calculated using the design formula in § 192.121 cannot exceed the design pressure limitations in § 192.123. For plastic pipes produced before July 14, 2004, the design pressure cannot exceed 100 pounds per square inch gauge

(psig)(689 kilopascal (kPa)) for pipelines in distribution systems and in class 3 or 4 locations. For PE 2406 and PE 3408 polyethylene thermoplastic pipe produced after July 14, 2004, the allowable design pressure cannot exceed 125 psig (862 kPa) for 12-inch iron pipe size

(IPS)[nominal pipe diameter] or less. This proposed rulemaking would increase the design pressure limit from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for certain PA-11 pipe. Arkema Rulemaking Petitions In October 2004 Arkema, Inc. (Arkema), a manufacturer of PA-11 thermoplastic pipe, submitted two petitions to PHMSA requesting we revise 49 CFR 192.121 and 192.123. The first petition requested an increase in the design factor from 0.32 to 0.40 in § 192.121 for new PA-11 plastic pipes. The second petition requested an increase in the design pressure limit in § 192.123 from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for new 2-inch IPS, PA-11 plastic pipes. These changes would allow new 2-inch IPS, PA-11 pipeline systems to be operated up to an allowable design pressure determined by the increased design factor of 0.40 or 200 psig (1378 kPa), whichever is less. The design factor and design pressure limits for all other plastic pipes would remain unchanged. Arkema asserted in its petition that new PA-11 material will pose less risk to the public at a design factor of 0.40 than older thermoplastic piping materials used with a 0.32 design factor. Arkema also asserted that allowing an increased design pressure will allow gas companies to replace steel pipeline systems with 2-inch plastic pipe operating up to 200 psig (1378 kPa), and avoid the risk of corrosion failure in steel pipes. A detailed technical justification, including performance test results for PA-11 pipe and a discussion of its history and use, is provided in the petitions. This information may be read in docket PHMSA-2005-21305. Public Comments On June 22, 2005, PHMSA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 36093) seeking comments on the Arkema petitions. We received comments from two operators of PA-11 trial systems, one local gas distribution company, the Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC), the American Gas Association (AGA), the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), two plastic pipe fitting manufacturers and a plastics pipe consultant. All commenters supported the Arkema petitions. The ICC recommended that PHMSA consider requiring additional protection to prevent third-party damage to higher pressure natural gas lines and suggested adding a warning tape or other technology to protect these lines during digging. As a result of the public comments and recommendations made by PHMSA's staff, Arkema submitted two amended petitions to PHMSA on April 6, 2006. No public comments have been received for or against Arkema's amended petitions, which are discussed in detail below. Arkema Amended Rulemaking Petitions On April 6, 2006, Arkema submitted two amended petitions to PHMSA to replace the original petitions of October 2004. The new petitions addressed the public comments received by PHMSA and recommendations made by PHMSA's staff. In the first amended petition, Arkema requested an increase in the design factor in § 192.121 from 0.32 to 0.40 for new PA-11 pipe of all pipe diameters with two conditions. First, the minimum wall thickness for pipe of a given diameter must be SDR-11 or thicker. Second, the rapid crack propagation

(RCP)characteristics of each new pipe diameter or thicker wall for an already tested diameter must be measured using accepted industry standard test methods. Arkema subsequently notes that since its original petition, industry test methods, including RCP testing, now have been completed to qualify new 4-inch pipe, which had not been tested at the time of the original petition. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to update the regulation to allow the revised design factor for new PA-11 up to 4-inch diameter pipe and appurtenances. Arkema's second amended petition requested a revision to § 192.123 to allow the use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum allowable operating pressure of up to 200 psig (1378 KPa) for SDR-11 pipe at diameters of up to 4-inch IPS. This request is based on the availability of complete PA-11 piping systems, results from a three-year research program by the Gas Technology Institute

