Notices. Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance

46,904 words·~213 min read·/register/2008/01/24/08-246

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0037] Federal Acquisition Regulation;Information Collection; Presolicitation Notice AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning presolicitation notice. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 62444, on November 5, 2007. No comments were received. The clearance currently expires on April 30, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cecelia Davis, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)219-0202. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Presolicitation notices are used by the Government for several reasons, one of which is to aid prospective contractors in submitting proposals without undue expenditure of effort, time, and money. The Government also uses the presolicitation notices to control printing and mailing costs. The presolicitation notice response is used to determine the number of solicitation documents needed and to assure that interested offerors receive the solicitation documents. The responses are placed in the contract file and referred to when solicitation documents are ready for mailing. After mailing, the responses remain in the contract file and become a matter of record. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents* : 5,310. *Responses Per Respondent* : 8. *Annual Responses* : 42,480. *Hours Per Response* : .08. *Total Burden Hours* : 3,398. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS* : Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0037, Presolicitation Notice, in all correspondence. Dated: January 15, 2008 Al Matera, Director,Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-1196 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0153] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; OMB Circular A-119 AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0153). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning OMB Circular A-119. The clearance currently expires on May 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0153, OMB Circular A-119, in all correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. Cecelia Davis, Contract Policy Division, GSA

(202)219-0202. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose On February 19, 1998, a revised OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” was published in the **Federal Register** at 63 FR 8545, February 19, 1998. FAR Subparts 11.1 and 11.2 were revised and a solicitation provision was added at 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, to implement the requirements of the revised OMB circular. If an alternative standard is proposed, the offeror must furnish data and/or information regarding the alternative in sufficient detail for the Government to determine if it meets the Government's requirements. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 100. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Total Responses: 100.* *Hours Per Response:* 1. *Total Burden Hours:* 100. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0153, OMB Circular A-119, in all correspondence. Dated: January 15, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-1170 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Information Technology (OMB Control Number 0704-0341) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement. SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. *DoD invites comments on:*

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

(b)the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved this information collection requirement for use through April 30, 2008. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years. DATES: DoD will consider all comments received by March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0341, using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: dfars@osd.mil* . Include OMB Control Number 0704-0341 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 703-602-7887. • *Mail:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Felisha Hitt, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Felisha Hitt, 703-602-0310. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at: *http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html* . Paper copies are available from Ms. Felisha Hitt, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title and OMB Number:* Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 239, Acquisition of Information Technology, and the associated clauses at DFARS 252.239-7000 and 252.239-7006; OMB Control Number 0704-0341. *Needs and Uses:* This requirement provides for the collection of information from contractors regarding security of information technology; tariffs pertaining to telecommunications services; and proposals from common carriers to perform special construction under contracts for telecommunications services. Contracting officers and other DoD personnel use the information to ensure that information systems are protected; to participate in the establishment of tariffs for telecommunications services; and to establish reasonable prices for special construction by common carriers. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Annual Burden Hours:* 1,622. *Number of Respondents:* 521. *Responses Per Respondent:* Approximately 4. *Annual Responses:* 1,959. *Average Burden Per Response:* Approximately 1 hour. *Frequency:* On occasion. Summary of Information Collection The clause at DFARS 252.239-7000, Protection Against Compromising Emanations, requires that the contractor provide, upon request of the contracting officer, documentation that information technology used or provided under the contract meets appropriate information assurance requirements. The clause at DFARS 252.239-7006, Tariff Information, requires that the contractor provide to the contracting officer:

(1)Upon request, a copy of the contractor's existing tariffs;

(2)before filing any application to a Federal, State, or other regulatory agency for new rates, charges, services, or regulations relating to any tariff or any of the facilities or services to be furnished solely or primarily to the Government, and, upon request, a copy of all information, material, and data developed or prepared in support of or in connection with such an application; and

(3)a notification to the contracting officer of any application filed by anyone other than the contractor that may affect the rate or conditions of services under the agreement or contract. DFARS 239.7408-1 requires the contracting officer to obtain a detailed special construction proposal from a common carrier that submits a proposal or quotation with special construction requirements related to the performance of basic telecommunications services. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. E8-1090 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Decision Memorandum Accepting Alternative Arrangements for the U.S. Navy's Southern California Operating Area Composite Training Unit Exercises (COMPTUEXs) and Joint Task Force Exercises (JTFEXs) Scheduled To Occur Between Today and January 2009 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice of Decision Memorandum. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to accept alternative arrangements approved by the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11 for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , for the Navy's Southern California (SOCAL) Operating Area Composite Training Unit Exercises (COMPTUEXs) and Joint Task Force Exercises (JTFEXs) scheduled to occur between today and January 2009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Decision Memorandum is provided as follows: On January 10, 2008, the Department of the Navy

(Navy)sought Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)approval of alternative arrangements pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11 for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* (NEPA), for MFA sonar training during the remaining five COMPTUEXs and four JTFEXs scheduled to occur between today and January 23, 2009, in the Southern California (SOCAL) Operating Area. On January 11, 2008, the Navy reaffirmed its request. On January 15 CEQ concluded consultation and approved alternative arrangements pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11 for implementing the procedural provisions of (NEPA). This memorandum documents the Navy's decision to accept the alternative arrangements. Background Framework *NEPA:* NEPA requires Navy to undertake an assessment of the environmental effects of its proposed actions prior to making decisions. The CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act provide for situations when emergency circumstances make it necessary to make decisions and take action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR § 1506.11). Specifically, the agency should consult with CEQ about alternative arrangements for actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. *Title 10:* The Fleet Response Training Plan

(FRTP)is one of the processes used to ensure the Chief of Naval Operation's

(CNO)obligation under Section 5062 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which requires organization, training and equipping of all naval forces for combat. The FRTP is an arduous training cycle that ensures Navy forces achieve the highest possible readiness levels prior to deployment. As part of the FRTP, the Navy conducts COMPTUEXs and JTFEXs to achieve required Navy capabilities and missions in support of combatant commander and Navy requirements. Both JTFEX and COMPTUEX exercises are included in the integrated phase of training for U.S. and some allied forces, which requires a synthesis of unit and staff actions into a coordinated Strike Group necessary for surge and readiness certification. The Vital Importance of Training with Mid-Frequency Active

(MFA)Sonar during These Major Exercises: Anti-submarine warfare

(ASW)is the Pacific Fleet's #1 war-fighting priority and critical to our national defense. Today's modern, quiet diesel-electric submarines employ state-of-the-art sound silencing technologies and sound isolation technologies. Additionally, they operate advanced propulsion systems that include high endurance battery systems and air-independent propulsion systems. These advances, combined with special hull treatments that significantly dampen submarine noise and reduce vulnerability to active sonar prosecution, make them highly potent adversaries. Diesel-electric submarines so equipped can covertly operate in coastal and open ocean areas, blocking Navy access to combat zones and increasing United States vessels' vulnerability to torpedo and anti-ship missile attacks. Detecting, identifying, locating, tracking, and if necessary, neutralizing a diesel-electric submarine is vitally important to the Navy's ability to conduct operations, accomplish its missions and ultimately prevail in conflict. Submarines are operated by numerous navies, including potential adversaries in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East areas. Navy Strike Groups are continuously deployed to these high-threat areas. These missions require being able to access and operate in waters near shore, control strategic maritime transit routes and international straits, and protect sea lines of communications supporting international commerce. In preparing for these missions, the thousands of individuals in a Pacific Fleet Strike Group must train in the use of MFA sonar in a coordinated manner in a realistic environment prior to deployment. MFA sonar is defined as an active sonar system that operates within the 1 kHz to 10 kHz frequency range. MFA sonar capability allows the Strike Group to defend itself against quiet diesel-electric submarines that may come within range or attack any of the ships in the Strike Group. Training in the use of MFA sonar in the COMTUEX and JTFEX exercises is a vital component of certification and employment of these assets in support of national security interests around the globe. The five COMPTUEXs and four JTFEXs scheduled to occur between today and January 23, 2009, in the Southern California (SOCAL) Operating Area are the only opportunities for these Strike Groups to achieve their required combat training. The SOCAL Operating Area is uniquely suited to conducting the Navy COMPTUEX and JTFEX because it contains all of the land, air, and at-sea bases necessary for conducting the exercises, and the shallow coastal areas in SOCAL realistically simulate areas where the Navy is likely to encounter hostile submarines. The SOCAL Operating Area includes Warning Area 291 (W-291), and the Southern California Antisubmarine Warfare Range

(SOAR)that is an instrumented underwater range which allows the Navy to monitor and evaluate the success of the Strike Group training. The use of MFA sonar will be within W-291 and SOAR. *Environmental Effects:* The habitat and species in the SOCAL operating area have been monitored and studied over the last 40 years, and the Navy has extensively used MFA sonar in the area over the same period. Over that period, the intensity (i.e., the dB level of the sonar source) of the Navy's MFA sonar systems has remained the same. Since 1992, the Navy's use of MFA sonar in terms of the number of training hours has declined. It is emphasized that there have been no documented incidents of harm, injury, or death to marine mammals resulting from exposure to MFA sonar in the SOCAL Operating Area. There have also been no stranding incidents or population-level effects attributable to MFA sonar in the SOCAL Operating Area. No systematic declines in the stocks of marine mammals have occurred and the stocks of many species, such as humpback whales, blue whales, harbor seals, and common dolphins, are stable or improving. The Eastern North Pacific gray whale stock increased and the species was delisted, but is currently experiencing habitat changes due to sea ice melting patterns, and undersized gray whales have been reported in the media lately. Strandings of small cetaceans and California sea lions are common, usually attributed to fishery interaction, disease, or harmful algal blooms. There have also been several individual beaked whale strandings, usually attributed to disease or fishery interaction. In several of these individual strandings, the cause is unknown, but there has been no apparent link to sonar. The Navy is evaluating the environmental impact of MFA sonar training exercises through its development of the SOCAL Range Complex environmental impact statement (SOCAL EIS). The Navy began the SOCAL EIS process in late 2006 and published its notice of intent on December 21, 2006. That EIS will meet the procedural requirements of NEPA for all training, including MFA sonar training in SOCAL. To comply with NEPA procedural requirements, while developing the EIS, the Navy prepared an environmental assessment of the SOCAL training proposed for the time period prior to completion of the EIS. In addition, the Navy issued a consistency determination per the procedural requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 *et seq.* In January 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a National Defense Exemption

(NDE)under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)(16 U.S.C. 1371(f)). The NDE provides for protection of marine mammals, in the absence of an MMPA Letter of Authorization, by including 29 specific conditions to minimize potential impacts on marine mammals. These 29 mitigation measures were developed in coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency with substantive responsibility for marine mammals. The NDE provides the Navy the ability to execute the plan coordinated with the Department of Commerce to obtain a Letter of Authorization under the usual procedural requirements of the MMPA. The plan requires the Navy to come into compliance with the MMPA as part of the SOCAL EIS process which will be completed when the NDE expires on January 23, 2009. The potential effects of MFA sonar training on threatened and endangered marine mammals were further analyzed in consultation with NMFS under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* In February of 2007, the Navy concluded consultation with NMFS, which issued a Biological Opinion on February 9, 2007. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that includes an incidental take statement that exempts the Navy from the prohibitions in section 9 of the ESA through January 2009. The Biological Opinion found that the Navy's actions were not likely to result in jeopardy to any listed species nor adversely modify any designated critical habitat, and includes an incidental take statement that exempts the Navy from the prohibitions in section 9 of the Endangered Species Act through January 2009. For the planned exercises, the Navy conducted acoustic propagation modeling and effects analysis and determined that there would be no permanent physical effects on marine mammals from MFA sonar exposure. The NMFS further reviewed the environmental effects and found any potential behavioral or physiological effects would be temporary effects to individual marine mammals. In January 2008, NMFS further reviewed the environmental effects of Navy training exercises in SOCAL on marine mammals in and adjacent to SOCAL, determining that while there is some potential for injury, the mitigation measures employed as a result of the NDE and the reporting and monitoring measures outlined in the Biological Opinion will minimize that risk to marine mammals in and adjacent to the exercise area. The review concluded that NMFS does not expect the COMPTUEX and JTFEX exercises through January 23, 2009 to result in adverse population level effects for any of the marine mammal populations. Nature and Scope of the Emergency: The use of MFA sonar is complex and requires constant training to achieve and maintain combat proficiency and effectiveness. MFA sonar is the Navy's best means of detecting potentially hostile diesel-electric submarines. The primary Strike Group targets of hostile submarines are the Navy's aircraft carriers, which typically carries over 5,300 personnel and the Amphibious Assault Ship carry the Marine Expeditionary Unit. Thus, the inability to train effectively with MFA sonar literally puts the lives of thousands of Americans at risk. If a Strike Group does not gain proficiency in MFA sonar, and cannot be certified as combat ready, the national security implications would be enormous. This harm compounds quickly if additional Strike Groups cannot be certified. On August 7, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in *Natural Resources Defense Council* v. *Winter* (CV 07-335) issued an order enjoining all MFA sonar use during the Navy's remaining SOCAL Operating Area COMPTUEXs and JTFEXs scheduled to occur through January 2009. This order was stayed by an emergency panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 31, 2007, pending full hearing of the Navy's appeal of the injunction. On November 13, 2007, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled on the appeal, finding that the District Court had abused its discretion, leaving the stay in place long enough for the Navy to complete an ongoing exercise, and then reinstating the August 7 injunction until the District Court issued a new, tailored injunction “under which the Navy may conduct its training exercises.” The panel set a deadline of January 4, 2008, for the District Court to issue the tailored injunction. On January 3, 2008, the District Court issued a new preliminary injunction that bars any training with MFA sonar within 12 nautical miles of the California coastline or anywhere in the Santa Catalina basin, except that Navy can use MFA sonar in the San Clemente Island Range Complex if the location is at least 5 nautical miles from the western shore of San Clemente Island. The new injunction also imposed a 2,200 yard (2,000 meter) sonar shutdown zone for ships, sonobuoys, and helicopters; 6 decibel

