Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule with request for comments

13,478 words·~61 min read·/register/2008/01/17/08-113

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 12 Thursday, January 17, 2008 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 532 RIN 3206-AL45 Prevailing Rate Systems; North American Industry Classification System Based Federal Wage System Wage Area AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a proposed rule that would update the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes currently used in Federal Wage System wage survey industry regulations with the 2007 NAICS revisions published by the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES: We must receive comments on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Charles D. Grimes III, Deputy Associate Director for Performance and Pay Systems, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200; e-mail *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov* ; or FAX:

(202)606-4264. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez,

(202)606-2838; e-mail *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov* ; or FAX:

(202)606-4264. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 2006, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)issued a final rule (71 FR 35373) which replaced all Standard Industrial Classification codes in the Federal Wage System

(FWS)with the most closely corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OPM's current regulations use 2002 NAICS codes. OMB has now published the NAICS revisions for 2007, which result in certain changes in industry coverage for FWS wage surveys. The following sections of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, list the industries included in the FWS wage surveys by 2002 NAICS codes: Section 532.213—Industries included in regular appropriated fund wage surveys. Section 532.221—Industries included in regular nonappropriated fund surveys. Section 532.267—Special wage schedules for aircraft, electronic, and optical instrument overhaul and repair positions in Puerto Rico. Section 532.279—Special wage schedules for printing positions. Section 532.285—Special wage schedules for supervisors of negotiated rate Bureau of Reclamation employees. Section 532.313—Private sector industries. OPM has reviewed these regulations in light of OMB's NAICS revisions for 2007 and is proposing to add NAICS code 334515 (Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical signals) to the list of required NAICS codes in section 532.267 and three of the specialized industries (Electronics, Guided missiles, and Sighting and fire control equipment) in section 532.313 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. None of the other sections are affected by 2007 changes in NAICS codes. OPM is also proposing to replace the year “2002” with “2007” in the table titles of all applicable sections. In addition, OPM is proposing to delete NAICS code 81299 (All other personal services) from the list of required NAICS codes in the artillery and combat vehicle specialized industry. NAICS code 81299 comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing personal services, such as astrology services, concierge services, dating services, and party planning services. This NAICS code was previously included by error. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, recommended by consensus that we adopt these changes. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would affect only Federal agencies and employees. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows: PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. § 532.213 [Amended] 2. In § 532.213, amend the table headings in both columns by replacing the year “2002” with “2007.” § 532.221 [Amended] 3. In § 532.221, amend the table headings in both columns by replacing the year “2002” with “2007.” § 532.267 [Amended] 4. In § 532.267(c)(1), amend the table headings in both columns by replacing the year “2002” with “2007” and insert NAICS code “334515” in the first column in numerical order and “Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical signals” in the second column. § 532.285 [Amended] 5. In § 532.285(c)(1), amend the table headings in both columns by replacing the year “2002” with “2007.” § 532.313 [Amended] 6. In § 532.313(a), amend the table as follows: a. Replace the year “2002” with “2007” in the table headings in both columns; b. Add NAICS code “334515” in the first column in numerical order and “Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical signals” in the second column to the list of required NAICS codes for the Electronics Specialized Industry, Guided Missiles Specialized Industry, and Sighting and Fire Control Equipment Specialized Industry; and c. Remove NAICS code “81299” in the first column and “All other personal services” in the second column from the list of required NAICS codes for the Artillery and Combat Vehicle Specialized Industry. [FR Doc. E8-657 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 [Docket No. PRM-20-27] George Barnet; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-20-27) dated July 11, 2007, submitted by George Barnet (petitioner). The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations that govern standards for protection against radiation to broaden the scope of the requirements pertaining to approval of proposed disposal methods to include recovery of material for recycling. The NRC is denying the petition because the issues raised by the petitioner fall within the scope of the rationale for a recent Commission decision to not conduct rulemaking in the area of setting radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid materials. The rationale for the Commission decision was that the current NRC approach for disposition of solid materials is fully protective of public health and safety, and that NRC is currently faced with several high priority and complex tasks. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Cardile, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-6185 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642, or e-mail: *fpc@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Petition On July 11, 2007, the NRC received a petition for rulemaking submitted by George Barnet (petitioner). The petitioner requested that NRC revise its regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Specifically, the petitioner requested that 10 CFR 20.2002, “Method for obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures” be amended by broadening its scope to allow for the recycling of materials. The NRC determined that the petition met the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The petition was docketed by the NRC as PRM-20-27 on July 25, 2007. The petitioner states that the current provisions at § 20.2002 are adequate for licensing waste disposal methods that can be demonstrated to be safe to the public. However, the petitioner states that § 20.2002 does not provide for a similar method to demonstrate that materials can be recycled after being decontaminated. The petitioner states that it is environmentally unsound to not allow for reasonable and safe recycling options for recoverable materials. In support of the petition, the petitioner notes that equipment and materials are routinely decontaminated and monitored for reuse for unlicensed applications under license-specific monitoring requirements for surface decontamination. The petitioner states that because no specific regulation currently exists to permit these license-specific recycling and reuse activities, most unwanted potentially contaminated lead is buried as waste. The petitioner also notes that the most economical method for licensees to get rid of unwanted lead is to send it to a licensed mixed waste processor for macro-encapsulation, and then dispose of it at a licensed mixed waste site. The petitioner states that this is both environmentally and economically unsound because the potentially contaminated lead is a valuable resource that is not being conserved or recovered under NRC's current regulations. The petitioner states that the company at which he is a Radiological Safety Officer, the Toxco Materials Management Center (TMMC), has developed a more economical and environmentally sound method for the processing of potentially contaminated lead that has been in contact with radioactive materials. The petitioner explains that this method separates contaminated materials into the lead oxide layer of slag that forms on top of the melted lead. The slag is only a very minor percentage of the total quantity of lead processed and can be macro-encapsulated and disposed of as mixed waste. The petitioner states that the remaining lead exhibits little or no detectable radioactivity. The petitioner also explains that TMMC developed volumetric clearance criteria to show that no person who came in contact with the decontaminated lead would exceed the 1 mrem/year limit in its Agreement State license with the Tennessee Division of Radiological Health (TDRH). The petitioner states that these criteria and their bases were submitted to TDRH as part of a license amendment request to permit decontaminated lead to be recycled as cleared materials exempt from licensing requirements. The petitioner further states that TDRH requested that TMMC refer the request to the NRC based on “a lack of regulatory precedent at the [Federal] level for recycling of metals.” II. Reasons for Denial NRC is denying this petition because the issues raised by the petitioner's request fall within the scope of the rationale for a recent Commission