(GTI)and the successful testing of exhumed samples from field installations of PA-11. Therefore, PHMSA is proposing to allow the use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum of 200 psig (1378 kPa). Arkema also supported the ICC recommendation to require warning tape and included proposed draft rule language in its amended petition to address this issue. Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Plastic Piping Research and Evaluation The GTI sponsored laboratory and field research on PA-11 pipe and piping systems beginning in the late 1990s. The research was accomplished by Nicor Technologies (Nicor). Final reports on this laboratory and field research are in the docket for this rulemaking. In 1997, Nicor began with laboratory research on the physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of PA-11 pipe materials. Nicor used comprehensive laboratory testing and evaluation protocols to examine PA-11 pipe materials from three individual production samples and concluded that overall “the results of the comprehensive short term and long term testing * * * indicate that PA-11 pipe is a suitable plastic alternative to steel systems operating at higher pressure and under exposure to high temperatures for a short period of time.” Nicor followed up the laboratory research on the properties of PA-11 pipe materials with additional laboratory and field research on the economic feasibility of using PA-11 gas distribution piping systems at higher operating pressures and temperatures than currently permitted for plastic materials. Nicor performed laboratory tests on numerous PA-11 fittings and appurtenances. This was followed by the field testing of a PA-11 trial piping system installed at a Nicor private test site in Illinois, where Nicor installed approximately 400 feet of PA-11 pipe using three different installation techniques: Plowing, directional boring and open trenching. Nicor concluded that the “results of the trial installation of PA-11 piping system have successfully demonstrated that PA-11 piping systems can be safely and effectively installed at higher operating pressures.” Nicor used the results of the research on the PA-11 trial system to petition the ICC and PHMSA for a waiver to install and operate a PA-11 pipeline system at pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) in Woodstock, Illinois. The ICC and PHMSA approved the waiver. The pipeline was installed in December 1999. This has allowed GTI and Nicor to continue the research on PA-11 piping systems. This final phase allowed the researchers to evaluate the effects of high operating pressures (150 psig), moisture, aging and other factors on an actual operating natural gas pipeline system. The study concluded, “PA-11 has met or exceeded all of the provisions contained within ASTM D2513-99 [American Society of Testing Materials, *Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings* , D2513-99] Appendix XI for the use of new materials in underground natural gas distribution application[s].” To continue and expand the research on PA-11, GTI solicited several utilities to participate in field trials across the United States. The utilities sought and received both Federal and State waivers to allow some of the PA-11 trial systems to be designed using a 0.40 design factor in the plastic pipe design formula in § 192.121 and to operate at pressures above the plastic pipe design limitations in § 192.123. The PA-11 trial systems were installed from December 1999 to November 2004 in Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah in various geographic, climatic and operating temperature and pressure environments. Three of the trial systems were designed using a design factor of 0.40. One system was designed using an HDB of 1600 psig at a temperature of 140° F. All the trial systems operate between 60 psig (413 kPa) and 200 psig (1378 kPa) with half operating above 175 psig (1206 kPa). The GTI final report on this research, *Utility Participation in PA-11 Evaluation Project, March 2005* , is in the docket for this rulemaking. The Proposed Rule Proposed Regulations PHMSA is proposing to change the design pressure limits in §§ 192.121 and 192.123 for certain PA-11 pipes. The changes would allow new 4-inch IPS or less, SDR-11, PA-11 pipelines to be designed using a design factor of 0.40 (in lieu of 0.32) in the plastic pipe design formulas in § 192.121. The design pressure limit in § 192.123 would be raised from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for new 4-inch IPS or less, SDR-11, PA-11 plastic pipe used in distribution system pipelines and in pipelines in class 3 and 4 locations. This would allow design pressures up to the design pressure calculated in § 192.121 but not greater than 200 psig (1378 kPa). All other design pressure limitations would remain unchanged. Basis for Increasing the Design Factor for PA-11 Plastic Pipe When 49 CFR Part 192 was first promulgated in 1970 there were multiple design factors for plastic pipe based on the class location in which the pipeline was installed. They ranged from 0.20 in class 4 locations to 0.32 in class 1 locations. In 1977, the Materials Transportation Board