(dB)power down when surface ducting conditions are detected regardless of the presence of marine mammals; 60 minutes of monitoring each day before use of MFA sonar; two dedicated (no other duties) NOAA- and NMFS-trained lookouts during MFA sonar use; use of passive acoustic monitoring to the maximum extent practicable; and aerial monitoring 60 minutes before and during MFA sonar exercises. The aerial monitoring included at least one dedicated aircraft. Helicopters must monitor for marine mammals for 10 minutes before use of dipping sonar. Finally, Navy must continue to comply with all 29 mitigation measures required by the NDE under the MMPA issued on January 23, 2007, unless superseded by one or more of the restrictions imposed by the court. On January 10, 2008, the District Court modified the new injunction to “correct clerical errors and omissions.” The court ordered that

(1)the 2,200 yard shutdown zone does not apply to dolphins or porpoises that are “bow riding”;

(2)dedicated monitoring aircraft are no longer required during the entire exercise (Navy aircraft engaged in the exercise are now sufficient); and

(3)the requirement to reduce power by 6 dB when surface ducting conditions are present only apply when “significant” surface ducting conditions are present. These changes left the 2,200 yard shutdown requirement in place. Accounting for the court's recent changes to the new injunction made on January 10, 2008, the order's training restrictions, in particular the unaltered 2,200 yard shut down requirement and 6 dB power down when significant surface ducting conditions are present, create a significant and unreasonable risk that Strike Groups will not be able to train effectively and certify as fully mission capable. The COMPTUEXs and JTFEXs scheduled to occur in the SOCAL operating area this month through January 2009 enable critical training. Effective MFA sonar training is necessary to certify Strike Groups for deployment in support of world-wide operational and combat activities. While the Navy continues to prepare the SOCAL EIS that will analyze potential effects to marine mammals from exposure to MFA sonar, including use during COMPTUEXs and JTFEXs, it cannot delay this critical training and subsequent certification. The inability to conduct effective MFA sonar training and certify Strike Groups constitutes an emergency with significant consequences to the national security of the United States. Therefore, based upon the court's preliminary determination as to the need for the Navy to prepare an EIS that analyzes MFA sonar exposure effects during these exercises, per the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.11, the Navy initiated consultation with CEQ and requested alternative arrangements. The Navy's request that CEQ provide for alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance was limited to the Navy's proposed use of MFA sonar during Commander THIRD Fleet's nine

(9)training exercises, 4 COMPTUEXs and 5 JTFEXs, in the SOCAL Operating Area. The Navy affirmed that any alternative arrangements would remain in effect during the preparation and completion of the SOCAL EIS or until January 23, 2009, whichever is earlier. Applying these alternative arrangements to any other area or exercise would not be appropriate absent an analysis tailored to such other area and exercise. Alternative Arrangements The Navy accepts the alternative arrangements prescribed by CEQ for the remaining MFA sonar training exercises in the SOCAL Operating Area between today and January 23, 2009. *Mitigation Measures:* The Navy will adhere to 29 mitigation measures developed in cooperation with NMFS. These mitigation measures were developed and included as an integral part of the NDE under the MMPA invoked by the Deputy Secretary of Defense under Title 16, Section 1371(f) of the U.S. Code on January 23, 2007. That exemption applies to all Department of Defense

(DoD)military readiness activities employing MFA sonar during major exercises or within established DoD maritime ranges or established operating areas through January 23, 2009. The Navy's proposed use of MFA sonar during the Commander THIRD Fleet's proposed nine training exercises (four COMPTUEXs and five JTFEXs), in the SOCAL Operating Area is based on the current knowledge of the SOCAL Operating Area and the 29 NDE mitigation measures, some of which are more fully described below: The Navy will continue to ensure that watchstanders and lookouts will include at a minimum:

(1)Three non-dedicated watchstanders on all surface ships required to look out for marine mammals during all exercises; and

(2)two lookouts on all surface ships required to look out for marine mammals during all exercises. Furthermore, all sightings of marine mammals by all watchstanders and all lookouts will be reported directly to the Combat Information Center

(CIC)or via the appropriate watch stations for submission to the CIC, and the CIC will disseminate the sighting information to all platforms in the area with a recommendation for appropriate action (e.g., power down sonar; surface or subsurface vessels to avoid area or increase distance from mammals; aerial platforms to increase vigilance). Similarly, all aerial platforms will monitor the area for marine mammals during their assigned missions and report marine mammal presence and confirmed sightings to Aircraft Control Unit for submission to the CIC, and the CIC will disseminate the sighting information to all platforms in the area to ensure they are aware of the presence of marine mammals and can take steps to increase vigilance or execute mitigation measures applicable to these exercises (e.g., power down sonar; surface or subsurface vessels to avoid area or increase distance from mammals; aerial platforms to increase vigilance). The Navy will continue to submit after action reports

(AARs)to NMFS 120 days after the conclusion of any COMPTUEX or JTFEX that contain:

(1)An assessment of the mitigation and monitoring measures and how to improve them; and

(2)the results of marine mammal monitoring, including all instances where marine mammals were observed and the levels of MFA sonar to which they were exposed, based on the NDE sonar mitigation measures and the requirements of the Biological Opinion dated February 9, 2007. Use of MFA sonar in the SOCAL Operating Area for COMPTUEX and JTFEX training will occur in W-291 and SOAR. The training exercises in SOAR will occur at least 5 nautical miles away from the western shoreline of San Clemente Island. Aside from San Clemente Island, there are no other islands located within W-291 or SOAR. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is located entirely outside of W-291 and SOAR. The Navy will use meters rather than yards to describe the safety zone set forth in NDE mitigation measure 20, and the safety zone used in the SOCAL Operating Area will be 1000 meters. The Navy will power down 6dB if a marine mammal is detected within the safety zone. The Navy will power down an additional 4 dB at 500 meters and will shut off sonar transmissions at 200 meters. The remaining features of the safety zone described in NDE measure 20 will remain the same. *Public Participation:* The Navy will ensure active public participation during the development of the SOCAL EIS and all other range EISs underway and scheduled for completion in 2008 that analyze MFA sonar effects. For the SOCAL EIS, the Navy will release the draft EIS

(DEIS)for public review in early April 2008 with a public comment period of 45 days that will span the month of April and extend to mid-May. In addition to publication of the Notice of Availability by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)in the **Federal Register** , the Navy will publish a Notice of Availability in three local California newspapers: San Diego Union Tribune, North County Times (San Diego County), and The Press-Telegram (Long Beach). The Navy will mail a postcard to all those who attended scoping meetings and those who submitted comments or requested copies of the DEIS. The postcard will announce availability of the DEIS and provide information on how and where to obtain copies. Three public hearings will be held in or near the following California communities: Coronado, Oceanside, and Long Beach. The locations of the meetings will be publicly announced in the **Federal Register** , the California newspapers San Diego Union Tribune, North County Times (San Diego County), and The Press-Telegram (Long Beach) and posted on the Web site *http://www.socalrangecomplexeis.com* at least 15 days beforehand. Copies of the DEIS will also be available at four libraries in Southern California—the San Diego Central Library, the Coronado Public Library, the San Clemente Library, and the San Pedro Regional Branch Library—and at *http://www.socalrangecomplexeis.com* . The DEIS will be accompanied by fact sheets (presently under development) that will address the proposed action (including the use of MFA sonar during these exercises), marine mammals in the Range Complex, and major events (including these major exercises). These fact sheets will track with facts made available during the public scoping process. The DEIS will be distributed to federal, state, and local elected and tribal officials and government and tribal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and citizens, many of whom participated in the scoping process. NGOs on the distribution list include those known to have an interest in the ocean, ocean resources, or use of sonar and its effects on marine animals, including recreationists, sport and commercial fishing groups, environmental interest organizations, chambers of commerce, business entities, museums, and universities. In addition, prior to the public hearings, Navy will offer elected officials and agencies the opportunity to participate in briefings on the content and conclusions of the DEIS. The Navy will provide notice of these alternative arrangements and publish this Decision Memorandum in the **Federal Register** . In addition, Navy will publish notice of these alternative arrangements in the following newspapers:

(1)Los Angeles Times;

(2)Sacramento Bee;

(3)San Diego Union-Tribune;

(4)North County Times (San Diego County); and

(5)Daily Breeze (San Pedro, California). Concurrent with the **Federal Register** notice, the Navy will include notices to the parties identified in its request to CEQ of January 10, 2008, as well as World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Ocean Mammal Institute, Center for Whale Research, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, National Fisheries Institute, American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, International Fund for Animal Welfare, American Tunaboat Association, Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Western Fish Boat Owners Association, Southern California Lobster and Trap Fisherman's Association, Southern California Trawler's Association, Morro Bay Commercial Fisherman Organization, Southern California Commercial Fishing Association, California Wetfish Producers Association, United Anglers of Southern California, Tuna Club of Santa Catalina Island, International Game Fish Association, Long Beach Sportfishing, Recreational Fishing Alliance, United Anglers of Southern California, United Pier & Shore Anglers of California, Scripps Research Institute, University of California at Santa Cruz, and the Applied Physics Laboratory—University of Washington. The notices will specifically seek input on the process for reviewing post-exercise assessments and include an offer to meet jointly with Navy representatives from the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations & Environment) and the office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and CEQ to discuss the alternative arrangements. CEQ will be provided copies of any notices made in accordance with the alternative arrangements and the notices will be posted on the Web site at *http://www.socalrangecomplexeis.com* . The Navy will also provide CEQ notice of the post-exercise assessments which the Navy prepares for each exercise within 120 days of completion of each exercise (or 120 days after completion of an exercise which is reported as part of a group of exercises) to which these alternative arrangements apply. Further dissemination of the post-exercise assessments will be determined after considering input received in response to the Navy notice of alternative arrangements, and the further dissemination of the post-exercise assessments will be incorporated into the alternative arrangements. After the conclusion of the alternative arrangements, and no later than March 23, 2009, the Navy will provide a report to CEQ on the use of the alternative arrangements that reviews the value and effectiveness of those arrangements. Notice of the report will be provided in the **Federal Register** , the five newspapers (Los Angeles Times; Sacramento Bee; San Diego Union-Tribune; North County Times (San Diego County); and Daily Breeze (San Pedro, California)) and on the Web site at *http://www.socalrangecomplexeis.com* . *Adaptive Management:* Under the NDE, the Navy will continue to submit to NMFS's Office of Protected Resources

(OPR)a report, within 120 days of the completion of major exercises, containing a discussion of the nature of effects on marine mammals from exposure to MFA sonar, if observed, based upon both modeled results of real-time events and sightings of marine mammals. The Navy also consulted under the ESA with NMFS regarding the effects of its sonar activities for these exercises on listed species. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion finding that the Navy's actions were not likely to result in jeopardy to any listed species nor adversely modify any designated critical habitat. The Navy will continue to adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements specified in the Biological Opinion. The Navy will continue to meet the requirements set out in the NDE for AARs. To accelerate and improve the information on marine mammal exposure effects or lack of effects, the Navy will modify its reporting and recordation processes to enable a more comprehensive analysis of impacts to marine mammals (including beaked whales that are not listed under the ESA) and ASW training during these major exercises and integrate these modifications into the reports prepared on the exercises conducted between March 1, 2008, and January 23, 2009. The reporting and monitoring program improvements identified using adaptive management principles will also inform the EIS process for the SOCAL Range Complex. *Research Measures:* Efforts to obtain more information about the quantity, distribution, migration, and reactions of marine mammals to MFA sonar is ongoing and will continue. Consequently, information being obtained will inform compliance with the substantive provisions of the MMPA and ESA, and the procedural requirements of CZMA and NEPA. For NEPA, this information will inform the ongoing SOCAL EIS process as well as future exercise planning in the SOCAL Operating Area and serve to provide the basis for integrated compliance with all environmental statutes. The Navy will continue to implement the following research measures to provide for continual improvement in the quality of information available: The Navy will continue to improve information regarding marine mammal presence and density in the SOCAL Operating Area by coordinating with NMFS to determine the need to identify areas within the SOCAL Operating Area for additional marine mammal surveys. If a need is identified, an implementation plan identifying the areas and providing a schedule for the surveys will be developed no later than July 2008. The surveys will be designed to help determine where and when there are concentrations of marine mammals in the SOCAL Operating Area. The survey will occur over a two-year period through July 2010. The Navy will continue to work on a program that will enhance its ability to use passive hydrophones on the SOAR Instrumented Range to detect and track marine mammals on those portions of the range where the passive hydrophones are in place. To ensure that these efforts remain focused, the Navy will develop an implementation plan and schedule to expand the technical capability of existing hydrophones to detect marine mammals by April 4, 2008. The implementation plan should provide for completion of prototype classifiers for Cuvier's and Blainesville's beaked whales and visual verification of other small odontocetes detected by passive hydrophones by April 15, 2009. As part of the SOCAL EIS, the Navy is evaluating a proposal to extend the range areas monitored by passive hydrophones. If Navy decides to extend the area covered by passive hydrophones as part of its ROD for the SOCAL EIS, the Navy will determine a timetable for acquisition and installation of additional hydrophones by March 30, 2009. The Navy is evaluating current research regarding infrared