decision to not conduct rulemaking in the area of setting radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid materials. The Commission's decision was made in response to a draft proposed rule provided to the Commission by the NRC staff (SECY-05-0054 “Proposed Rule Radiological Criteria for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18)”; March 31, 2005: ADAMS Accession No. ML041550790). In its June 1, 2005, response to that proposed rule (Staff Requirements Memorandum SRM-SECY-05-0054; ADAMS Accession No. 052010263), the Commission indicated that it was disapproving publication of the draft proposed rule and deferring the rulemaking for the time being. The Commission's rationale for its disapproval included the fact that the NRC's current approach to review specific cases on an individual basis is fully protective of public health and safety, and that the NRC is currently faced with several high priority and complex tasks. The petitioner has not provided additional material not considered in a general manner by the Commission in reaching its decision not to pursue rulemaking in this area. Additional background on the NRC staff rulemaking activities and the Commission decision disapproving the rulemaking, and the implication of those actions related to this petition, follows in this section. NRC's current approach to reviewing specific cases is provided in Section 2 of Appendix B of the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), prepared with the rulemaking, and in Section 15.11.1.2 of Volume 1, Revision 2 of NUREG-1757. Agreement State approaches are described in Section 3 of Appendix B of the draft GEIS. Prior to June 1, 2005, the NRC conducted a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR Part 20 to include radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid materials that have no, or very small amounts of, residual radioactivity resulting from licensed operations, and which originate in restricted or impacted areas of NRC licensed facilities. In conducting the rulemaking, NRC noted that its existing regulations contain a framework of radiation standards to ensure protection of public health and safety from the routine use of materials at licensed facilities. These standards include a public dose limit in Part 20 and dose criteria for certain types of media released from licensed facilities. However, the NRC also noted that Part 20 does not contain a specific dose criterion to be used to verify that solid materials being considered for release have no, or very small amounts of, residual radioactivity. Instead, NRC's current approach was (and is) to make decisions on disposition of solid materials by using a set of existing guidelines based primarily on measured radioactivity levels of material, rather than on a dose criterion. In a report (“The Disposition Dilemma; Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities”; National Research Council; 2022) reviewing NRC's current approach, the National Academies indicated that this current NRC approach is “sufficiently protective of health and safety that it does not need immediate revamping.” However, because the current approach does not derive from a specific regulation, NRC decisions in this area tended to be inefficient because they lacked an overall risk basis, consistency, and regulatory finality. Thus, the intent of NRC's rulemaking was to improve NRC's regulatory process by incorporating risk-informed criteria directly into the NRC's regulations. During the rulemaking, NRC engaged in several information-gathering activities to seek stakeholder participation and input on alternate disposition approaches, and the issues involved with them. These activities included several public meetings, as well as the opportunity for the public to comment directly on two **Federal Register** notices, published on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090) and February 28, 2003 (68 FR 9595), containing a discussion of the alternate approaches. In addition, the NRC staff reviewed various related reports prepared by recognized national and international organizations such as the National Academies, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the American National Standards Institute, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. In particular, the National Academies undertook an extensive review of NRC's current approach from the standpoint of whether it is protective of public health and safety, effective and efficient, and adequately able to be implemented using NRC's analysis methodology. The National Academies also looked at how the public had been involved in the rulemaking process. As a result of its review, the National Academies made nine recommendations in its final report, including an overarching finding that, although NRC's decision process for review of the disposition of solid materials has shortcomings, it was workable and sufficiently protective of public health and safety that it did not need immediate revamping. The NRC staff also completed several technical studies to evaluate alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid materials, including preparation of a draft of a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement as part of SECY-05-0054. Based on this effort, on March 31, 2005, the NRC staff provided to the Commission a draft proposed rule contained in SECY-05-0054. The draft proposed rule would have amended 10 CFR Part 20 to include a dose criterion for disposition of solid material and provisions for allowing certain limited disposition paths for solid materials. The proposed draft rule also contained provisions for allowance of other disposition paths, if supported by a case-specific analysis and approval of proposed procedures, including case-specific requests for soil disposition and metal recycle. Solid materials originating at licensed facilities in restricted or impacted areas, and considered as part of the draft proposed rulemaking, included metals in various components and equipment, individual tools, concrete; soils, laboratory materials, process materials, trash, etc. Following submittal of SECY-05-0054, the Commission conducted a review of the provisions of the staff's draft proposed rulemaking including potential alternate approaches, one of which would be to take no action towards issuing a proposed rule in this area. In its review, the Commission also considered the wide range of other activities which NRC is engaged in. These activities include efforts towards increasing security at all licensed facilities, i.e., at both reactors and at the wide range of materials facilities which possess radioactive materials for use in medical applications, research, industrial measurement gauges, etc. Other significant NRC actions include efforts to prepare to review planned applications for new reactors, waste disposal facility considerations, fuel cycle facility management, decommissioning of facilities, etc. In each of these areas, and especially in the area of security and new reactors, there is a need to establish criteria in those areas where none exist now or where they may need updating. The Commission balanced those considerations against the purpose of the rulemaking on disposition of solid materials and decided, on June 1, 2005, to defer the rulemaking for the time being because NRC's current approach in that area was fully protective, and the other high priority and complex tasks were occupying its attention as well as the attention of the whole agency. The petitioner's request essentially fits into the general considerations that the Commission already considered in deciding to defer the rulemaking on disposition of solid materials. The origin and nature of materials similar to those being considered in the petition, as well as considerations regarding their potential intended destinations, were all considered and reviewed as part of the rulemaking process leading to the draft proposed rule in SECY-05-0054 and the Commission decision to defer the rulemaking in June 2005. The petitioner has not presented information or considerations substantially different from those reviewed in the rulemaking process. Therefore, NRC is denying this petition for the same reasons that the Commission, on June 1, 2005, deferred the rulemaking on disposition of solid materials. III. Conclusion The NRC is denying the petition because the issues raised by the petitioner fall within the scope of the rationale for a recent Commission decision to not conduct rulemaking in the area of setting radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid materials. The rationale for the Commission decision was that the current NRC approach for disposition of solid materials is fully protective of public health and safety, and that NRC is currently faced with several high priority and complex tasks. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E8-812 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 502 Definition for Electronic or Electromechanical Facsimile AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment Period. SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) announces the extension of the comment period on the proposed rule concerning the Definition for Electronic or Electromechanical Facsimile. The proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60482). The NIGC is extending the comment period to March 9, 2008. DATES: Submit comments on the proposed Definition for Electronic or Electromechanical Facsimile on or before March 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to “Comments on Electronic or Electromechanical Facsimile Definition,” National Indian Gaming Commission, Suite 9100, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Penny Coleman, Acting General Counsel. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile to 202-632-0045. Comments may be submitted electronically to *facsimile_definition@nigc.gov* . Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal at *www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John R. Hay, Office of General Counsel, at 202-632-7003 (this is not a toll free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701-21) (“IGRA”) to regulate gaming on Indian lands. The NIGC issued a proposed rule revising the definition for electronic or electromechanical facsimile, which was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60482). The proposed rule provided for public comments to be submitted by December 10, 2007. The NIGC extended the comment period to January 24, 2008, in the Notice of Extension of Comment Period, published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64545). The NIGC is again extending the comment period on the Definition for Electronic or Electromechanical Facsimile to March 9, 2008. Comments should be submitted on or before March 9, 2008. Dated: January 11, 2008. Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission. Norman H. DesRosiers, Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission. [FR Doc. E8-760 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Parts 502 and 546 Classification Standards for Bingo, Lotto, Other Games Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as Class II Gaming When Played Through an Electronic Medium Using “Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids” AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment Period. SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) announces the extension of the comment period on the proposed rule concerning Classification Standards for Bingo, Lotto, Other Games Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as Class II Gaming When Played Through an Electronic Medium Using “Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids.” The proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60483). The NIGC is extending the comment period to March 9, 2008. DATES: Submit comments on the proposed Classification Standards for Bingo, Lotto, Other Games Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as Class II Gaming When Played Through an Electronic Medium Using “Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids” on or before March 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to “Comments on Class II Classification Standards,” National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Penny Coleman, Acting General Counsel. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile to 202-632-7066. Comments may be sent electronically to *classification_standards@nigc.gov* . Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal at *www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John R. Hay, Office of General Counsel, at 202-632-7003 (this is not a toll free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701-21) (“IGRA”) to regulate gaming on Indian lands. The NIGC issued a proposed rule regarding classification standards for Bingo, Lotto, other games similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as class II gaming when played through an electronic medium using electronic, computer, or other technologic aids, which was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60483). The proposed rule provided for public comments to be submitted by December 10, 2007. The NIGC extended the comment period to January 24, 2008, in the Notice of Extension of Comment Period, published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64545). The NIGC is again extending the comment period on the proposed Classification Standards for Bingo, Lotto, Other Games Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as Class II Gaming When Played Through an Electronic Medium Using “Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids” to March 9, 2008. Comments should be submitted on or before March 9, 2008. Importantly, the deadline for submitting comments on the burden, estimates or any other aspects of the information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* , remains January 24, 2008, as provided in the notice published in the **Federal Register** on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67251). Dated: January 11, 2008. Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission. Norman H. DesRosiers, Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission. [FR Doc. E8-769 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Parts 542 and 543 Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment Period. SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) announces the extension of the comment period on the proposed rule concerning Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming. The proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60495). The NIGC is extending the comment period to March 9, 2008. DATES: Submit comments on the proposed Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming on or before March 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to “Comments on Class II MICS,” National Indian Gaming Commission, Suite 9100, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Penny Coleman, Acting General Counsel. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile to 202-632-0045. Comments may be submitted electronically to *bingo_mics@nigc.gov* . Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal at *www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe H. Smith, Director of Audits, at 202-632-7003. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701-21) (“IGRA”) to regulate gaming on Indian lands. The NIGC issued a proposed rule regarding minimum internal control standards for class II gaming, which was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60495). The proposed rule provided for public comments to be submitted by December 10, 2007. The NIGC extended the comment period to January 24, 2008, in the Notice of Extension of Comment Period, published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64545). The NIGC is again extending the comment period on the proposed Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming to March 9, 2008. Comments should be submitted on or before March 9, 2008. Dated: January 11, 2008. Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission. Norman H. DesRosiers, Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission. [FR Doc. E8-763 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 547 Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment Period. SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) announces the extension of the comment period on the proposed rule concerning Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games. The proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60508). The NIGC is extending the comment period to March 9, 2008. DATES: Submit comments on the proposed Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games on or before March 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to “Comments on Technical Standards,” National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Michael Gross, Associate General Counsel, General Law. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile to 202-632-7066. Comments may be sent electronically to *technical_standards@nigc.gov* . Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal at *www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gross, Associate General Counsel, General Law, Office of General Counsel, telephone: 202-632-7003 (this is not a toll free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701-21) (“IGRA”) to regulate gaming on Indian lands. The NIGC issued a proposed rule regarding technical standards for electronic, computer, or other technologic aids used in the play of class II games, which was published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60508). The proposed rule provided for public comments to be submitted by December 10, 2007. The NIGC extended the comment period to January 24, 2008, in the Notice of Extension of Comment Period, published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64545). The NIGC is again extending the comment period on the proposed Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games to March 9, 2008. Comments should be submitted on or before March 9, 2008. Importantly, the deadline for submitting comments on the burden, estimates or any other aspects of the information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* , remains January 24, 2008, as provided in the notice published in the **Federal Register** on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67251). Dated: January 11, 2008. Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission. Norman H. DesRosiers, Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission. [FR Doc. E8-768 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0644; FRL-8517-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Revisions to Stage II Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maryland for the purpose of approving revisions and additions to the current Stage II regulations that apply to gasoline dispensing facilities. In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0644 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *fernandez.cristina@epa.gov* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0644, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0644. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti,