(MTB)[now PHMSA] proposed a single design factor within the range of 0.32 to 0.50 to be used in the plastic pipe design formula in § 192.121 (see 42 FR 8386). This single factor would allow operators to use the same pipe for identical design pressures throughout their systems, thus saving the cost of keeping various pipes and matching components in inventory for different class locations. At the time of that proposal, some commenters, including the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) suggested that a design factor of 0.40 be adopted, based on its many years of satisfactory use prior to adoption of the more conservative factor in § 192.121. Other commenters favored a single design factor equal to 0.50. This view was stated for several reasons, but it was based primarily on the fact that plastic pipe did not have a history of pressure failures. After considering the several arguments favoring either 0.40 or 0.50, a 0.32 design factor was adopted. The more conservative increment was chosen to protect against unforeseeable events and has remained in effect since May 1978. The 0.32 design factor was accepted as a conservative value based on the state of plastic pipe technology in 1978. Advances in plastic pipe technology coupled with the extensive laboratory and field research on PA-11 by Nicor under the sponsorship of the GTI, provide sufficient evidence that the design factor can be increased to 0.40 for certain PA-11 pipes without compromising safety. This evidence includes the history of the PA-11 trial systems, which have been operating safely for several years at increased operating pressures. Moreover, increasing the design factor may allow PA-11 pipe to be used in lieu of steel pipe in some locations, thereby reducing corrosion, a primary factor in pipeline failures. Basis for Increasing the Design Pressure Limit for PA-11 Plastic Pipe When 49 CFR Part 192 was first promulgated in 1970 the design pressure limit for plastic pipe used in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations was set at 100 psig (689 kPa), which was the design pressure limit in ANSI B31.8 Standard, *Gas Transmission Distribution and Piping Systems.* The design pressure was raised in 2004 for PE 2406 and 3408 thermoplastic pipe because of new developments in polyethylene materials and better technology for detecting the rate of crack growth, i.e., slow crack growth. When PHMSA was considering the pressure limit increase for PE 2406 and PE 3408 thermoplastic pipes, eleven of the commenters on the proposed new rule agreed the proposed increase in the design pressure limit was warranted. AGA, for example, noted that modern polyethylene pipe was already being reliably operated at pressures greater than 100 psig (689 kPa) under waivers granted by State pipeline safety regulators. AGA further contended that the reliability of newer polyethylene pipe was supported by laboratory and field analysis of the long-term hydrostatic strength of the polyethylene materials. Bay State and Northern Natural Gas, two natural gas distribution system operators, suggested that the design pressure limit be established per International Organization for Standardization

(ISO)standards, which allow any design pressure permitted by the measured HDB. UGI Utilities suggested an even higher maximum allowable pressure. However, because there was insufficient data to conclude that pipelines operating at such pressures would operate safely, PHMSA concluded that prescribing a maximum pressure higher than 125 psig was unsupported at that time. The design pressure limit for existing pipe and new pipes other than PE 2406 and PE 3408, such as PA-11, remains at 100 psig (689 kPa). As explained above, the design pressure of thermoplastic pipe is a function of the physical dimensions and HDB of the pipe. Therefore, for plastic pipes of the same physical dimensions, or SDR, the calculated design pressure is directly proportional to the HDB. PA-11 has an HDB twice that of PE 2406. Therefore, the design pressure of PA-11 calculated using the plastic pipe design formula in § 192.121 is twice the design pressure of PE 2406. For SDR-11 pipe, the calculated design pressure of PA-11 is 160 psig, while the design pressure of PE 2406 is 80 psig. With the current design pressure limit of 100 psig in § 192.123 for distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations, however, PA-11 is limited to a design pressure of only 4 percent of its HDB while the PE 2406 can operate up to 6.4 percent of its HDB. If PE 2406 can safely operate at 6.4 percent of its HDB, 80 psig, then it stands to reason that PA-11 should also be allowed to operate at 6.4 percent of its HDB, 160 psig, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. Existing regulations allow certain sizes of PE 2406 pipes to operate up to 125 psig (10 percent of HDB) in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations. For example, a PE 2406, SDR-7 pipeline with a calculated design pressure of 133 psig could operate up to 125 psig (10 percent of HDB), but a PA-11, SDR-7 pipeline would be limited to 100 psig (4 percent of HDB) in the exact same application. If the design limits were applied equally based on the long-term pressure carrying capability of each pipe, the PA-11, SDR-7 pipeline would be allowed to operate up to 250 psig (10 percent of HDB). The proposed regulation would only allow pipelines constructed from 4-inch IPS or less, PA-11, SDR-11 pipe to be operated up to 200 psig (8 percent of HDB). This requires two actions. First, the design factor in § 192.121 would have to be raised to 0.40, as explained above, so the calculated design pressure will equal 200 psig (1378 kPa). Second, the design pressure limit in § 192.123 would have to be raised to 200 psig (1378 kPa) to allow PA-11 pipelines to operate at 200 psig (1378 kPa) in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations. PHMSA believes these changes would not be inconsistent with pipeline safety because the HDB of PA-11 is twice that of PE 2406. Moreover, the extensive laboratory and field research, coupled with the successful field trial systems, validate that PA-11 pipelines can safely operate up to 200 psig (1378 kPa). Regulatory Analyses and Notices Privacy Act Statement Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's