(IR)technology for use in collecting data regarding marine mammals, assessing the feasibility of acquiring and deploying additional IR capabilities during major exercises or for conducting surveys, and developing a plan for acquiring and deploying IR in data collection efforts. The plan will be published no later than June 15, 2008. Dated: January 15, 2008. Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy. [FR Doc. E8-1175 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [USN-2008-0002] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice To Amend a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on February 25, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Chief of Naval Operations (DNS-36), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Doris Lama at

(202)685-6545. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Navy systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection

(r)of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. Dated: January 17, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. NM05000-2 SYSTEM NAME: Organization Management and Locator System. CHANGES: SYSTEM NAME: Delete “Organization” and replace with “Program”. SYSTEM LOCATION: At end of para 1, add “Some records may be located at contractor-operated facilities.” SAFEGUARDS: At end of paragraph add “For contractor-operated facilities, client data is kept in a certified data facility. At no time is client data removed from the secure hosting environment and access to client data is only to those employees with a direct functional need. Password complexity, expiration, minimum length, and history will assist in assuring only appropriate personnel have access to client data.” NM05000-2 SYSTEM NAME: Program Management and Locator System. SYSTEM LOCATION: Organizational elements of the Department of the Navy. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx.* Some records may be located at contractor-operated facilities. Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, 1562 Mitscher Avenue, Suite 200, Norfolk, VA 23551-2488. Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, P.O. Box 64028, Camp H.M. Smith, HI 96861-4028. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Military, civilian, and contractor personnel attached to the activity; former members; applicants for civilian employment, visitors, volunteers, guests, and invitees; and dependent family members. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Records, correspondence, and databases needed to manage personnel, projects, and access to programs. Information consists of name; Social Security Number; date of birth; photo identification; grade and series or rank/rate; biographical data; security clearance; education; experience characteristics and training histories; qualifications; Common Access Card

(CAC)issuance and expiration; food service meal entitlement code; trade; hire/termination dates; type of appointment; leave; location; assigned organization code and/or work center code; Military Occupational Series (MOS); labor code; payments for training, travel advances and claims; hours assigned and worked; routine and emergency assignments; functional responsibilities; access to secure spaces and issuance of keys; travel; retention group; vehicle parking; disaster control; community relations (blood donor, etc); employee recreation programs; retirement category; awards; property custody; personnel actions/dates; violations of rules; physical handicaps and health/safety data; veterans preference; postal address; location of dependents and next of kin and their addresses; computer use responsibility agreements; and other data needed for personnel, financial, line, safety and security management, as appropriate. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters, Marine Corps; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). PURPOSE(S): To manage, supervise, and administer programs for all Department of the Navy civilian, military, and contractor personnel. Information is used to prepare organizational locator, recall rosters, and social rosters; notify personnel of arrival of visitors; locate individuals on routine and/or emergency matters; locate individuals during medical emergencies, facility evacuations and similar threat situations; provide mail distribution and forwarding addresses; compile a social roster for official and non-official functions; send personal greetings and invitations; track attendance at training; identify routine and special work assignments; determine clearance for access control; identify record handlers of hazardous materials; record rental of welfare and recreational equipment; track beneficial suggestions and awards; control the budget; travel claims; track manpower, grades, and personnel actions; maintain statistics for minorities; track employment; track labor costing; prepare watch bills; project retirement losses; verify employment to requesting banking activities; rental and credit organizations; name change location; checklist prior to leaving activity; safety reporting/monitoring; and, similar administrative uses requiring personnel data. To arbitrators and hearing examiners for use in civilian personnel matters relating to civilian grievances and appeals. To authenticate authorization for access to services and spaces such as Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

(MWR)facilities and food services. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' that appear at the beginning of the Navy's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: STORAGE: Electronic databases and paper records. RETRIEVABILITY: Name, Social Security Number, employee badge number, case number, organization, work center and/or job order, and supervisor's shop and code. SAFEGUARDS: Password controlled system, file, and element access based on predefined need-to-know. Physical access to terminals, terminal rooms, buildings and activities' grounds are controlled by locked terminals and rooms, guards, personnel screening and visitor registers. For contractor operated facilities, client data is kept in a certified data facility. At no time is client data removed from the secure hosting environment and access to client data is only to those employees with a direct functional need. Password complexity, expiration, minimum length, and history will assist in assuring only appropriate personnel have access to client data. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Destroy when no longer needed or after two years, whichever is later. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Commanding officer of the activity in question. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx* . NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the commanding officer of the activity in question. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx* . The request should include full name, Social Security Number, and address of the individual concerned and should be signed. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the commanding officer of the activity in question. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at *http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx* . The request should include full name, Social Security Number, and address of the individual concerned and should be signed. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Individual; Defense Manpower Data Center; employment papers; records of the organization; official personnel jackets; supervisors; official travel orders; educational institutions; applications; duty officer; investigations; OPM officials; and/or members of the American Red Cross. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E8-1190 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to

(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”].” Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: January 17, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Postsecondary Education *Type of Review:* Reinstatement. *Title:* Application for Grants under the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs. *Frequency:* Biennially. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't; SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 60. *Burden Hours:* 1,020. Abstract: The Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs is mandated, by statute, to provide training for staff and leadership personnel employed or preparing for employment in TRIO Program projects designed to identify individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepare them for a program of postsecondary education, and provide special services for such students pursuing programs of postsecondary education. This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3564. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-1124 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 24, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

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

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

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

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

(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: January 16, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Department of Education *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Generic Plan for Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Focus Groups. *Frequency:* Annually Other: one time or annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 70,000. *Burden Hours:* 25,000. *Abstract:* Customer satisfaction surveys and focus group discussions will be conducted by the Principal Offices of the Department of Education to measure customer satisfaction and establish and improve customer service standards as required by Executive Order 12862. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3569. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-1128 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Overview Information; Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year

(FY)2008 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 84.184L. *DATES:* *Applications Available:* January 24, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* March 14, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* May 13, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The Safe Schools/Healthy Students program (SS/HS) supports the implementation and enhancement of integrated, comprehensive community-wide plans that create safe and drug-free schools and promote healthy childhood development. *Priorities:* These priorities are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions for this program, published in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26692). Note: Definitions for important terms associated with this competition (e.g., authorized representative, local juvenile justice agency) can be found in the notice of final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions published in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26692). *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority. *This priority is:* *Comprehensive Plan.* This priority supports projects of local educational agencies

(LEAs)proposing to implement an integrated, comprehensive community-wide plan designed to create safe, respectful, and drug-free school environments and promote prosocial skills and healthy childhood development. Plans must focus activities, curricula, programs, and services in a manner that responds to the community's existing needs, gaps, or weaknesses in areas related to the five comprehensive plan elements: Element One—Safe School Environments and Violence Prevention Activities. Element Two—Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention Activities. Element Three—Student Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Supports. Element Four—Mental Health Services. Element Five—Early Childhood Social and Emotional Learning Programs. *Competitive Preference Priority:* For FY 2008 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional 5 points to an application that meets this priority. *This priority is:* *LEAs That Have Not Previously Received a Grant or Services Under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative.* Under this priority, we give priority to applications from LEAs that have not yet received a grant under this program as an applicant or as a member of a consortium. In order for a consortium application to be eligible under this priority, no member of the LEA consortium may have received a grant or services under this program as an applicant or as a member of a consortium applicant. *Application and Eligibility Requirements.* The applicant must meet the following requirements:

(1)*Program-Specific Assurances for Former SS/HS Grant Recipients.* For those LEAs that have previously received funds or services (or for those LEA consortia that include a member LEA that has received funds or services) under the SS/HS program, a program-specific assurance must be submitted as part of the SS/HS application. All participating LEAs in a proposed consortium project must sign this program-specific assurance. The assurance must state that, if awarded, the project will not serve those schools or sub-regions served by the first SS/HS project. Applications from prior SS/HS grant recipients (or from a consortium that includes an LEA that has previously received SS/HS funds or services) that do not include the program-specific assurance will be rejected and not considered for funding.

(2)*Funding Limits for Applicants.* An applicant's request for funding must not exceed the following maximum amounts, based on student enrollment data, for any of the project's four 12-month budget periods: $2,250,000 for an LEA with at least 35,000 students; $1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 5,000 students but fewer than 35,000 students; and $750,000 for an LEA with fewer than 5,000 students. In applying these maximums, applicants must use the most recent student enrollment data from the National Center for Education Statistics'

(NCES)Common Core of Data

(CCD)as posted on the NCES Web site. In the case of consortium applicants, the maximum funding request is based on the combined student enrollment data for the participating LEAs. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools that are not included in the NCES database and request grant funds that exceed $750,000 for any of the project's four 12-month budget periods must provide documentation of enrollment data.

(3)*Preliminary Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).* Each applicant must include in its application a preliminary MOA that is signed by the authorized representatives of the LEA, the local juvenile justice agency, the local law enforcement agency, and the local public mental health authority—the required SS/HS partners. For consortium applicants, the preliminary MOA must be signed by the authorized representatives of each member LEA and by the authorized representatives of each corresponding required SS/HS partner for each member LEA. Additionally, the preliminary MOA must:

(a)Include information that supports the selection of each identified SS/HS required partner that has signed the preliminary MOA;

(b)Demonstrate the support and commitment of the required SS/HS partners to implement and sustain the project if funded;

(c)Name a core management team of senior representatives from the required partners, and clearly define how each member of the team will support the project director in the day-to-day management of the project;

(d)Describe how multiple and diverse sectors of the community, including parents and students, have been and will continue to be involved in the design, implementation, and continuous improvement of the project; and

(e)Include, as an attachment, a logic model (a graphic representation of the project in chart format) that identifies needs or gaps and connects those needs or gaps with corresponding project goals, objectives, activities, partners' roles, outcomes, and outcome measures for each of the SS/HS elements. Applications that do not include the preliminary MOA signed by the authorized representatives of each of the required SS/HS partners (the LEA, the local juvenile justice agency, the local law enforcement agency, and the local public mental health authority) and the logic model will be rejected and not considered for funding.

(4)*Final MOA.* If funded, grant recipients must complete a final MOA. The final MOA must be signed by the authorized representatives of the LEA, the local juvenile justice agency, the local law enforcement agency, and the local public mental health authority—the required SS/HS partners. For consortium applicants, the final MOA must be signed by the authorized representative for each member LEA and the authorized representative for each of the corresponding required SS/HS partners for each member LEA. The final MOA must also include the following:

(a)Information that supports the selection of each identified SS/HS required partner that has signed the final MOA;

(b)Any needed revisions to the statement of support and commitment for each of the required SS/HS partners to implement and sustain the project;

(c)A final roster of the core management team of senior representatives from the required SS/HS partners that clearly defines how each member of the team will support the project director in the day-to-day management of the project;

(d)Any needed revisions to the process for involving multiple and diverse sectors of the community in the implementation and continuous improvement of the project;

(e)A final logic model that identifies needs or gaps and connects those needs or gaps with corresponding project goals, objectives, activities, partners' roles, outcomes, and outcome measures for each of the SS/HS elements;

(f)A description of each partner's financial responsibility for the services that it will provide, along with the conditions and terms of responsibility for those services, including the quality, accountability, and coordination of services as they relate to achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project;

(g)A description of the procedures to be used for referral, treatment, and follow-up for children and adolescents in need of mental health services and an assurance that the local public mental health authority will provide administrative control and/or oversight of the delivery of mental health services; and

(h)Any other necessary revisions to information furnished in the preliminary MOA. *Program Authority:* Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7131); Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa); and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 5614(b)(4)(e) and 5781 *et seq.* ). *Applicable Regulations:*

(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97, 98, 99, and 299.