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of modifying and clarifying existing regulatory requirements for the control of volatile organic compounds from gasoline dispensing facilities in Allegheny County. In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-1011 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-1011, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-1011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; and the Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti,

(215)814-2174, or by e-mail at *magliocchetti.catherine@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revisions to Stage II Requirements in Allegheny County, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations'' section of this **Federal Register** publication. Dated: January 8, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-595 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1075, FRL-8506-3] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from ambient dust and propellant and rocket testing. We are proposing to approve local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by *February 19, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1075, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions. • *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* • *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rules Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

(415)947-4118, *petersen.alfred@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the approval of KCAPCD Rules 404.1 and 431. In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: November 23, 2007. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8-192 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 73 12 Thursday, January 17, 2008 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development. ACTION: Notice of Significantly Altered System of Records. SUMMARY: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is issuing public notice of its intent to alter its system of records maintained in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, entitled “AID-9—Criminal Law Enforcement Records.” USAID is updating this system to reflect the current administrative status, to add new general routine uses, and to enhance the descriptions of other data elements in order to provide further transparency into USAID's record-keeping practices. DATES: The update to the system of records set forth in this notice will become effective at the end of the comment period, unless comments are received that would require a revision. To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or before February 26, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the methods listed below. Electronic Comments • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments. • *E-mail: Privacy@usaid.gov.* Paper Comments • *Mail:* Chief Privacy Officer, USAID, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2.12-003, Washington, DC 20523 • *Facsimile:*