(DOT)complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures This proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rulemaking is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Installing PA-11 is not mandated; it is optional. PHMSA believes operators may choose to install PA-11 pipe, rather than some other type of pipe, only if it is the most cost-effective alternative available. Consequently, PHMSA anticipates that the benefits of this proposal will equal or exceed its costs. Any gas transmission operators with (or installing) pipelines in class 3 or 4 locations could potentially be affected by the proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, all gas distribution operators could potentially be affected by the proposed rule. In total, PHMSA estimates that the proposed rule could potentially affect 900 gas transmission operators and 1,450 gas distribution system operators. The draft economic evaluation is available for review and comment in the docket. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), PHMSA must consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA estimates that the proposed rulemaking could potentially affect as many as 479 transmission system operators that are small entities, as well as 1,131 gas distribution systems that are small entities. The proposed rule mandates no action by gas pipeline operators. Rather, it provides operators with an option to use PA-11 pipe in certain pipeline systems based on economic, operations or other considerations. Consequently, the proposal imposes no economic burden on these potentially affected gas pipeline operators. PHMSA concludes this proposed rulemaking would not have a significant negative economic impact on any small entity. Executive Order 13175 PHMSA has analyzed this rulemaking according to Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Because the proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposal does not impose any new information collection requirements. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rulemaking. National Environmental Policy Act PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and preliminarily determined the proposed rulemaking may provide minor beneficial impacts on the quality of the human environment due primarily to a potential reduction in corrosion leaks if PA-11 pipe is used to replace steel pipe. The draft environmental assessment is available for review and comment in the docket. PHMSA will make a final determination on environmental impact after reviewing the comments on this proposal. Executive Order 13132 PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking according to Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). The proposal does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed rulemaking does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This proposed regulation would not preempt state law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Executive Order 13211 Transporting gas impacts the nation's available energy supply. However, this proposed rulemaking is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not identified this proposal as a significant energy action. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192 Gas, Natural gas, Pipelines, Pipeline safety. For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 192 as follows: PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, 60116, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53. 2. Revise § 192.121 to read as follows: § 192.121 Design of plastic pipe. Subject to the limitations of § 192.123, the design pressure for plastic pipe is determined by either of the following formulas: P = 2 S t

(DF)/ (D−t) P = 2S

(DF)/ (SDR−1) Where: P = Design pressure, gauge, psig (kPa). S = For thermoplastic pipe, the HDB is determined in accordance with the listed specification at a temperature equal to 73° F (23° C), 100° F (38° C), 120° F (49° C), or 140° F (60° C). In the absence of an HDB established at the specified temperature, the HDB of a higher temperature may be used in determining a design pressure rating at the specified temperature by arithmetic interpolation using the procedure in Part D.2 of PPI TR-3/2004, *HDB/PDB/SDB/MRS Policies* (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7). For reinforced thermosetting plastic pipe, 11,000 psig (75,842 kPa). t = Specified wall thickness, inches (mm). D = Specified outside diameter, inches (mm). SDR = Standard dimension ratio, the ratio of the average specified outside diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness, corresponding to a value from a common numbering system that was derived from the American National Standards Institute preferred number series 10. D F = 0.32, or = 0.40 for nominal pipe size

(IPS)4 or less, SDR-11, polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced after February 7, 2008 only. 3. Amend § 192.123 to revise paragraph

(a)introductory text and to add a new paragraph

(f)to read as follows: § 192.123 Design limitations for plastic pipe.

(a)Except as provided in paragraph

(e)and paragraph

(f)of this section, the design pressure may not exceed a gauge pressure of 100 psig (689 kPa) for plastic pipe used in:

(f)The design pressure for polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced after February 7, 2008 may exceed a gauge pressure of 100 psig (689 kPa) provided that:

(1)The design pressure does not exceed 200 psig (1378 kPa);

(2)The pipe size is nominal pipe size

(IPS)4-inch or less;

(3)The pipe has a standard dimension ratio of SDR-11 only; and

(4)Pipes with design pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) shall be buried with a warning tape or other device sufficient to warn an excavator of the presence of a high pressure gas line near the tape or other device before reaching the burial depth of the pipeline. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2007. Jeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. E8-33 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R8-ES-2007-0022; 1111 FY07 MO; ABC Code: B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition To list the pygmy rabbit ( *Brachylagus idahoensis* ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this species, which was also requested in the petition, if and when we initiate a listing action. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on January 8, 2008. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, data, comments, and information must be submitted to us on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2007-0022; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office by mail (see ADDRESSES ), by telephone (775-861-6300), or by facsimile (775-861-6301). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Information Solicited When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the pygmy rabbit. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties. We are opening a 60-day comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the pygmy rabbit throughout its range, including:

(1)Information regarding the species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;

(2)information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4

(a)of the Act, which are:

(a)present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;

(b)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (in relation to the pygmy rabbit, this includes hunting and research);

(c)disease or predation;

(d)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; or

(3)information on management programs for the conservation of the pygmy rabbit. Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. Please note that we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section in our final determination. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on *http://www.regulations.gov.* 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. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502-7147; telephone 775-861-6300. Background For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the pygmy rabbit, please refer to the “Species Information” section in our previous 90-day finding published in the **Federal Register** on May 20, 2005 (70 FR 29253). Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. On April 21, 2003, we received a formal petition, dated April 1, 2003, from the Committee for the High Desert, Western Watersheds Project, American Lands Alliance, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, and Mr. Craig Criddle, requesting that the pygmy rabbit found in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming be listed as threatened or endangered in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The petition also requested that we designate critical habitat concurrently with listing, if listing occurs. The petition, which was clearly identified as such, contained information on the natural history, biology, and distribution of the pygmy rabbit. It also contained information on what the petitioners reported as potential threats to the species, including but not limited to, habitat loss due to agricultural practices, sagebrush conversion, livestock grazing, fire, mining, energy development, and recreation; hunting; research practices; disease; predation; intra- and inter-specific competition; natural stochastic events such as floods and drought; mortality caused by collisions with off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and automobiles; and life history traits. The petition also discussed existing regulatory mechanisms and their perceived inadequacies. In response to the petitioner's requests, we sent a letter to the petitioners dated June 10, 2003, explaining that we would not be able to address their petition until fiscal year 2004. Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2003. On May 3, 2004, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue, and on September 1, 2004, we received a complaint regarding our failure to carry out the 90-day and 12-month findings on the status of the pygmy rabbit. On March 2, 2005, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to submit to the **Federal Register** a completed 90-day finding by May 16, 2005, and to complete, if applicable, a 12-month finding by February 15, 2006 ( *Western Watersheds Project et al.* v. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* (CV-04-0440-N-BLW) (D. Idaho). On May 20, 2005, we published a 90-day finding in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 29253) stating that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. On March 28, 2006, we received a complaint regarding alleged violations of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act with regard to our May 20, 2005, 90-day finding ( *Western Watersheds Project et al.* v. *Gale Norton and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* (CV 06-CV-00127-S-EJL) (D. Idaho)). On September 26, 2007, the court issued a judgment and memorandum order stating that the Service improperly imposed a higher standard than required for a 90-day petition finding when we reviewed the petition, and therefore found the Service's denial of the petition was contrary to the applicable law. More specifically, the court found that the Service inappropriately disputed the accuracy and the reliability of the information offered in the petition as to habitat and population loss without providing a rationale based on more accurate evidence of the species' range and reduction of population or habitat. The ruling states, and the Service agrees, that what is required at this stage of the listing process is a review of the petition for a determination of whether or not it presents substantial information indicating to a reasonable person that the petitioned action may be warranted. This standard is in contrast to the “best scientific and commercial data” standard applied to actually listing a species. The court's order remanded our May 20, 2005, 90-day finding and required the Service to issue a new 90-day finding on or before December 26, 2007. This notice constitutes our new 90-day finding to comply with the September 26, 2007, court ruling. This finding does not address our prior listing of the Columbia Basin distinct population segment

(DPS)of the pygmy rabbit. On November 30, 2001, we published an emergency listing and concurrent proposed rule to list this DPS of the pygmy rabbit as endangered (66 FR 59734 and 66 FR 59769, respectively). We listed the Columbia Basin DPS of the pygmy rabbit as endangered in our final rule dated March 5, 2003 (68 FR 10388). Finding Based on our reconsideration of the information provided in the petition, we find that it presents substantial scientific information that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific and commercial information” threshold (as mentioned above). Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species. If we determine that listing the pygmy rabbit is warranted, we intend to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: December 17, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-25017 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 5 Tuesday, January 8, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Cane Sugar and Beet Sugar Marketing Allotments and Company Allocations, 2006-Crop Final and 2007-Crop Initial; Domestic Sugar Program AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)is issuing this notice to publish the final 2006-crop cane state allotments and company allocations to sugarcane and sugar beet processors for the period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007 (fiscal year

(FY)2007). This notice also publishes the 2007-crop (FY 2008) cane state allotments and company allocations based on an 8.450 million short tons, raw value

(STRV)overall allotment quantity

(OAQ)of domestic sugar. This applies to all domestic sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250-0516; telephone