(b)The notice of final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions published in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26692).

(c)The notice of final eligibility requirement published in the **Federal Register** on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70369). Note: The regulations in 34 part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $72,000,000. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards later in FY 2008 and in FY 2009 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition. *Estimated Range of Awards:* Up to $750,000 for an LEA with fewer than 5,000 students; up to $1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 5,000 students but fewer than 35,000 students; and up to $2,250,000 for an LEA with at least 35,000 students. Estimated Average Size of Awards: $750,000 for an LEA with fewer than 5,000 students; $1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 5,000 students but fewer than 35,000 students; and $2,250,000 for an LEA with at least 35,000 students. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $750,000 for an LEA with fewer than 5,000 students; $1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 5,000 students but fewer than 35,000 students; and $2,250,000 for an LEA with at least 35,000 students. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 55. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 48 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* LEAs, including charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law, and consortia of LEAs. Note: The Secretary limits eligibility under the SS/HS grant program competition (CFDA Number 84.184L) to applicants that do not currently have an active grant under this grant program. For the purpose of this eligibility requirement, a grant is considered active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds. This eligibility requirement is from the notice of final eligibility requirement published in the **Federal Register** on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70369). 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other:*

(a)Participation by Private School Children and Teachers. Section 9501 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), requires that LEAs or other entities receiving funds under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act provide for the equitable participation of private school children, their teachers, and other educational personnel in private schools located in areas served by the grant recipient. In order to ensure that grant program activities, curricula, programs, and services address the needs of private school children, LEAs must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials during the design and development of the program. This consultation must take place before any decision is made that affects the opportunities of eligible private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel to participate. Administrative direction and control over grant funds must remain with the grantee.

(b)*Maintenance of Effort.* Section 9521 of the ESEA provides that LEAs may receive a grant only if the State educational agency finds that either the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA and the State with respect to the provision of free public education by the LEA for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address To Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet, from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), or from the program office. To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.* To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. *Telephone, toll free:* 1-877-433-7827. *FAX:*

(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, *toll free:* 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.184L. To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Karen Dorsey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E336, Washington, DC 20202-6450. *Telephone:*

(202)708-4674 or by *e-mail: karen.dorsey@ed.gov.* If you use TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 40 pages, using the following standards: • A page is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative. Titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs, can be single spaced. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. • Number all pages consecutively using the style 1 of 40, 2 of 40, and so forth. • Include a Table of Contents with page references. The 40-page limit does not apply to the Table of Contents. Our reviewers will not read any pages of the narrative portion of your application that exceed the page limit if you apply these standards; or exceed the equivalent of the page limit if you apply other standards. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* January 24, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* March 14, 2008. Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the *Grants.gov* Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* May 13, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:*

(1)No less than seven percent of a grantee's budget for each year must be used to support costs associated with local evaluation activities.

(2)No more than 10 percent of the total budget for each project year may be used to support costs associated with security equipment, security personnel, and minor remodeling of school facilities to improve school safety.

(3)We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide *Grants.gov* Apply site. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program, CFDA Number 84.184L, is included in this project. We request your participation in *Grants.gov* . If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide *Grants.gov* Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.184, not 84.184L). Please note the following: • Your participation in *Grants.gov* is voluntary. • When you enter the *Grants.gov* site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by *Grants.gov* are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from *Grants.gov* , we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through *Grants.gov.* • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through *Grants.gov* that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the *Grants.gov* system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to *Grants.gov* at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf* . • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the *Grants.gov* registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp)* . These steps include

(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);

(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the *Grants.gov* 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via *Grants.gov.* In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from *Grants.gov* an automatic notification of receipt that contains a *Grants.gov* tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by *Grants.gov* only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from *Grants.gov* and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through *Grants.gov* , please contact the *Grants.gov* Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a *Grants.gov* Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the *Grants.gov* system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with *Grants.gov* , along with the *Grants.gov* Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the *Grants.gov* system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the *Grants.gov* system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to *Grants.gov* before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the *Grants.gov* system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.184L), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.184L), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1)A private metered postmark.

(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.184L), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. *Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:* If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at

(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions published in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26692) and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in selecting an application for an award are as follows:

(1)Geographic distribution; and

(2)diversity of activities addressed by the projects. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* Semi-annual and annual performance reports are required for each of the project's four 12-month performance periods in accordance with 34 CFR 75.720(c). At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html* . 4. *Performance Measures:* The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA)performance measures for the SS/HS program:

(1)Student Victimization/Perception of School Safety.

(a)Percentage of grantees that experience a decrease in students who did not go to school on 1 or more days during the past 30 days because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to and from school.

(b)Percentage of grantees that experience a decrease in students who have been in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months prior to the survey.

(2)Student Substance Use/Abuse.

(a)Percentage of grantees that report a decrease in students who report current (30-day) marijuana use.

(b)Percentage of grantees that report a decrease in students who report current (30-day) alcohol use.

(3)Mental Health Services Provided

(a)Percentage of grantees that report an increase in the number of students receiving school-based mental health services.

(b)Percentage of grantees that report an increase in the percentage of mental health referrals for students that result in mental health services being provided in the community. These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures. VII. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Dorsey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E336, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone:

(202)708-4674 or by e-mail: *karen.dorsey@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following sites: *http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpsafeschools/applicant.html,* *http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov.* Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: January 18, 2008. Deborah A. Price, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. [FR Doc. E8-1208 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 January 17, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP98-18-032. *Applicants:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. *Description:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System submits First Revised Sheet 6L to FERC Gas Tariff Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 01/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0167. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-197. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to one NNS negotiated rate agreement between ANR and Wisconsin Gas LLC Contract 107995. *Filed Date:* 01/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0171. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-198. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to one NNS negotiated rate agreement between ANR and Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Filed Date:* 01/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0170. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP03-36-029. *Applicants:* Dauphin Island Gathering Partners. *Description:* Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits Thirty Fifth Revised Sheet No. 9 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff First Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 01/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0166. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP05-422-024. *Applicants:* El Paso Natural Gas Company. *Description:* El Paso Natural Gas Company submits Fourth Revised Sheet 150 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1A under RP05-422. *Filed Date:* 01/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0172. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-162-000. *Applicants:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation. *Description:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits acceptance of a refund report reflecting interruptible transportation revenue credits on GTN Coyote Spring Lateral for the period from 11/1/06 through 10/31/07 the Refund Year. *Filed Date:* 01/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0169. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-163-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Gas Storage, LLC. *Description:* Liberty Gas Storage LLC submits First Revised Sheet 132 to FERC Gas Tariff Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 01/15/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080116-0168. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 28, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call

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

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1153 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 January 15, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-21-001. *Applicants:* Northern Indiana Public Service Company. *Description:* Supplement To The Application of Northern Indiana Public Service Company. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080109-5154. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-35-000. *Applicants:* Aircraft Services Corporation; Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC submits an application seeking authorization for the acquisition by TexKan Wind of Smoky, LLC. *Filed Date:* 01/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-30-000. *Applicants:* Kelson Energy III LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Kelson Energy III LLC. *Filed Date:* 01/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-5083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 04, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER96-1361-012; ER98-4138-008; ER99-2781-010; ER98-3096-014; ER01-202-007; ER00-1770-016; ER02-453-009; ER04-472-006; ER07-903-001; ER05-1054-002. *Applicants:* Atlantic City Electric Company; Potomac Electric Power Company; Delmarva Power & Light Company; Pepco Energy Services, Inc; Potomac Power Resources, LLC; Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.; Conectiv Atlantic Generation, LLC; Conectiv Delmarva Generation LLC; Conectiv Bethlehem, LLC; Fauquier Landfill Gas, LLC; Bethlehem Renewable Energy, LLC; Eastern Landfill Gas, LLC *Description:* Atlantic City Electric Co et al submit a Change of Status under FERC Order No. 652 & 18 CFR Section 35.27. *Filed Date:* 01/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-5086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER98-4159-010; ER04-268-007; ER06-398-004; ER06-399-004. *Applicants:* Duquesne Light Company; Duquesne Power, L.P.; Duquesne Keystone, LLC; Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Affiliate Treatment for Purposes of Affiliate Restrictions in 18 CFR 35.39 of Duquesne Light Company, et al. Filed Date: 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080109-5111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-1005-008. *Applicants:* Kansas City Power & Light Company. *Description:* Application to amend market-based rate tariff of Kansas City Power & Light Company. *Filed Date:* 01/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0035. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1052-003. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits its refund report demonstrating its compliance with the refund directives of the October 4 Order. *Filed Date:* 12/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080102-0248. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-615-017; ER02-1656-035; ER07-1257-001; EL05-146-006; EL08-20-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits their instant filing, in compliance with FERC's 12/20/07 Order. *Filed Date:* 12/28/2007. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0206. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-546-010. *Applicants:* ISO New England, Inc. *Description:* EnerNOC's Request for Expedited Consideration and Limited Waiver of Qualification Process Reimbursement Deposit Due Date under Market Rule 1. *Filed Date:* 01/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080111-5073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1392-001. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits First Revised Service Agreement 357 et al for Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with PPM Energy Inc. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0109. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-40-002 *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC responds to FERC's 12/10/07 deficiency letter re an executed interconnection service agreement with Conectiv Delmarva Generation et al. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-92-001. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Company dba Dominion Virginia Power submits its Responses to FERC Staff's 12/19/07 Deficiency Letter and on 1/11/08 submit an errata to this filing. *Filed Date:* 01/10/2008; 01/11/08. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0034. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-129-001. *Applicants:* Southern Operating Companies. *Description:* Southern Company Services Inc agent for Alabama Power Co et al submits a form of notice of amendment in accordance with the questions posed by FERC. *Filed Date:* 01/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0033. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-212-001. *Applicants:* NSTAR Electric Company. *Description:* NSTAR Electric Company submits an executed Amendment 1 to the Interconnection Agreement, designated as Rate Schedule FERC 230, to become effective 1/13/08. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-314-001. *Applicants:* Bicent (California) Malburg LLC. *Description:* Bicent (California) Malburg LLC submits its 12/7/07 application for market-based rate authority etc. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0108. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-351-000. *Applicants:* Edison Sault Electric Company. *Description:* Edison Sault Electric Co submits Supplemental Agreement 10 to the contract with Clover land Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 12/19/2007. *Accession Number:* 20071221-0158. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 09, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-428-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits the Amended and Restated Cactus Avenue Wholesale Distribution Load Interconnection Facilities Agreement 100 with the City of Moreno Valley. *Filed Date:* 01/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 29, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-429-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Op Inc. submits amended & restated large generator interconnection agreement, First Revised Service Agreement 1849 under its FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-430-000. *Applicants:* Public Service Company of New Mexico. *Description:* Public Service Company of New Mexico submits an executed long-term firm point-to-point transmission service agreement with Aragone Wind LLC. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-431-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits fifth revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Agreement with the Blue Ridge Power Authority. *Filed Date:* 01/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080110-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-432-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Power Company. *Description:* Kentucky Power Company submits its Revised Sheet 10 et al to its FERC Electric Tariff 52. *Filed Date:* 01/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-433-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc submits its Transmission to Transmission Interconnection Agreement among Hossier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Inc *et al.* *Filed Date:* 01/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-434-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits a revised rate sheet to the Amended and Restated Huntington Beach Generating Station Radial Lines Agreement with AES Huntington Beach LLC. *Filed Date:* 01/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-435-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. *Filed Date:* 01/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-436-000. *Applicants:* Mirant Power Purchase, LLC. *Description:* Mirant Power Purchase, LLC submits a notice of cancellation of FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective 3/9/06. *Filed Date:* 01/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0408. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-437-000. *Applicants:* Mountainview Power Company LLC. *Description:* Mountainview Power Company, LLC submits support for an updated cost of capital for use in billings under the Power Purchase Agreement with Southern California Edison Co, effective 1/1/08. *Filed Date:* 01/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080114-0418. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 01, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: Docket Numbers: ES08-24-000. *Applicants:* Startrans IO, L.L.C. *Description:* Startrans IO, LLC's Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act For Authority To Issue Securities and Request for Expedited Consideration. *Filed Date:* 01/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080111-5052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 01, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call

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

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1154 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER08-14-000; ER08-14-001; ER08-14-002] Alpha Domestic Power Trading, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order January 16, 2008. Alpha Domestic Power Trading, LLC (Alpha Domestic) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Alpha Domestic also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Alpha Domestic requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Alpha Domestic. On January 16, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Alpha Domestic, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2007). Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is February 15, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Alpha Domestic is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Alpha Domestic, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Alpha Domestic's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)

(PJM)pursuant to sections 206, 306 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, 825h (2000 & Supp. V 2005), and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2007), to modify PJM's market rules that exempt certain generating resources from mitigation when the market is structurally noncompetitive. The Maryland Public Service Commission certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for PJM as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call