(703)666-1466. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, please contact: Kimberley Bynum (202-712-4010). For privacy-related issues, please contact: Olivia Gifford (202-712-1150). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USAID is undertaking a review of all its system of records notices to ensure that it maintains complete, accurate, timely, and relevant records. As a result of this effort, USAID is proposing to revise its “Criminal Law Enforcement Records” system of records notice in its entirety due to the number of proposed changes. The Criminal Law Enforcement Records are maintained by the Office of Investigations, Office of Inspector General (OIG), USAID, in the conduct of investigations of illegal, unlawful, or otherwise violative conduct, and inquiries preliminary thereto, undertaken by that office pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. OIG is statutorily directed to conduct and supervise investigations related to the programs and operations of USAID; to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of such programs and operations; and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in such programs and operations. As such, the records in this system are used in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of having committed illegal or unethical acts, and in supporting related criminal prosecutions, civil proceedings, and administrative actions. This notice is being published in connection with USAID/OIG's intent to automate a portion of the Office of Investigations's existing Criminal Law Enforcement Records system, to provide further transparency into USAID's record-keeping practices, and to update public information regarding the routine uses of personally identifiable information within that records system. This update to the system by way of automation will not involve the collection of additional categories of information, but will instead provide possibilities for methods of retrieval previously unavailable. The revisions in this proposal will affect each data element as follows: change system classification; update system locations; clarify categories of individuals in the system; clarify categories of records in the system; clarify the authority for maintenance of the system; insert the purpose of the system of records; add new routine uses; revise policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system; update system manager name and address; insert procedures for notification of, access to, and contesting of records; identify record source categories; and clarify the exemptions claimed for the system. Due to the number of proposed alterations to the record system, USAID proposes to replace the existing AID 9 with the proposed altered system of record notice published in its entirety below. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report concerning this system has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget, and to the requisite congressional committees. Philip M. Heneghan, Chief Privacy Officer. USAID-009 SYSTEM NAME: Criminal Law Enforcement Records System. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU). SYSTEM LOCATION(S): USAID, Office of Inspector General, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20523; USAID, Office of Inspector General, Regional Offices; and investigative site(s) used in the course of OIG investigation(s). CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: In connection with its investigative duties, OIG maintains records in its Criminal Law Enforcement Records System on the following categories of individuals insofar as they are relevant to any investigation or preliminary inquiry undertaken to determine whether to commence an investigation: complainants; witnesses; confidential and non-confidential informants; contractors; subcontractors; recipients of federal assistance or funds and their contractors/subcontractors and employees; individuals threatening USAID employees or the USAID Administrator; current, former, and prospective employees of USAID; alleged violators of USAID rules and regulations; union officials; individuals investigated and/or interviewed; persons suspected of violations of administrative, civil, and/or criminal provisions; grantees; sub-grantees; lessees; licensees; and other persons engaged in official business with USAID. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: The system contains investigative reports and materials gathered or created with regard to investigations of administrative, civil, and criminal matters by OIG and other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign regulatory or law enforcement agencies. Categories of records may include: complaints; requests to investigate; information contained in criminal, civil, or administrative referrals; statements from subjects, targets, and/or witnesses; affidavits, transcripts, police reports, photographs, and/or documents relative to a subject's prior criminal record; medical records, accident reports, materials and intelligence information from other governmental investigatory or law enforcement organizations; information relative to the status of a particular complaint or investigation, including any determination relative to criminal prosecution, civil, or administrative action; general case management documentation; subpoenas and evidence obtained in response to subpoenas; evidence logs; pen registers; correspondence; records of seized property; reports of laboratory examination; reports of investigation; and other data or evidence collected or generated by OIG's Office of Investigations during the course of conducting its official duties. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: The Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended. PURPOSE: The records contained in this system are used by OIG to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to conduct and supervise investigations relating to programs and operations of USAID; to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of such programs and operations; and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in such programs and operations. The records are used in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of having committed illegal or unethical acts, and in conducting related criminal prosecutions, civil proceedings, and administrative actions. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: USAID's routine uses, *see* 42 FR 47371 (September 20, 1977) and 59 FR 52954 (October 20, 1994), apply to this system of records. As additional routine uses for this records system, USAID/OIG may disclose information in this system as follows:

(a)Disclosure to the Department of Justice

(DOJ)or a legal representative designated by a Federal agency in circumstances in which:

(1)USAID or OIG, or any component thereof;

(2)Any employee of USAID or OIG in his or her official capacity;

(3)Any employee of USAID or OIG in his or her individual capacity, where the DOJ has agreed to represent or is considering a request to represent the employee; or

(4)The United States or any of its components is a party to pending or potential litigation or has an interest in such litigation, USAID or OIG will be affected by the litigation, or USAID or OIG determines that the use of such records by the DOJ is relevant and necessary to the litigation; provided, however, that in each case, USAID or OIG determines that disclosure of the records to the DOJ is a use of the information that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.

(b)Disclosure to any source from which additional information is requested in order to obtain information relevant to:

(1)A decision by either USAID or OIG concerning the hiring, assignment, or retention of an individual or other personnel action;

(2)The issuance, renewal, retention, or revocation of a security clearance;

(3)The execution of a security or suitability investigation;

(4)The letting of a contract; or

(5)The issuance, retention, or revocation of a license, grant, award, contract, or other benefit to the extent the information is relevant and necessary to a decision by USAID or OIG on the matter.

(c)Disclosure to a Federal, State, local, foreign, tribal, territorial, or other public authority in response to its request in connection with:

(1)The hiring, assignment, or retention of an individual;

(2)The issuance, renewal, retention, or revocation of a security clearance;

(3)The execution of a security or suitability investigation;

(4)The letting of a contract; or

(5)The issuance, retention, or revocation of a license, grant, award, contract, or other benefit conferred by that entity to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting entity's decision on the matter.

(d)Disclosure in the event that a record, either by itself or in combination with other information, indicates a violation or a potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto; or a violation or potential violation of a contract provision. In these circumstances, the relevant records in the system may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate entity, whether Federal, State, tribal, territorial, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, order, or contract.

(e)Disclosure to any source from which additional information is requested, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to solicit information relevant to any investigation, audit, or evaluation.

(f)Disclosure to a foreign government pursuant to an international treaty, convention, or executive agreement entered into by the United States.

(g)Disclosure to contractors, grantees, consultants, or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for USAID or OIG, who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities. When appropriate, recipients will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 as provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

(h)Disclosure to representatives of the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and other Federal agencies in connection with their efforts to carry out their responsibilities to conduct examinations, investigations, and/or settlement efforts, in connection with administrative grievances, complaints, claims, or appeals filed by an employee, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205-06.

(i)Disclosure to a grand jury agent pursuant to a Federal or State grand jury subpoena or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury.

(j)Disclosure in response to a facially valid subpoena for the record.

(k)Disclosure to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904, 2906.

(l)Disclosure to the Departments of the Treasury and Justice in circumstances in which OIG seeks to obtain, or has in fact obtained, an *ex parte* court order to obtain tax return information from the Internal Revenue Service.