(202)720-4146; FAX

(202)690-1480; e-mail: *barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As part of the domestic sugar program, for sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States, CCC is required to make determinations establishing, adjusting, or suspending sugar marketing allotments. The Secretary is required to establish, by the beginning of each crop year, an appropriate allotment for the marketing by processors of sugar processed from sugar beets and from domestically produced cane sugar at a level the Secretary estimates will result in no forfeitures of sugar to the CCC under the loan program 1 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)). The Secretary is also required to publish the determinations in the **Federal Register** along with the reasons for the determinations (7 U.S.C. 1359hh). 1 The sugar loan program provides loans to processors of domestically grown sugarcane and sugar beets (authorized by 7 U.S.C. 7272). CCC announced the Final FY 2007 and initial FY 2008 allotments and allocations in a September 27, 2007, news release. This notice provides the final allotments and allocations for FY 2007 and the initial allotments and allocations for FY 2008. Final FY 2007 State Allotments and Company Allocations The Secretary is required to reassign the remainder of the allocation to imports if the Secretary determines that processors will be unable to market their allocations after other reassignments and sales from CCC inventory have occurred (7 U.S.C. 1359ee(b)(1)(D)). In a July 31, 2007, news release, CCC announced the determination of a FY 2007 domestic cane sugar supply shortfall of 79,000 STRV and reassigned this deficit to imports. State allotments and company allocations were adjusted downward to reflect the ability of each company and each state to market its allocation and allotment. The final 2006-crop (FY 2007) beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table: FY 2007 Overall Beet Sugar and Cane Sugar Allotments and Allocations Distribution FY 2007 allotments or allocations as of 5/25/07 Changes due to reassignments Final FY 2007 allotments or allocations Beet Sugar 4,755,625 0 4,755,625 Cane Sugar 3,619,375 −79,000 3,540,375 Reassignment to Imports 375,000 79,000 454,000 Total OAQ 8,750,000 0 8,750,000 Sugar Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co 990,810 0 990,810 American Crystal Sugar Co 1,828,960 0 1,828,960 Michigan Sugar Co 477,920 0 477,920 Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op 296,690 0 296,690 So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op 624,582 0 624,582 Western Sugar Co 473,221 0 473,221 Wyoming Sugar Co 63,441 0 63,441 Total Beet Sugar 4,755,625 0 4,755,625 State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida 1,732,769 −17,282 1,715,487 Louisiana 1,423,167 −21,916 1,401,251 Texas 198,965 −18,347 180,618 Hawaii 264,474 −21,455 243,019 Total Cane Sugar 3,619,375 −79,000 3,540,375 Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations: Florida: Florida Crystals 673,033 −3,081 669,952 Growers Co-op. of FL 323,322 8 323,330 U.S. Sugar Corp 736,414 −14,209 722,205 Total 1,732,769 −17,282 1,715,487 Louisiana: Alma Plantation 128,232 −1,976 126,256 Cajun Sugar Co-op 119,059 1,448 120,507 Cora-Texas Mfg. Co 168,731 −2,600 166,131 Lafourche Sugars Corp 92,794 3,457 96,251 Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op 99,818 −1,567 98,251 Lula Westfield, LLC 206,718 −7,347 199,371 M.A. Patout & Sons 426,889 −6,579 420,310 St. Mary Sugar Co-op 126,000 −5,905 120,095 So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op 54,927 −847 54,080 Total 1,423,167 −21,916 1,401,251 Texas: Rio Grande Valley 198,965 −18,347 180,618 Hawaii: Gay & Robinson, Inc 53,811 0 53,811 Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company 210,663 −21,455 189,208 Total 264,474 −21,455 243,019 Initial FY 2008 State Allotments and Company Allocations When CCC announced an 8.450 million ton STRV OAQ in an August 10, 2007, news release, it distributed 54.35 percent of the FY 2008 OAQ (4,592,575 STRV) to the beet sugar allotment. At that time, however, CCC determined that the cane sugar sector would be unable to fill 70,000 STRV of its allotment and withheld this amount for reassignment to imports. Consequently, of the 45.65 percent of the OAQ statutorily allotted to the cane sugar sector (3,857,425 STRV), only 3,787,425 STRV was allotted to cane sugar states for allocation to sugarcane processors. Cane sugar state allotments and processor allocations were announced by CCC in a September 27, 2007 news release. Reasons for the Determinations for the Initial FY 2008 Allotments and Allocations To establish sugar beet processor allocations, CCC applies the sugar beet sector's allotment to fixed company allocation shares. Likewise, cane sugar state and cane sugar processor allocations are calculated by applying fixed