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

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 4, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1149 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER08-275-000, ER08-275-001] Santa Maria Cogen, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order January 16, 2008. Santa Maria Cogen, Inc. (Santa Maria), filed an application for market-based rate authority, with accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Santa Maria also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Santa Maria requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Santa Maria. On January 16, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Santa Maria, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2007). The Commission encourages the electronic submissions of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is February 15, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Santa Maria is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Santa Maria, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Santa Maria's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)

(iii)and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1148 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-50-000] Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Errata Notice January 16, 2008. On January 14, 2008, the Commission issued a “Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization (Notice) in the above docketed proceeding. That Notice is corrected as follows: In paragraph three of the Notice, “Stephen T. Veach” should be replaced with “Stephen T. Veatch,” “Trunkline Gas Company” should be replaced with “Trunkline Gas Company, LLC” and Mr. Veatch's e-mail address should be changed to “ *stephen.veatch@sug.com* .” On Page 2, the notice inadvertently has a “comment date of February 4, 2008.” Please disregard the February 4, 2008 comment date. The notice correctly states and provides that: “Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.” Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1151 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, FRL 8520-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1189.20, OMB Control Number 2050-0053 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, to

(1)EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to *rcra-docket@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Docket (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(703)308-0441; fax number:

(703)308-0514; e-mail address: *chen.chichang@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51439), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments on this ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is 202-566-0270. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal). *ICR Number:* EPA ICR Number 1189.20, OMB Control Number 2050-0053. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)to implement a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. In addition, Congress wrote that “[a]ny person may petition the Administrator for the promulgation, amendment or repeal of any regulation” under RCRA (section 7004(a)). 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 contain provisions that allow regulated entities to apply for petitions, variances, exclusions, and exemptions from various RCRA requirements. In this ICR, EPA presents a comprehensive description of these paperwork requirements and estimates the total annual burden and cost to respondents and the government. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting burden for this ICR is estimated to average 27 hours per response, and the annual recordkeeping burden for this ICR is estimated to average 2 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Business/industries subject to the regulations under 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,535. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 73,752 hours. *Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden:* $11,917,572 (includes $9,239,315 annualized O&M costs and $2,678,259 annualized labor costs). *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a decrease of 2,177 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The burden decrease is an adjustment to the existing estimates based on data gathered through consultations with EPA Regional and State offices and the regulated community, not due to program changes. Dated: January 17, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-1182 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417; FRL-8520-6] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 0820.10, OMB Control Number 2050-0035 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, to

(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *rcra-docket@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim O'Leary, Office of Solid Waste, Mail Code 5304P, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(703)308-8827; fax number:

(703)308-0514; e-mail address: *oleary.jim@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51437), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments on this ICR. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0417, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is 202-566-0270. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 820.10, OMB Control No. 2050-0035. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. The core of the national waste management program is the regulation of hazardous waste from generation to transport to treatment and eventual disposal, or from “cradle to grave.” This ICR addresses the following categories of informational requirements in part 262: pre-transport requirements for both large

(LQG)and small

(SQG)quantity generators; storage requirements in tanks, containment buildings and drip pads; air emission standards requirements for LQGs (referenced in 40 CFR Part 265, Subparts AA and BB); recordkeeping and reporting requirements for LQGs and SQGs; and export requirements for LQGs and SQGs (i.e., notification of intent to export and annual reporting). This collection of information is necessary to help generators and EPA:

(1)Identify and understand the waste streams being generated and the hazards associated with them;

(2)determine whether employees have acquired the necessary expertise to perform their jobs; and

(3)determine whether LQGs have developed adequate procedures to respond to unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to air, soil, or surface water. This information is also needed to help EPA determine whether tank systems are operated in a manner that is fully protective of human health and the environment and to ensure that releases to the environment are managed quickly and efficiently. Additionally, this information contributes to EPA's goal of preventing contamination of the environment from hazardous waste accumulation practices, including contamination from equipment leaks and process vents. Export information is needed to ensure that:(1) Foreign governments consent to U.S. exported wastes;

(2)exported waste is actually managed at facilities listed in the original notifications; and

(3)documents are available for compliance audits and enforcement actions. In general, these requirements contribute to EPA's goal of preventing contamination of the environment. *Burden Statement:* The average public reporting under this collection of information is estimated to be 2.78 hours per respondent. The average public recordkeeping burden under this collection of information is estimated to be 0.05 hours. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Private Sector. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 101,500. *Frequency of Response:* Occasionally and biennially. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 286,866. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $11,321,660. This includes $22,770 in annualized capital costs, $15,473 in O&M costs, and $11,283,417 in Respondent Labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a decrease of 166,217 annual hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burden of 453,083 hours. This change primarily results from a decrease of 22,882 facilities, as well as a change in assumptions associated with such categories as containment buildings, and contingency planning resulting in the reduction of additional burden hours. Dated: January 17, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-1184 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1121; FRL 8519-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Fuel Quality Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 & Later Years; for Tax-Exempt

(Dyed)Highway Diesel Fuel; & Nonroad Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1718.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0308 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by email to *pastorkovich.anne-marie@epa.gov* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich, Attorney/Advisor, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code: 6406J, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9623; fax number: 202-343-2801; e-mail address: *pastorkovich.anne-marie@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65327), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1121, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 202-566-1742. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Fuel Quality Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 & Later Years; for Tax-Exempt

(Dyed)Highway Diesel Fuel; & Nonroad Locomotive & Marine Diesel Fuel (Renewal). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1718.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0308. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This ICR covers recordkeeping and reporting requirements for motor vehicle diesel fuel and non-road, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel. It also includes recordkeeping and reporting associated with the placement of codes on dyed diesel fuel (the dye is required under IRS regulations). The main purpose for recordkeeping and reporting is to ensure compliance with the regulations at 40 CFR Part 80, Subpart I—Motor Vehicle, Non-Road, Locomotive and Marine Diesel Fuel. Because the diesel fuel regulations are written to permit several types of flexibility, periodic reporting (annual and quarterly) is necessary in order for EPA to monitor compliance. Most reporting is mandatory. Parties may assert a claim of business confidentiality and submissions covered by such a claim will be treated in accordance with procedures at 40 CFR Part 2 and established Agency procedures. With this ICR the Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR)is also seeking permission to collect applications from refiners, importers, and independent laboratories in order to permit them to use performance-based test methods for measuring sulfur in diesel fuel and detecting the presence of a marker in diesel sold as heating oil. This was previously covered by EPA ICR Number 2180.02 (2060-0566), but since the entire burden in that ICR is related to motor vehicle and non-road diesel fuel, we are including it in this ICR and will terminate 2180.02 upon approval. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.62 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Businesses and other for-profits in the private sector. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,875. *Frequency of Response:* Annual, quarterly, and/or on occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 264,150. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $2,626,000 (all purchased services). *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a net decrease of 48,083 hours and $5,874,000 in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The change in burden hours reflects a decrease of 51,683 hours due to agency adjustment and an increase of 3,600 hours due to agency discretion. The additional 3,600 hours cover performance-based test methods previously counted under ICR 2180.02. The reduction in hours is due mostly to reporting requirements that applied at the start of the program that are no longer applicable to most parties (e.g., initial registration, application for flexibilities like small refiner status). Dated: January 17, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-1185 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0706; FRL-8520-1] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP) Annual Reporting Form (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1748.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0337 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *oei.docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Office of Environmental Information Docket (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Suber, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 1230T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2827; fax number: 202-566-1505; e-mail address: *suber.angela@epa.gov* , Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 25, 2007, (72 FR 54444), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0706, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is 202-566-1752. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP) Annual Reporting Form (Renewal). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1748.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0337. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S. Congress included, as part of Section 507, the requirement that each state establish a Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program to assist small businesses in complying with the Act. These programs are generally known as state Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAP). EPA must provide the Congress with periodic reports from the EPA Small Business Ombudsman

(SBO)on these programs, including their effectiveness, difficulties encountered, and other relevant information. Each state assistance program will submit requested information to EPA for compilation and summarization. This collection of information is mandatory under Section 507(a), (d), and

(e)of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990. This Act directs EPA to monitor the state SBEAPs and to periodically report to Congress on the effectiveness of these programs. This responsibility has been delegated to the EPA SBO. Information in the annual Report to Congress is aggregated and is not of a confidential nature. None of the information collected by this action results in/or requests sensitive information of any nature from the states. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 80 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP). *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 53. *Frequency of Response:* Annual. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 4,240. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $144,997, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 2,120 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The new total estimate of 80 hours per state to complete the Annual Survey Form presented in this ICR represents an increase of 40 hours from what was estimated to complete the previous form. A workgroup comprising representatives from several state 507 programs reviewed the reporting form and the burden estimates for this ICR. The group determined that the burden to complete the previous form was underestimated and the addition of new outcome measures to the revised form will require additional time to track and report. The new burden estimate represents an increase to 54 hours to complete the information requested in the previous form and an additional 26 hours to complete the new program outcome measures recommended by the state 507 programs. Dated: January 17, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-1186 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0006; FRL-8519-9] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1352.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0072 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *superfund.docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Docket (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(202)564-8019; fax number:

(202)564-2625; E-mail address: *jacob.sicy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43636), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received two comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0006, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is 202-566-0276. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Renewal). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1352.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0072. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The authority for these requirements is sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11011, 11012). EPCRA Section 311 requires owners and operators of facilities subject to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

(HCS)to submit a list of chemicals or Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) (for those chemicals that exceed thresholds, specified in 40 CFR part 370) to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Local Emergency Planning Committee

(LEPC)and the local fire department

(LFD)with jurisdiction over their facility. This is a one-time requirement unless a new facility becomes subject to the regulations or updating the information by facilities that are already covered by the regulations. EPCRA section 312 requires owners and operators of facilities subject to OSHA HCS to submit an inventory form (for those chemicals that exceed the thresholds, specified in 40 CFR part 370) to the SERC, LEPC, and LFD with jurisdiction over their facility. This form is to be submitted on March 1 of each year, on the inventory of chemicals in the previous calendar year. *Burden Statement:* The annual average burden for MSDS reporting (basic and additional reporting) is estimated at 6.75 hours for new facilities. Additional reporting, which is to submit revised and new MSDSs for currently covered and new facilities is 2 hours. The average burden for new and currently covered facilities to submit MSDS upon request is 1 hour. The average burden to comply with Tier II inventory reporting for small, medium and large manufacturers is 8, 80 and 120 hours, respectively. The average burden to comply with Tier II inventory reporting for small, medium and large non-manufacturers is 6, 20, and 40 hours, respectively. There are no recordkeeping requirements for facilities under EPCRA sections 311 and 312, although it is assumed that they will maintain a copy of annual reports to use for future filings. The recordkeeping for MSDSs is mandated under OSHA rules. The average burden for state and local governments to respond to requests for MSDSs or Tier II information under 40 CFR 370.30 is estimated to be one hour per request. The average burden for managing and maintaining the reports and MSDS files is estimated to be 32.50 hours. The average burden for maintaining and updating a 312 database is estimated to be 320 hours. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Any facility owner or operator that is required to prepare or have a material safety data sheet

(MSDS)for a hazardous chemical under OSHA Hazardous Communication Standard and if the chemical meets the threshold level specified in 40 CFR part 370. Some facilities include but are not limited to, chemical, petroleum, warehouse, food, paper mills, etc. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 353,552 *Frequency of Response:* Annually, on occasion *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 3,792,432 *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $207,454,485, includes $6,389,900 annualized capital or O&M costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 1,763,732 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. EPA had contacted small, medium and large size facilities in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors to develop this burden. In previous ICRs, the Agency only contacted small and medium size facilities and used a weighted average. For this ICR, EPA applied the burden reported by each sector that we contacted. There is a decrease of 209,948 in the estimated universe from the previous ICR. EPA believes that the universe estimates in this ICR are more accurate since most States now collect Tier II electronically so they were able to provide EPA with a better estimate of the number of facilities subject to sections 311 and 312 than was estimated in previous years. Dated: January 17, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-1187 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0032; FRL-8519-8] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1051.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0025 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0032, to

(1)EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Lazarus, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division (CAMPD), Office of Compliance, (2223A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)564-6369; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *lazarus.leonard@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10735), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0032, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is