(m)Disclosure to any Federal official charged with the responsibility to conduct qualitative assessment reviews of internal safeguards and management procedures employed in investigative operations for purposes of reporting to the President and Congress on the activities of OIG as contemplated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-296; November 25, 2002). This disclosure category includes other Federal offices of inspectors general and members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and officials and administrative staff within their investigative chain of command, as well as authorized officials of DOJ and its component, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES: Not applicable. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Paper records and all other media (photographs, audio recordings, diskettes, CD's, etc.) are stored in GSA-approved security containers with combination locks in a secured area. Electronic records are password protected and maintained on a file server in locked facilities that are secured at all times by security systems and video surveillance cameras. RETRIEVABILITY: Records are retrieved in a database by name and/or alias, as well as by non-personally identifiable information, such as case number. SAFEGUARDS: Access to paper records is restricted to authorized OIG employees on a need-to-know basis. At all times, paper records are maintained in locked safes in a secured area in offices that are occupied by authorized OIG employees. Access to electronic records is restricted to authorized OIG staff members on a need-to-know basis. Each person granted access to the system must be individually authorized to use the system. Disclosure of records maintained electronically is restricted through the use of passwords. The computer servers in which records are stored are password protected. Passwords are changed on a cyclical basis. The computer servers are located in locked facilities that are secured at all times by security systems and video surveillance cameras. The security systems provide immediate notification of any attempted intrusion to USAID Security personnel. All data exchanged between the servers and individual computers is encrypted. Backup tapes are stored in a locked and controlled room in a secure, off-site location. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records relating to persons covered by this system are retained for two or five years after the investigation is closed. If an investigation does not involve allegations against a senior level USAID employee, is not of congressional interest, or does not yield a reportable result, the records within the closed case file are maintained for a period of two years from the date of closing by OIG. If the investigation yields a reportable result, has congressional interest, or involves allegations against a senior level USAID employee, the records within the closed case file will be retained for five years from the date of closing by OIG. After the applicable period (two or five years), closed investigative files will be sent from USAID, Office of Inspector General, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523, to the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland, where they will be retained for fifteen years, and subsequently destroyed. Any electronic file that qualifies as a record will be printed out and treated as a hard-copy record for disposition purposes. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Kimberley Bynum, (202-712-4010). NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: Records in this system are exempt from notification, access, and amendment procedures in accordance with subsections

(j)and

(k)of 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 22 CFR 215.13 and 215.14. Individuals requesting notification of the existence of records on themselves should send their request to the System Manager (see information above). The request must be in writing and include the requester's full name, his or her current address, his or her date and place of birth, and a return address for transmitting the information. The request shall be signed by either notarized signature or by signature under penalty of perjury. Requesters shall also reasonably specify the record contents being sought. RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES: An individual requesting access to records maintained on himself or herself should address the request to the System Manager as described in “Notification Procedures” above. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: An individual requesting amendment of a record maintained on himself or herself must identify the information to be changed and the corrective action sought. Requests should be addressed to the System Manager as described in “Notification Procedures” above. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: OIG collects information from a wide variety of sources, including information from USAID and other Federal, State, and local agencies, subjects, witnesses, complainants, confidential and/or non-confidential sources, and other nongovernmental entities. SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: Under the specific authority provided by subsection (j)(2) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, USAID has adopted regulations, 22 CFR 215.13 and 215.14, which exempt this system from the notice, access, and amendment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a, except subsections (b); (c)(1) and (2); (e)(4)(A) through (F); (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11); and (i). If the provision found at subsection (j)(2) of 5 U.S.C. 552a is held to be invalid, then, under subsections (k)(1) and

(2)of 5 U.S.C. 552a, this system is determined to be exempt from the provisions of subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and

(f)of 5 U.S.C. 552a. See 57 FR 38276, 38280-81 (August 24, 1992). The reasons for adoption of 22 CFR 215.13 and 215.14 are to protect the materials required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense of foreign policy, to maintain the integrity of the law enforcement process, to ensure the proper functioning and integrity of law enforcement activities, to prevent disclosures of investigative techniques, to maintain the ability to obtain necessary information, to prevent subjects of investigation from frustrating the investigatory process, to avoid premature disclosure of the knowledge of criminal activity and the evidentiary bases of possible enforcement actions, to fulfill commitments made to sources to protect their identities and the confidentiality of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel. [FR Doc. E8-784 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 11, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

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

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

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

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

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* CACFP Improper Payments Data Collection Pilot Project. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), plays an important role in ensuring that children have adequate access to food. The CACFP is authorized under section 17 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) to provide funds for meals and snacks served to children in day care centers, children residing in emergency shelters, and youths participating in eligible after-school care programs. In addition, the CACFP helps improve the quality of day care and makes it more affordable for low-income families by reimbursing family day care homes (FDCHs) for serving nutritious meals and snacks to children participating in these day care facilities. USDA has identified the CACFP as one of its programs “susceptible to significant erroneous payments.” Under the Improper Payment Information Act of 2002 (IPIA; Pub. L. 107-300), the USDA must identify and reduce improper (or erroneous) payments in various food and nutrition programs. Therefore the FNS is conducting a feasibility evaluation of four possible data collection methods for validating the number and type of meals claimed for reimbursement by FDCHs in the CACFP. *Need and Use of the Information:* The data collected to document the number of valid meals served will be compared with data on the number of reimbursable meals claimed by the FDCHs and their sponsors to produce a national estimate of erroneous payments in the CACFP and thus meet the reporting requirements of the IPIA. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 255. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On Occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 70. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-738 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 11, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