shares to the cane sugar allotment. Allocation shares will change only if CCC determines that a processor cannot fulfill its sugar allocation and reassigns the unused allocation to other processors or if a grower successfully transfers allocation commensurate with his production history to another processor. CCC determined that South Louisiana Sugars Cooperative, Inc., a Louisiana sugarcane processor, was closed and accepted grower petitions to transfer allocation elsewhere. Permanent allocation transfers in Louisiana could not be made by the September 30, 2007, announcement deadline for FY 2008 allocations, but will be forthcoming. CCC is required to limit the amount of sugarcane acreage that may be harvested in Louisiana for sugar or seed whenever marketing allotments are in effect and the quantity of sugarcane estimated to be produced in Louisiana, plus a reasonable carryover, exceeds the marketing allotment allocation for Louisiana. This limitation is referred to as a “proportionate share,” and is applied to each farm's sugarcane acreage base to determine the quantity of sugarcane that may be harvested on that farm. Because production is expected to be inadequate to fill Louisiana's FY 2008 allotment, CCC determined that there will be no proportionate share restrictions for the 2007 crop year. In FY 2004, CCC determined that Puerto Rico's processors permanently terminated operations because no sugar had been processed for two complete years. Since Puerto Rico is entitled to an allocation by law, its allocation of 6,356 STRV is reassigned to the mainland cane sugar-producing states. Hawaii did not receive any of Puerto Rico's reassignment because it is not expected to use all of its current cane sugar allotment. A request for an allocation as a new entrant will be required for any mills in Puerto Rico to market cane sugar in the future. The established 2007-crop (FY 2008) sugar beet and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table: FY 2008 Overall Beet Sugar and Cane Sugar Allotments and Allocations Distribution Initial FY 2008 allotments or allocations Changes due to reassignments Adjusted initial FY 2008 allotments or allocations Beet Sugar 4,592,575 0 4,592,575 Cane Sugar 3,857,425 −70,000 3,787,425 Reassignment to Imports 0 70,000 70,000 Total OAQ 8,450,000 0 8,450,000 Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co 956,839 0 956,839 American Crystal Sugar Co 1,766,076 0 1,766,076 Michigan Sugar Co 461,535 0 461,535 Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op 286,518 0 286,518 So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op 603,168 0 603,168 Western Sugar Co 457,172 0 457,172 Wyoming Sugar Co 61,266 0 61,266 Total Beet Sugar 4,592,575 0 4,592,575 State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida 1,902,014 −81,411 1,820,603 Louisiana 1,471,422 2,155 1,473,577 Texas 165,345 32,755 198,100 Hawaii 318,644 −23,499 295,145 Total Cane Sugar 3,857,425 −70,000 3,787,425 Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations: Florida: Florida Crystals 783,109 −45,673 737,436 Growers Co-op. of FL 342,144 −12,101 330,043 U.S. Sugar Corp 776,761 −23,636 753,124 Total 1,902,014 −81,411 1,820,603 Louisiana: Alma Plantation 123,219 14,061 137,280 Cajun Sugar Co-op 148,785 −26,285 122,500 Cora-Texas Mfg. Co 153,514 36,367 189,881 Lafourche Sugars Corp 80,143 29,574 109,717 Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op 113,143 −14,018 99,124 Lula Westfield, LLC 173,759 57,850 231,608 M.A. Patout & Sons 413,376 33,590 446,966 St. Mary Sugar Co-op 149,867 −13,367 136,500 So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op 115,617 −115,617 0 Total 1,471,422 2,155 1,473,577 Texas: Rio Grande Valley 165,345 32,755 198,100 Hawaii: Gay & Robinson, Inc 73,145 −1,718 71,428 Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company 245,499 −21,781 223,718 Total 318,644 −23,499 295,145 Signed in Washington, DC, on January 2, 2008. Glen L. Keppy, Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-35 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection; Transfer of Farm Records Between Counties AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)is seeking comments from interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with transferring of farm records from one administrative county office to another. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before March 10, 2008 to be assured consideration. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Farm Service Agency, USDA, Attn: Alison Groenwoldt, Agricultural Program Specialist, Common Provisions Branch, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. Comments should also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments also may be submitted by e-mail to: *alison.groenwoldt@wdc.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison Groenwoldt, Agricultural Program Specialist,