(202)566-1752. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1051.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0025. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while his submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Particulate matter emissions from portland cement plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category. The control of emissions of particulate matter from portland cement plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from portland cement plants are the result of operation of kilns, clinker coolers, raw mill systems, raw mill dryers, raw material storage, clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems. These standards rely on the capture of particulate emissions by a baghouse or electrostatic precipitator. In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. Notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The quarterly reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The standard also requires semiannual reporting of deviations from monitored opacity, as this is a good indicator of the source's compliance status. Responses to this information collection are mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart F). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 56 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Portland Cement Plants. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 118. *Frequency of Response:* Initially and Semiannually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 13,806 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $1,413,511, which includes capital/startup costs of $37,000, O&M costs of $495,600, and labor costs of $880,911. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: January 17, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-1188 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8520-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1095] Draft Toxicological Review of Chlordecone (Kepone): In Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Peer-Review Workshop and Public Comment Period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Versar, under a contract with EPA, will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer-review workshop to review the external review draft document entitled, “Toxicological Review of Chlordecone (Kepone): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” (EPA/635/R-07/004). The EPA is also announcing a public comment period for the draft document. EPA intends to consider comments and recommendations from the public and the expert panel meeting when EPA finalizes the draft document. The public comment period and the external peer-review workshop are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to forward public comments, submitted in accordance with this notice, to the external peer-review panel prior to the workshop for their consideration. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. Versar invites the public to register to attend this workshop as observers. In addition, Versar invites the public to give brief oral comments at the workshop regarding the draft document under review. The draft document and EPA's peer review charge are available via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* When finalizing the draft document, EPA intends to consider any public comments that EPA receives in accordance with this notice. DATES: The peer-review panel workshop will be held on April 10, 2008 at 9 a.m. The 60-day public comment period begins on January 24, 2008 and ends March 24, 2008. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by March 24, 2008. EPA intends to submit comments from the public received by this date to Versar prior to the workshop for consideration by the panel. ADDRESSES: The peer-review workshop will be held at the Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Versar is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer-review workshop. To attend the workshop, register by April 1, 2008 via the Internet at *http://epa.versar.com/kepone.* You may also register by calling Versar at 703-750-3000 extension 582, or sending an email to Gina Casciano at *gcasciano@versar.com.* You must register by April 1, 2008 and indicate whether you wish to provide brief oral comments at the workshop. The draft “Toxicological Review of Chlordecone (Kepone): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” is available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's

(NCEA)home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* A limited number of paper copies are available from NCEA's Information Management Team; telephone: 703-347-8561; facsimile: 703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the document title. Comments may be submitted electronically via *www.regulations.gov,* by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the peer review workshop, contact Gina Casciano at Versar; telephone: 703-750-3000 extension 582 or e-mail *gcasciano@versar.com.* For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-1753; or e-mail: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov.* If you have questions about the document, contact Kathleen Newhouse, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-8641; e-mail: *newhouse.kathleen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS)IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database (available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/iris* ) contains qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than 540 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of a risk assessment process. When supported by available data, the database provides oral reference doses

(RfDs)and inhalation reference concentrations

(RfCs)for chronic health effects, and oral slope factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined with specific exposure information, government and private entities can use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk management decisions designed to protect public health. II. Workshop Information Members of the public may attend the workshop may attend the workshop as observers, and there will be a limited time for oral comments from the public. Please let Versar know if you wish to make comments during the workshop prior to the meeting by registering on the Web site at *http://epa.versar.com/kepone* and indicating your intent to make oral comments. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. III. How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at www.regulations.gov Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD2007-1095 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 202-566-1753. • *Mail:* Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752. • *Hand Delivery:* The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1095. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless a 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center. Dated: January 17, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-1224 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Regional Docket Nos. V-2006-4, FRL-8520-2] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Wisconsin Public Service Corporation—Weston Generating Station AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to Clean Air Act operating permit. SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has responded to a petition asking EPA to object to a Clean Air Act

(Act)operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Specifically, the Administrator granted in part and denied in part the petition submitted by the Sierra Club to object to the operating permit for Wisconsin Public Service Corporation—Weston Generating Station (Weston). Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Act, a Petitioner may seek in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit judicial review of those portions of a petition which EPA denied. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to section 307 of the Act. ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA, Region 5 Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before visiting day. Additionally, the final order for the Weston petition is available electronically at: *http://yosemite.epa.gov/r5/ardcorre.nsf/permits.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone

(312)886-4447. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA review period to object to a state operating permit if EPA has not done so. A petition must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. On November 20, 2006, EPA received a petition from the Sierra Club requesting that EPA object to the Title V operating permit for Weston. The petition alleged that:

(1)The permit limits evidence that can be used by citizens to demonstrate noncompliance;

(2)the permit omits operating limitations applicable to Unit 3;

(3)the permit fails to include a compliance schedule for the plant's continuing violations of the heat and energy limits in the prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) permit for Unit 3;

(4)the permit contains insufficient monitoring for particulate matter emissions from Units 1, 2, and 3;

(5)the permit fails to require sufficient monitoring to ensure compliance with visible emission limits on sources B11, B12, and B13;

(6)revisions to the permit constitute a change in the method of operation without going through PSD permitting;

(7)Units 1 and 2 underwent major modifications without PSD permit review; and

(8)Weston Generating Station has unaddressed opacity violations. On December 19, 2007, the Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion. Dated: January 11, 2008. Gary Gulezian, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-1221 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8520-4] Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Final Agency Action and Availability of 4 Total Maximum Daily Loads

(TMDL)in Arkansas AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the final agency action of 4 TMDLs and the availability of the administrative record files for comment on 4 TMDLs and the calculations for these TMDLs prepared by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in the State of Arkansas, under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These TMDLs were completed in response to the lawsuit styled *Sierra Club, et al.* v. *Browner, et al.* , No. LR-C-99-114. DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the 4 TMDLs should be sent to Diane Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733 or e-mail: *smith.diane@epa.gov.* For further information, contact Diane Smith at

(214)665-2145 or fax 214.665.7373. The administrative record files for the 4 TMDLs are available for public inspection at this address as well. Documents from the administrative record files may be viewed at *http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/npdes/tmdl/index.htm,* or obtained by calling or writing Ms. Smith at the above address. Please contact Ms. Smith to schedule an inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Smith at

(214)665-2145. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1999, five Arkansas environmental groups, the Sierra Club, Federation of Fly Fishers, Crooked Creek Coalition, Arkansas Fly Fishers, and Save our Streams (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the EPA, styled *Sierra Club, et al.* v. *Browner, et al.* , No. LR-C-99-114. Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to establish Arkansas TMDLs in a timely manner. EPA Seeks Comment on 4 TMDLs By this notice EPA is seeking comment on the following 4 TMDLs for waters located within Arkansas basins: Segment-Reach Waterbody name Pollutant 11140109-013 Holly Creek Fecal coliform. 11140109-013 Holly Creek E. coli. 11140109-033 Mine Creek Fecal coliform. 11140109-033 Mine Creek E. coli. EPA requests that the public provide to EPA any water quality related data and information that may be relevant to the calculations for the 4 TMDLs. EPA will review all data and information submitted during the public comment period and revise the TMDLs where appropriate. EPA will then forward the TMDLs to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The ADEQ will incorporate the TMDLs into its current water quality management plan. Dated: January 14, 2008. William K. Honker, P.E., Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6. [FR Doc. E8-1193 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8520-3] Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Final Agency Action on 3 Arkansas Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the final agency action on 3 TMDLs established by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in the State of Arkansas, under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These TMDLs were completed in response to the lawsuit styled *Sierra Club, et al.* v. *Browner, et al.* , No. LR-C-99-114. Documents from the administrative record files for the final 3 TMDLs, including TMDL calculations may be viewed at *http://www.epa.gov/region6/6wq/npdes/tmdl/index.htm.* ADDRESSES: The administrative record files for these 3 TMDLs may be obtained by writing or calling Ms. Diane Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733. Please contact Ms. Smith to schedule an inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Smith at

(EDSP)Proposed Tier-1 Screening Battery. DATES: The meeting will be held on March 25-28, 2008, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, Eastern Standard Time. *Comments* . The Agency encourages written comments be submitted by March 11, 2008 and requests for oral comments be submitted by March 18, 2008. Written comments and requests to make oral comments are accepted until the date of the meeting but anyone submitting written comments after March 11, 2008 should contact the Designated Federal Official

(DFO)listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Nominations* . Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before February 7, 2008. *Special accommodations* . For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center - Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, Virginia 22202. *Comments* . Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0012, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* . Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0012. If your comments contain any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* . All documents in the docket are listed in a docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in a docket index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. *Nominations* : Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as an ad hoc member of the FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Downing, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(202)564-8432; fax number:

(202)564-8382; e-mail addresses: *downing.jim@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of particular interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. How May I Participate in this Meeting? You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0012 in the subject line on the first page of your request. 1. *Written comments* . The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES , no later than March 11, 2008, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting but anyone submitting written comments after March 11, 2008 should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring 30 copies for distribution to the FIFRA SAP. 2. *Oral comments* . The Agency encourages that each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than March 18, 2008, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of the FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP at the meeting. 3. *Seating at the meeting* . Seating at the meeting will be open and on a first-come basis. 4. *Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting* . As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: Endocrinology, toxicology, aquatic toxicology, thyroid biology, reproductive or developmental toxicology/endocrinology, comparative endocrinology, and toxicological pathology. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before February 7, 2008. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency. The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 15 to 20 ad hoc scientists. FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap* or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* . II. Background A. Purpose of the FIFRA SAP The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the Scientific Advisory Panel on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the Scientific Advisory Panel. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Agency. B. Public Meeting The EPA is implementing an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

(EDSP)in response to a 1996 Congressional mandate under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Section 408(p) of the FFDCA required the EPA “to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effect as EPA may designate (FFDCA 21 U.S.C. 346a(p). In 1998, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), a panel of experts chartered pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)in response to the FFDCA, submitted a final report to advise the EPA on how to develop its Endocrine Disruptor screening and testing program. The screening program was also reviewed and reported on by the EPA's Science Advisory Board and Scientific Advisory Panel (SAB/SAP) as required by the FFDCA. Together, the EDSTAC and SAB/SAP recommended that the EPA address both human and ecological effects and examine effects on the estrogen as well as the androgen and thyroid

(EAT)hormonal systems, and that a two-tiered approach be used for screening (EPA. Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee EDSTAC Final Report. August 1998. *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/edspoverview/ finalrpt.htm).* The purpose of Tier-1 is to identify substances that have the potential to interact with the EAT hormonal systems using a battery of screening assays. The purpose of Tier 2 testing is to identify and establish a dose-response relationship for any adverse effects that might result from the interactions identified through the Tier-1 screening battery. The EPA has validated (or anticipates completing validation in 2008) several candidate assays for the Tier-1 battery as follows: Screening assays being considered for the Tier-1 battery: *In vitro* • Rat uterine cytosol and human recombinant estrogen receptor

(ER)binding* • Rat prostate cytosol androgen receptor

(AR)binding • Human cell line (H295R) steroidogenesis* • Human placental and recombinant aromatase *In vivo* • Uterotrophic

(rat)• Hershberger

(rat)• Pubertal female

(rat)• Pubertal male

(rat)• Adult male

(rat)• Amphibian metamorphosis

(frog)• Fish short-term reproduction *Consideration of these assays will be contingent on individual assay peer review, which is expected in 2008. Following an extensive validation process, the EPA has had (or expects to have in 2008) each of these assays peer reviewed independently by a panel of scientific experts. The individual assay peer review process was done to ensure that independent scientific opinions about the candidate assays were obtained and considered. Information regarding individual assay peer review can be found in section IV.D. of the **Federal Register** of July 13, 2007, *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/July/Day-13/p13672.pdf.* The EPA is now convening an independent scientific peer review of the Tier-1 screening battery and has chosen the FIFRA SAP process. The FIFRA SAP will be charged with commenting on whether the EPA's proposed battery composition fulfills its purpose (i.e., to identify the potential to interact with the EAT hormone systems). The SAP will specifically be asked to comment on the strengths and limitations of the proposed battery, and to suggest improvements that could be made to the proposed battery considering candidate assays. The SAP's advice will inform the EPA's final decision on the composition of the EDSP's Tier-1 screening battery. C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to the FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by late February 2008. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, at *http://www.regulations.gov* and the FIFRA SAP homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap* . The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* . List of Subjects Environmental protection, pesticides and pests. January 17, 2008. Elizabeth Resek, Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy. [FR Doc. E8-1191 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CG Docket No. 03-123; DA 07-5009] The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reports on the First Triennial Review of the Commission's Policies and Practices Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In this document, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) reports on its review of the Commission's policies and practices under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Commission's rules mandate that it conduct a review of its current policies and practices in view of advances in relevant technology and achievability every three years. The report concludes that during the past three years, the Commission has successfully provided access to its programs and activities for people with disabilities in accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Mason, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at

(202)418-7126 (voice),

(202)418-7828 (TTY), or e-mail *Diane.Mason@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 07-5009, released December 17, 2007, in CG Docket No. 03-123. A copy of document DA 07-5009 will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554,

(202)418-0270. Document DA 07-5009 also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com* , or by calling