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

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

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Research Data Archive Use Tracking System. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* Authorized under 16 U.S.C. 1645(c), Forest Service Research and Development (FS R&D) plans to create a data archive to store and disseminate data collected in the course of its scientific research. This archive will provide a sound balance between meeting obligations to scientific staff and ease-of-access by the public (research community). The information provided by this collection will assist FS R&D personnel in evaluating the research program. *Need and Use of the Information:* Form FS 4000-5, General Data Use Agreement, will be used to collect the information electronically. When a member of the public requests a copy of a data set, FS R&D will collect the name, affiliation, contact information (including e-mail address), Statement of Intended Use and Data Use Agreement. FS archive staff will review the individual Data Use Agreements prior to approving release of the data set to the requestor. The collection of Data Use Agreements will be evaluated by the data archiving program to identify opportunities for improving the archive's function and offerings. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit Institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 100. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Yearly. *Total Burden Hours:* 25. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-739 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. FV-08-376] Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to notify all interested parties that the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)will hold a Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (Committee) meeting that is open to the public. The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)established the Committee to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting. DATES: Thursday, February 7, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday, February 8, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The Committee meeting will be held at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Hatch, Designated Federal Official, USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. Telephone:

(202)690-0182. Facsimile:

(202)720-0016. E-mail: *andrew.hatch@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)(5 U.S.C. App. II), the Secretary of Agriculture established the Committee in August 2001 to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. The Committee was re-chartered in July 2003, June 2005 and again in May 2007 with new members appointed by USDA from industry nominations. AMS Deputy Administrator for Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Robert C. Keeney, serves as the Committee's Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and other government agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry will be called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee Chairperson. AMS is giving notice of the Committee meeting to the public so that they may attend and present their recommendations. Reference the date and address section of this announcement for the time and place of the meeting. Topics of discussion at the advisory committee meeting will include: the Agricultural Marketing Service's role in food safety related activities; the Food and Drug Administration's import food safety plan; fresh produce procurement activities under the National School Lunch Program; Country of Origin Labeling; and agriculture transportation matters. Additional agenda items can be expected. Those parties that would like to speak at the meeting should register on or before January 31, 2008. To register as a speaker, please e-mail your name, affiliation, business address, e-mail address, and phone number to Mr. Andrew Hatch at: *andrew.hatch@usda.gov* or facsimile to

(202)720-0016. Speakers who have registered in advance will be given priority. Groups and individuals may submit comments for the Committee's consideration to the same e-mail address. The meeting will be recorded, and information about obtaining a transcript will be provided at the meeting. The Acting Secretary of Agriculture selected a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. Equal opportunity practices were considered in all appointments to the Committee in accordance with USDA policies. If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, please use either contact name listed above. Dated: January 14, 2008. Lloyd Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service [FR Doc. E8-801 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Spruce Gulch Bark Beetle and Fuels Reduction Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA—Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, notice is hereby given that the Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed Spruce Gulch Bark Beetle and Fuels Reduction project (Spruce Gulch). The Spruce Gulch analysis area encompasses approximately 32,000 acres of National Forest System

(NFS)land, 390 acres of interspersed private land, and 150 acres of State of Wyoming land. The majority of the analysis area is situated within the Ecological Restoration—Forest Products Management Area (MA 5.15). MA 5.15 is managed to maintain or restore healthy ecological conditions through a variety of management activities, including timber harvest, while providing a mix of ecological and human needs. The remaining area is situated within a Wildland—Residential Interface Management Area (MA 7.1). National Forest System

(NFS)lands adjacent to the residential interface areas are managed to minimize risks of catastrophic fires and insect and disease epidemics. Mountain pine beetles ( *Dendroctonus ponderosae* ) are at epidemic levels in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming and are causing significant mortality of lodgepole pine trees. In response to this situation, a Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic Declaration was issued by the Rocky Mountain Regional Office on June 25, 2007. The declaration was based on analysis of aerial survey data and ground survey data sets of forests containing lodgepole pine at risk for mountain pine beetle infestation. The mountain pine beetle epidemic declaration encompasses the Spruce Gulch analysis area in southern Wyoming. Proposed treatments associated with the Spruce Gulch project will focus on salvaging dead and dying timber to promote regeneration of future lodgepole pine stands and reducing hazardous fuel concentrations adjacent to private lands and egress routes. The Forest Supervisor of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests has determined that the Spruce Gulch project is authorized under sections 102(a)(1) (Federal land in wildland-urban interface areas) and 102(a)(4) (insect and disease epidemics) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act

(HFRA)of 2003. HFRA provides for expedited environmental analysis and treatments of lands that are at risk of wildland fire, have experienced windthrow or blowdown or are at risk of insect and disease epidemics. Accordingly, the environmental analysis associated with the Spruce Gulch project will proceed according to section 104 of the HFRA. To move toward the desired future condition, as described in the Medicine Bow Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan 2003), and meet the purpose and need of the project proposal, proposed silvicultural treatments include:

(1)Clearcutting;

(2)commercial thinning;

(3)shelterwood removal;

(4)shelterwood preparatory cut;

(5)shelterwood seed cut;

(6)group selection;

(7)individual tree selection;

(8)sanitation/salvage; and

(9)salvage treatments. Transportation activities associated with the project proposal consist of road construction and road reconstruction. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by February 15, 2008. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be available for public review in April 2008, the Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be available in June 2008, and the Record of Decision is expected to be released in September 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written, oral, or E-mail comments by:

(1)Postal service-Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, ATTN: Melissa Martin, Project Coordinator, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, WY 82070;

(2)telephone-(307) 745-2371;

(3)E-mail- *mmmartin@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Cobb at