(202)720-4213 and *alison.groenwoldt@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description of Information Collection *Title:* Transfer of Farm Records Between Counties. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0253. *Type of Request:* Extension with no revision. *Abstract:* Farm owners or operators may elect to transfer farm records between counties when the principal dwelling of the farm operator has changed, a change has occurred in the operation of the land, or a change that would cause the receiving administrative county office to be more accessible such as a new highway and relocation of the county office building site. The transfer of farm records is also required when an FSA county office closes. FSA County Committees from both the transferring and receiving county must approve or disapprove all proposed farm transfers. In some cases, the State Committee and/or the National Office must also approve or disapprove proposed farm transfers. *Estimate of Burden:* Average 10 minutes per response. *Type of Respondents:* Owners and operators. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 25,000. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 2,500 hours. *Comment is invited on:*

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

(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 from those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget Approval. Signed at Washington, DC, on January 2, 2008. Glen L. Keyyp, Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-34 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, OR; Westside Rangeland Analysis AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement to authorize livestock grazing within the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area on the Wallowa Valley Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. DATES: Written comments concerning the proposed action should be received by February 11, 2008. Send written comments and suggestions to Wallowa Valley District Ranger, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 88401 Highway 82, Box A, Enterprise, OR 97828. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Glassford, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Wallowa Mountains Office, 88401 Hwy 82, Box A, Enterprise, OR, Phone:

(541)426-5689. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need The purpose of and need for this action is to allocate forage for commercial livestock grazing. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allows for livestock forage production where forage is in excess to basic plant and soil needs, wildlife needs, and where other specific resource conditions are to be achieved or maintained. While livestock grazing has been ongoing for many years in the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area, this grazing has been addressed through annual operating instructions which have not been subjected to a National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)analysis process. Thus, the NEPA process for this group of allotments is being initiated. Proposed Action The Westside Rangeland Analysis Area (63,507 acres) is located approximately 20 miles north of Enterprise, Oregon and is the portion of National Forest System lands within the Wallowa Valley Ranger District generally located west of State Highway 3. The proposal will result in Allotment Management Plans for the six allotments within the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area: Buck Creek Allotment, Day Ridge Allotment, Mud Creek Allotment, North Powwatka Allotment, South Powwatka Allotment, and Tope Creek Allotment. Specific elements of the Proposed Action are as follows: Authorize a total of 1579 head-months of livestock grazing on the 22,718-acre Buck Creek Allotment between June 1 and October 31. Authorize a total of 100 head-months of livestock grazing on the 2,765-acre Day Ridge Allotment between May 15 and June 15. Authorize a total of 3,528 head-months of livestock grazing on the 11,032-acre Mud Creek Allotment between May 15 and September 15. Authorize a total of 774 head-months of livestock grazing on the 8074-acre North Powwatka Allotment between April 15 and November 15. Authorize a total of 1171 head-months of livestock grazing on the 11,455-acre South Powwatka Allotment between June 1 and October 31. Authorize a total of 429 head-months of livestock grazing on the 7,463-acre Tope Creek Allotment between June 1 and September 30. Responsible Official The Wallowa Valley District Ranger, Barbara C. Van Alstine, will be the responsible official for making the decision and providing direction for the analysis. Nature of Decision To Be Made The responsible official will decide whether or not to authorize commercial livestock grazing within the Westside Rangeland Area. The responsible official will also decide whether or not to select the proposed action as stated or modified, or to select an alternative to it, any mitigation measures needed and any monitoring that may be required. Scoping Process This notice of intent begins the scoping process in the development of the environmental impact statement. Public participation is especially important at several points during the development of the EIS. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and coordination with the Federal, State, and local agencies and tribal governments and individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The public is asked to provide the responsible official with written comments describing their concerns about this project. The most useful comments to developing or refining the proposed action would be site specific concerns and those that pertain to authorizing livestock grazing within the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area that meets the Purpose of and Need for Action. See DATES above for the mailing address for written comments. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)and to be available to the public for review by May 2008. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the **Federal Register** . The comment period on the draft EIS will extend 45 days from the date the EPA notice appears in the **Federal Register** . At that time, copies of the draft EIS will be distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and members of the public for their review and comment. It is very important that those interested in the management of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest participate at that time. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in September 2008. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision regarding authorization of livestock grazing. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Substantive comments are defined as “comments within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, and have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider (36 CFR 215.2). Submission of substantive comments is a prerequisite for eligibility to appeal under the 36 CFR part 215 regulations. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages* , *Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: December 20, 2007. Barbara C. Van Alstine, Wallowa Valley District Ranger. [FR Doc. 08-17 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code