(800)378-3160. Document DA 07-5009 also may be found by searching the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* (insert CG Docket No. 03-123 into the Proceeding block). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Synopsis Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1810, every three years the Commission must undertake a self-evaluation of its compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794. The year 2007 marked the end of the first triennium. The Bureau releases this report accordingly, which reviews disability access services provided during the past three years, considers comments from consumers served, and replies to the single filing submitted in response to the Public Notice seeking comment on the Commission's section 504 policies and practices, *The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on the Commission's Policies and Practices Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973* , CG Docket No. 03-123, DA 07-1396, published at 72 FR 19502, April 18, 2007. The report concludes that during the past three years, the Commission has successfully provided access to its programs and activities for persons with disabilities in accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Background By way of background, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities under any program or activity receiving federal funds. In 1978, the Act was amended to include any program or activity conducted by an Executive Branch agency or the United States Postal Service. The 1978 amendments also required covered agencies to establish regulations to implement section 504's mandates. In 2003, the Commission released an order amending its section 504 rules, *Amendment of Part 1, Subpart N of the Commission's Rules Concerning Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in the Commission's Programs and Activities* , FCC 03-48 ( *2003 Section 504 Order* ), published at 68 FR 22315, April 28, 2003. These amendments updated terminology to be consistent with current statutory language, supplied specifications for filing in alternative formats, outlined procedures for requesting reasonable accommodations, and established a triennial self-evaluation. Concurrent with the release of the *2003 Section 504 Order* , the Commission also produced and distributed the *Federal Communications Commission Section 504 Programs and Activities Accessibility Handbook (Section 504 Handbook).* Since the *Section 504 Handbook* functions as a centralized source for both disability information and accessibility best practices, it was also made available to the public via the Commission's Web site, at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section_504.html* . Paper copies were supplied upon request. In order to ensure that consumers with disabilities know how to request the access services they need, instructions for requesting reasonable accommodations are included on the Commission Web site, in most public documents, and in all consumer fact sheets and advisories. Requests for services are generally received via the Commission's FCC504 mailbox ( *FCC504@fcc.gov* ), the Disability Access telephone line (both voice and TTY), or by direct contact with the Commission's Section 504 Officer. The report examines the access services provided by the Commission in the following eight forms from July 2004 through June 2007: sign language interpreting; captioning; CART (Computer Assisted Realtime Translation); re-voicing; Braille; large print; electronic formats ( *e.g.* , text, PDF); and audio ( *e.g.* , MP3 files, CDs). For each form of accommodation, the Commission attempts to acquire the best services available under the circumstances. When the Commission has received consumer reports of dissatisfaction with service providers ( *e.g.* , regarding turnaround times for Braille documents, sign language interpreters who have difficulty understanding specific deaf consumers), it has been able to work with the consumers to make sure that their preferences are noted when subsequent requests for accommodations are made. Overall, consumer feedback has been positive. The report concludes that the Commission does not need to modify its accessibility policies and practices at this time, but will continue to address specific accessibility issues as they arise. Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson) filed comments on May 22, 2007, focusing on Video Relay Service

(VRS)access issues. Sorenson notes that the Commission's public videophone located near the Commission Meeting Room on the TW level of the Portals II Building “appears to be dedicated to Federal Relay.” Sorenson asserts that “[t]he Commission's current practice of restricting on-premises callers to Federal Relay denies those callers the full access mandated” by section 504. Contrary to Sorenson's assertion, the Commission's public videophone does not require callers to use Federal Relay Service. Calls can be made peer-to-peer or through any VRS provider. Sorenson also recommends that the information about VRS in the Commission's *Section 504 Handbook* be updated to reflect changes in the services offered through VRS providers—specifically, that VRS calls may now be initiated by hearing callers and that ASL-to-Spanish VRS services are available. These changes will be reflected in the next edition of the *Section 504 Handbook* . Federal Communications Commission. Nicole McGinnis, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-1166 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment Request AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of information collections to be submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, the FDIC, and the OTS (collectively, the agencies) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. On September 25, 2006, the agencies, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Council (FFIEC), requested public comment on a proposal to implement new regulatory reporting requirements for banks 1 that qualify for and adopt the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework to calculate their risk-based capital requirement or are in the parallel run stage of qualifying to adopt this framework (71 FR 55981). The agencies have made certain modifications to the proposed reporting requirements as described in this notice both in response to comments received and to reflect requirements of the final rule implementing the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (72 FR 69288, referred to hereafter as the final rule). The FFIEC, of which the agencies are members, has approved publication of these reporting requirements and the agencies are submitting these reporting requirements to OMB for review and approval. Upon approval, OMB control numbers will be obtained. 1 For simplicity, and unless otherwise indicated, this notice uses the term “bank” to include banks, savings associations, and bank holding companies (BHCs). The terms “bank holding company” and “BHC” refer only to bank holding companies regulated by the Board and do not include savings and loan holding companies regulated by the OTS. For a detailed description of the institutions covered by this notice, refer to Part I, Section 1, of the final rule entitled Risk-Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 25, 2008. These reporting requirements are effective April 1, 2008, and institutions subject to these requirements must begin reporting data at the end of the first quarter in which they have begun their parallel run period. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies. OCC: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mail Stop 1-5, *Attention:* 1557-NEW, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to

(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling

(202)874-5043. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. Board: You may submit comments, which should refer to “FFIEC 101” by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.* Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • *FAX:* 202-452-3819 or 202-452-3102. • *Mail:* Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. FDIC: You may submit comments, which should refer to “FFIEC 101,” by any of the following methods: • *http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html.* • *E-mail: comments@FDIC.gov.* Include “FFIEC 101” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Valerie Best (202-898-3907), Supervisory Counsel, Attn: Comments, Room F-1070, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. • *Hand Delivery:* Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. *Public Inspection:* All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/notices.html* including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected at the FDIC Public Information Center, Room E-1002, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. OTS: You may submit comments, identified by “FFIEC 101” by any of the following methods: • *E-mail address: infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov.* Please include “FFIEC 101” in the subject line of the message and include your name and telephone number in the message. • *Fax:*

(202)906-6518. • *Mail:* Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, *Attention:* “FFIEC 101.” • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: “FFIEC 101.” *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and OMB Control Number for this information collection. All comments received will be posted without change to the OTS Internet Site at *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1.* In addition, you may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call

(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov,* or send a facsimile transmission to

(202)906-7755. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to

(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the regulatory reporting requirements discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency clearance officers whose names appear below. In addition, copies of reporting schedules and instructions can be obtained from the FFIEC's Web site. 2 2 *http://www.ffiec.gov/ffiec_report_forms.htm* . *OCC:* Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer (202-874-5090), Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. *Board:* Michelle Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829). Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD)users may call

(202)263-4869. *FDIC:* Valerie Best (202-898-3812), Supervisory Counsel, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. *OTS:* Ira L. Mills at *ira.mills@ots.treas.gov,*

(202)906-6531, or facsimile number

(202)906-6518, Regulations and Legislation Division, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agencies are requesting OMB approval to implement the following new information collection. *Report Title:* Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework Regulatory Reporting Requirements. *Form Number:* FFIEC 101. *Frequency of Response:* Quarterly. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. OCC *OMB Number:* 1557-NEW. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 national banks. *Estimated Time per Response:* 625 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 130,000 hours. Board *OMB Number:* 7100-NEW. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 6 state member banks. *Estimated Time per Response:* 625 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 15,000 hours. *OMB Number:* 7100-NEW. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 15 BHCs. *Estimated Time per Response:* 625 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 37,500 hours. FDIC *OMB Number:* 3064-NEW. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 19 state nonmember banks. *Estimated Time per Response:* 625 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 47,500 hours. OTS *OMB Number:* 1550-NEW. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5 savings associations. *Estimated Time per Response:* 625 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 12,500 hours. General Description of Reports This information collection is mandatory for banks using the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework: 12 U.S.C. 161 (for national banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 and 12 U.S.C. 1844(c) (for state member banks and BHCs respectively), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (for insured state nonmember commercial and savings banks), and 12 U.S.C. 1464 (for savings associations). This information collection will be given confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) except for selected data items (Schedules A and B, and data items 1-2 of the operational risk Schedule S) that will be released for reporting periods after an institution has successfully completed its parallel run period and is qualified to use the advanced approaches for regulatory capital purposes. The agencies will not publicly release information submitted during an entity's parallel run period. Abstract Each bank that qualifies for and applies the advanced internal ratings-based approach to calculate regulatory credit risk capital and the advanced measurement approaches to calculate regulatory operational risk capital, as described in the final rule, is required to file quarterly regulatory data. The agencies will use these data to assess and monitor the levels and components of each reporting entity's risk-based capital requirements and the adequacy of the entity's capital under the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework; to evaluate the impact and competitive implications of the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework on individual reporting entities and on an industry-wide basis; as one input to develop an interagency study at the end of the second transitional floor period as described more fully in the final rule implementing the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework; and to supplement on-site examination processes. The reporting schedules will also assist banks in understanding expectations around the system development necessary for implementation and validation of the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework. Submitted data that is released publicly following a reporting entity's parallel run period will also provide other interested parties with information about banks' risk-based capital. Current Actions Risk-Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework: Regulatory Reporting Requirements I. Background On September 25, 2006, the agencies issued for comment a joint notice of proposed regulatory capital reporting requirements (71 FR 55981) for U.S. banks that qualify for and adopt the advanced internal ratings-based

(AIRB)approach for calculating regulatory credit risk capital and the advanced measurement approaches

(AMA)for calculating regulatory operational risk capital (together, the advanced approaches). These proposed regulatory reporting requirements were issued concurrently with the joint notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on a new risk-based capital framework for banks (71 FR 55830). On December 7, 2007, the agencies published final rules implementing the new risk-based capital framework (72 FR 69288). This notice describes the final risk-based capital reporting requirements for banks that qualify for and adopt the new risk-based capital framework or are in the parallel run stage of qualifying to adopt this framework. Data items contained within the reporting proposal pertained to the risk parameters and drivers of a bank's regulatory capital measures under the AIRB and AMA approaches. The reporting proposal identified a number of uses for the data to be submitted, which included the ability of the agencies to monitor risk-based capital requirements, assess the components of these requirements, evaluate the impact of implementing the new advanced approaches, and supplement on-site examination processes relating to the implementation of the new advanced approaches. The proposal also indicated that certain summary information would be made available to the public for reporting periods after a bank has qualified to use the advanced approaches for regulatory capital to provide a sufficient degree of public disclosure to market participants. The agencies have evaluated comments received on the reporting proposal and have made changes to the reporting requirements as described below. Certain changes to the reporting requirements, collected data elements, and reporting instructions have also been made to conform reporting to changes made to the final rule. II. Comment Overview The agencies received sixteen comment letters that directly addressed the reporting proposal. In addition to providing responses to the specific questions posed by the agencies, a number of commenters identified both general and technical issues relating to the reporting requirements, report schedules, and reporting instructions. Some additional comments focused primarily on the Pillar 3 disclosure requirements of the joint notice of proposed rulemaking, but also included less specific comments on regulatory reporting. In general, commenters reflected concerns over the perceived burdens of the proposed reporting requirements without sufficient offsetting benefits in terms of the analytical needs of supervisors and the information needs of investors and other public users of financial information. Specific areas of concern identified in the comments covered a range of issues including concerns about

(1)the length of time allowed following a quarter-end to file reports with the agencies,

(2)public disclosures of certain risk estimates used to calculate risk-weighted assets for credit risk portfolios,

(3)public disclosures of certain data items contained in the operational risk schedule,

(4)the reporting of credit risk portfolios not defined in the proposed rulemaking,

(5)the reporting of data elements not required for calculation of regulatory capital, and