(307)245-2338. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The *purpose* of the Spruce Gulch project is to reduce current mountain pine beetle populations in forested stands dominated by lodgepole pine trees, decrease the risk and hazard of catastrophic wildfire in the proximity of private lands and homes, and to reduce the susceptibility of vegetation to catastrophic fire and further mountain pine beetle attacks. The project is *needed* to: • Reduce the threat of future beetle infestations in stands that have a moderate to high beetle risk; • Reduce the risk of high intensity/high severity wildfires within treatment areas by reducing hazardous fuel loadings associated with treatments and beetle killed trees; • Reduce the effects of tree mortality on the overall health, scenic quality, and condition of forested areas; and • Salvage forest products from forested lands classified as being suitable to keep them in production and positively contributing to the Forest's Allowable Sale Quantity. Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the Laramie Ranger District of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests will evaluate a variety of bark beetle related salvage, suppression, and prevention silvicultural treatments and hazardous fuels abatement treatments on approximately 4,500 acres. Current estimates identify 1,859 acres of clearcutting, 146 acres of commercial thinning, 38 acres of overstory removal, and 2,463 acres of adaptive management prescriptions. Adaptive management prescriptions including salvage, sanitation/salvage, shelterwood, group selection, individual tree selection, commercial thinning, and overstory removal. Adaptive management strategies are proposed on these acres because it would be difficult, at this point in time, to determine the exact location, timing, treatment types, and specific amounts of treatment type that would best address the rapidly spreading mountain pine beetle epidemic. The treatments would be located primarily within MAs 5.15 and 7.1, with a small amount of treatments within MA 5.13—Forest Products. Approximately 1,041 of the 4,500 acres identified above fall within MA 7.1—Residential/Forest Interface; these acres would be managed using a combination of silvicultural treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. Management activities would generally occur less than one-half mile, or as identified within specific community wildfire protection plans, from the identified communities and would be subordinate to more restrictive management areas. Appropriate treatment boundaries would be based on site-specific conditions such as topography, vegetation conditions, and fuel loadings. Approximately 0.3 miles of specified road construction, 2.7 miles of temporary road construction, and 8.8 miles of road reconstruction could be required for project implementation. The final assessment of road needs has not been determined, and could be more or less. To accommodate the amount of harvest and road construction, the proposal may include some soil and water projects to mitigate road related problems. Note: Forest-wide Direction contained in the Medicine Bow Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan 2003) generally limits the size of openings created by even-aged management (e.g. clearcuts) to 40 acres (Forest Plan page 1-35). Exceptions are granted, however, in areas that have experienced natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect or disease attacks, or windstorms. The Spruce Gulch Proposed Action currently proposes a clearcut prescription on 49 units (totaling 1,859 acres), 22 of which exceed the 40 acre maximum size limitation. The largest proposed clearcut unit is 138 acres, while the majority of the other units are between 41 and 80 acres. These larger clearcut units primarily fall within MA 5.15 (Ecological Restoration) which allows created openings as large as 250 acres (Forest Plan page 2-63, Vegetation Guideline #2) *Collaboration Process:* As required by Title I, section 104 of the HFRA, the Forest Service engaged in a collaborative process with local stakeholders prior to developing the Proposed Action described above. Members of the collaborative group included, but were not limited to, private landowners within or adjacent to the analysis area boundary, industry representatives, State and local government officials, and members of public interest groups. The collaborators participated in three meetings hosted by the Forest Service during the months of November and December of 2007, and contributions from the group were considered and incorporated in to the final design of the Proposed Action. Responsible Official The responsible official for the Spruce Gulch Bark Beetle and Fuels Reduction project is the Laramie District Ranger of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Spruce Gulch Bark Beetle and Fuels Reduction Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate site-specific management proposals, consider alternatives to the Proposed Action, and analyze the effects of the activities proposed in the alternatives. It will form the basis for the Responsible Official to determine:

(1)Whether or not the Proposed Action and alternatives are responsive to the issues, are consistent with Forest Plan direction, meet the purpose and need, and are consistent with other related laws and regulations directing National Forest Management activities;

(2)whether or not the information in the analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities; and

(3)which actions, if any, to approve. Preliminary Issues The following potential issues and concerns were identified via internal scoping and collaboration efforts:

(1)Beetle spread from NFS lands to adjacent private lands;

(2)cumulative impacts of past and proposed treatments;

(3)intensity of vegetative treatments and slash disposal adjacent to wildland-urban interface areas;

(4)ingress/egress for forest users and property owners; and

(5)management of mapped and inventoried old growth stands. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments that are site-specific in nature are most helpful to resource professionals when trying to narrow and address the public's issue and concerns. Comments on the Spruce Gulch proposal will be accepted until February 15, 2008 as identified previously in this notice of intent. Comments will be reviewed and issues will be identified. Issues that cannot be resolved by design criteria or minor changes to the Proposed Action may generate alternatives to the Proposed Action. This process is driven by comments received from the public, other agencies, and internal Forest Service concerns. To assist in commenting, a scoping letter providing more detail on the project proposal has been prepared and is available to interested parties. Contact Melissa Martin, Project Coordinator, at the address listed in this notice of intent if you would like to receive a copy. Release of Names Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who commented, will be considered part of the public record on this Proposed Action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to object to the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 218. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within ten

(10)days. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date of the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, that 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 during the draft environmental impact statement stage, but 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 (9 th 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. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns related to the Proposed Action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft document. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives displayed in the document. Reviewers should refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 CFR 1503.3 for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act for addressing these points. Dated: January 9, 2008. Thomas A. Florich, Acting Laramie District Ranger. [FR Doc. 08-113 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code