(6)potential duplication or inconsistencies of the reporting requirements with Pillar 3 disclosures. The agencies have made a number of modifications to the reporting requirements in light of these comments. Among the changes that address concerns about reporting burden, the agencies have eliminated three schedules and approximately 600 reportable data items, expanded the submission deadlines during a bank's parallel run period, and allowed more data items to be reported on an optional basis (depending on information availability, e.g., information pertaining to pre-credit risk mitigation risk estimates for wholesale exposures when the substitution approach is used, and various data items pertaining to operational risk modeling). Additionally, in recognition of concerns about report certification requirements, the agencies have adopted alternative certification language that focuses on meeting the requirements imposed by the final rule and reporting instructions as opposed to a statement attesting to the accuracy of data items that include parameter estimates. The reporting proposal raised three specific questions for industry's consideration. First, the agencies asked about the feasibility of collecting additional information to help isolate the causes of changes in regulatory credit risk-based capital requirements (the lookback portfolio approach). The agencies have decided not to pursue the collection of this additional information at this time but intend to explore with the industry in the future ways to facilitate such analyses. Second, the agencies asked about the desirability of using an alternative approach to fixed bands for reporting wholesale and retail schedules. Although the majority of commenters favored the alternative approach, the agencies have decided to retain the fixed band approach to achieve greater comparability among reporting banks. Third, the agencies asked about the appropriateness of making certain data items available to the public for reporting periods subsequent to a bank's parallel run period. With the exception of certain information contained in the operational risk schedule (data items 3 through 7 of this schedule), the agencies have decided to continue to require public disclosure of all other data items contained in Schedules A and B, and data items 1 and 2 only of the operational risk schedule, for reporting periods after a bank has qualified to use the advanced approaches for regulatory capital purposes. The agencies believe that such disclosures are consistent with Pillar 3 of the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework and will provide useful information to investors and other market participants about a bank's capital structure, risk exposures, and main components of a bank's regulatory capital calculations. As in the reporting proposal, all other information submitted per these reporting requirements will remain confidential. One commenter also indicated its belief that the burden estimate provided in the reporting proposal of 280 hours per respondent was significantly understated. Although the final reporting requirements require submission of significantly less data items than under the reporting proposal, the agencies have revised their estimates of reporting burden on a per respondent basis upward in recognition of reporting burdens incurred by banks on other types of regulatory reports and the level of detail required to be submitted under these reports. Certain other modifications, such as the elimination of data items relating to expected loss given default, were made to conform the reporting requirements and instructions to the final rule. A complete discussion of comments, and changes made to the reporting requirements, is contained in the following sections. III. Scope and Frequency of Reporting Banks That Are Required To Submit Reports The reporting requirements associated with the final rule will apply, as proposed, to each BHC, on a consolidated basis, and each depository institution that qualifies for and applies the advanced approaches (section I of the final rule provides a detailed discussion of institutions covered by these reporting requirements), as well as banks in the parallel run stage of qualifying to use the advanced approaches. The agencies did not receive any comments objecting to the scope of application of these reporting requirements as stated. Frequency of Reports As proposed, the reports described herein are to be submitted to the agencies on a quarterly basis. The agencies did not receive comments that generally opposed quarterly reporting. However, as discussed below, some commenters argued for less frequent or lagged reporting of certain data elements relating to operational risk. Reporting Due Dates A number of commenters raised concerns over the proposed requirement to align reporting due dates with those currently required for banks, savings associations, and BHCs that file Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports), Thrift Financial Reports (TFRs), and BHC FR Y-9C reports, respectively. These commenters offered a range of alternative reporting deadlines but generally argued for extended deadlines through at least the parallel run and transitional floor periods. The agencies agree that it is reasonable to extend reporting deadlines through the parallel run period to 60 days following the end of a quarter. However, the agencies believe that once a bank qualifies to use the advanced approaches and enters the transitional floor period, the bank should have the ability to fully support regulatory capital calculations to coincide with the timing of other financial disclosures. Accordingly, after a bank's parallel run period, the agencies are requiring submission of the information required by this notice within the same timeframes set forth in the reporting instructions for the Call Report, TFR, and BHC FR Y-9C filed by banks, savings associations, and BHCs, respectively. Report Certification Requirements Under the reporting proposal, banks would be required to meet the same reporting standards that are applied to other regulatory reports including certification by a bank's Chief Financial Officer attesting to the correctness of the reports. While acknowledging the reasonableness of requiring certifications of reported information, one commenter raised concerns over certifications of the accuracy of risk parameter estimates and the procedures used to validate those estimates. In recognition of these concerns, the agencies have modified the certification requirements for this regulatory report submission. These report certifications are substantially similar to those required for banks' Pillar 3 disclosures in that they require one or more senior officers of the reporting entity to attest that the risk estimates and other information submitted to the agencies meet the requirements set forth in the final rule and reporting instructions. Initial Reporting Period For those banks subject to these reporting requirements, the first reporting period (as proposed) will correspond to the quarter-end of the first quarter of a bank's parallel run period. Although no commenters objected to this requirement, some commenters did raise concerns over the ability to implement those systems changes necessary to meet these reporting requirements without a sufficient amount of time between publishing these requirements and the first reporting period. The agencies are mindful of the tight timeframes for banks whose first reporting period corresponds to the quarter-end following the effective date of the final rule. The agencies expect that systems development will be an iterative process during the parallel run period, with steady improvement in overall reporting and gradual reduction of manual processes prior to qualification. Relationship to Other Regulatory Reporting of Risk-Based Capital As proposed, banks subject to these reporting requirements will submit capital information under both this notice and under the existing risk-based capital reporting requirements (the general risk-based capital rules) during their respective parallel run periods and subsequent transitional floor periods. 3 A bank would discontinue reporting under the general risk-based capital rules once it is permitted to exit its third transitional floor period. The agencies received no comments on this requirement. 3 General risk-based capital data under the existing risk-based capital standards are currently captured in the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) for banks (Form FFIEC 031 or FFIEC 041); OMB No. 1557-0081 for the OCC, 7100-0036 for the Board, and 3064-0052 for the FDIC), the Thrift Financial Report

(TFR)for savings associations (OTS Form 1313; OMB No. 1550-0023), and the Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (Board Form FR Y-9C; OMB No. 7100-0128). Electronic Submission of Reports Consistent with requirements for the agencies' reports which collect data under the existing risk-based capital reporting requirements, banks subject to these reporting requirements must submit these reports in an electronic format using file specifications and formats determined by the agencies. IV. Overview of the Data Reporting Requirements The reporting proposal contained 22 separate schedules: One schedule (Schedule A) detailing banks' capital elements (the numerator of the risk-based capital calculation); one schedule (Schedule B) that summarizes the components of risk-weighted assets for categories of credit risk portfolios, operational risk exposures, and market risk; and 20 schedules (Schedules C through V) that provide additional detail on the risk parameters and drivers of credit risk-weighted and operational risk-weighted assets. For wholesale and retail credit exposures, the reporting schedules contain information on the risk parameters used in specific risk-based capital formulas to determine risk-weighted asset amounts, namely: Probability of default (PD, which measures the likelihood that an obligor will default over a one-year horizon); loss given default (LGD, which is an estimate of the economic loss if a default occurs during downturn economic conditions); exposure at default (EAD, which is measured in dollars and is an estimate of the amount that would be owed to the bank at the time of default); and, for wholesale credit exposures, an exposure's effective maturity (M, which is measured in years and reflects the effective remaining maturity of the exposure). The retail credit risk schedules also include information on loan-to-values, credit bureau scores, and account seasoning, which are likely to be important risk drivers within these portfolios. For securitization, equity, and operational risk exposures, the reporting schedules include data on the main inputs to, and outputs of, internal models and regulatory risk weight functions used to determine risk-weighted assets for these exposures. Several commenters raised concerns about burdens associated with and the need for reporting of certain types of credit exposures not explicitly defined outside the reporting proposal. These exposure types include Construction Income Producing Real Estate

(IPRE)and Other Retail Exposures—Small Business. In response to industry concerns, the agencies have consolidated several schedules. Specifically, the final reporting requirements consolidate reporting of Construction IPRE and non-construction IPRE exposures into one IPRE schedule (new Schedule F), consolidate reporting of Qualifying Revolving Exposures—Credit Cards and Qualifying Revolving Exposures—All Other into one Qualifying Revolving Exposure schedule (new Schedule N), and consolidate reporting of Other Retail Exposures—Small Business and Other Retail Exposures—All Other into one Other Retail Exposure schedule (new Schedule O). With these schedule consolidations, the final reporting requirements require the submission of 19 schedules instead of the 22 schedules contained in the reporting proposal. A. Publicly Available Risk-Based Capital Data for the Advanced Approaches Content of Schedules A and B Schedule A contains information about the components of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, as well as adjustments to regulatory risk-based capital as defined in the final rule. Certain modifications were made to data item captions, schedule footnotes, and instructions for clarification purposes and to conform the reporting requirements to the final rule. More specifically, in Part 1 of Schedule A for banks and BHCs, data item 6b, “Qualifying trust preferred securities,” as well as the deduction in data item 7b, “ *LESS:* Cumulative change in fair value of all financial liabilities accounted for under a fair value option that is included in retained earnings and is attributable to changes in the bank's own creditworthiness,” were added to derive the appropriate numerator for the Tier 1 risk-based capital calculation. In addition, the deductions in data items 10a and 16a, “ *LESS:* Insurance underwriting subsidiaries' minimum regulatory capital (for BHCs only)” were added to conform to the final rule and are necessary to derive the numerator for both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 risk-based capital calculation. A number of proposed data items relating to the regulatory leverage capital ratio were also eliminated from Part 1 of the schedule because they are reported in other regulatory reports. Schedule B contains summary information about risk-weighted assets by exposure categories, and for credit risk exposures, outstanding balances and aggregated information about the estimates that underlie the calculation of risk-weighted assets. The information in Schedule B is largely unchanged from the reporting proposal with some minor modifications. The modifications include:

(1)The addition of data item 24 for unsettled transactions (balance sheet amount and risk-weighted assets) in response to industry comments,

(2)the addition of data item 28 for the calculation of total credit risk-weighted assets scaled by the 1.06 multiplier contained in the final rule,

(3)the addition of data item 29 to recognize risk-weighted asset deductions for excess eligible credit reserves not included in Tier 2 capital (to be consistent with paragraph (a)(2) of section 13 of the final rule),

(4)the elimination of three data items for exposure types whose reporting has been consolidated with other exposure types as described above, and

(5)changes to various caption headings to align them with the descriptions and definitions contained in the final rule. The agencies received the following technical comments on data elements contained in Schedule B, Summary of Risk Weighted Assets for Banks Approved to Use the Advanced Approaches: • Several commenters recommended re-labeling line 30 in the reporting proposal from Immaterial Exposures to Credit Exposures on Other Methods. These commenters argued that a broader exposure category was needed for the inclusion of unsettled securities transactions and other exposures where it is not feasible to estimate risk parameters under the advanced approaches. The agencies have modified Schedule B to include a separate data item for reporting the balance sheet amounts and risk-weighted assets associated with unsettled transactions (data item 24). The agencies note that the final rule specifically addresses and defines credit exposures that are not included within a defined exposure category, as well as non-material portfolios of exposures. Schedule B has been modified to include reporting of the risk-weighted assets and balance sheet amounts for these categories of exposures as described in the final rule; • Several commenters sought clarification that the Expected Credit Loss

(ECL)column in Schedule B should be reported after considering credit risk mitigation

(CRM)effects. The agencies confirm that all ECL data items within the reporting schedules are to be reported on a post-CRM basis; and • One commenter requested revisions to Schedule B to allow for agreement between aggregated credit portfolio (balance sheet) information and amounts listed in other regulatory reports such as Call Reports and the BHC FR Y-9C report. The agencies acknowledge the desired objective conveyed by this commenter to ensure that regulatory capital calculations encompass all exposures within a bank. However, the agencies believe it is more important to delineate exposures by exposure categories (and subcategories) as defined within the final rule since each of these exposures is associated with a specific set of risk weight curves, risk weight functions, or calculation approaches. As a result, the agencies have decided not to redefine exposure categories to be consistent with those defined within other regulatory reports. The agencies have also decided not to impose additional burden of reconciling the financial information contained in these reports to balance sheet information contained in other regulatory reports. Rather, the agencies believe that the comprehensiveness of these reports can be confirmed through other means such as on-site reviews. Publicly Available Information The agencies received a number of comments relating to the public disclosure of information reported in Schedules A and B, and data items 1 through 7 of the Operational Risk schedule. These commenters argued for limited or phased-in disclosure of Schedule B data items in particular, limiting disclosure of Schedule B data items to risk-weighted assets by exposure type and related on- and off-balance sheet amounts, or flexibility in timing of submissions when an institution views certain information as proprietary in nature. These commenters generally argued that components of the risk-weighted asset calculation such as PD, LGD, and EAD are not well understood, are incomplete measures of risk, are not comparable across institutions, and may be subject to misinterpretation by investors and other market participants. After consideration, the agencies have decided to retain public disclosure of all data items in Schedules A and B (as modified) for reporting periods after a bank has qualified to use the advanced approaches for regulatory capital purposes (i.e., once a bank enters its first transitional floor period). All reported information will remain confidential during the bank's parallel run. The agencies believe such disclosures, at the bank level, are consistent with the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework and will provide useful information to investors and other market participants about a bank's capital structure, its risk exposures, and the main components and risk drivers underlying the bank's regulatory capital calculations. Although the agencies agree with industry comments that care must be taken in making comparisons of aggregated risk parameters across institutions, the agencies note that comparability concerns have been substantially reduced by changes made to the final rule (such as the elimination of expected loss given default or ELGD and the adoption of the New Accord's definition of default for wholesale credit exposures). As with the Pillar 3 disclosure requirements, the agencies believe public disclosure of the information in Schedules A and B is consistent with the objectives of market discipline and transparency advanced within the final rule and will provide investors and other market participants with a basic set of summary-level standardized information about the main components of banks' risk-based capital requirements. As noted in the proposed reporting requirements, banks may be able to use certain data items in these disclosures to augment Pillar 3 disclosures required by the final rule. Data items 1 and 2 only of the operational risk schedule (Schedule S), will also be made publicly available for reporting periods after a bank has qualified to use the advanced approaches for regulatory capital purposes (i.e., once an institution enters into its first transitional floor period). This requirement is a modification of the reporting proposal, which proposed making data items 1 through 7 of this schedule publicly available along with information in Schedules A and B. A number of commenters raised concerns that data items 3 through 7 of the operational risk schedule contain proprietary or sensitive information. In light of these comments, the agencies have reevaluated whether these data elements are appropriate for public disclosure and have concluded they are not. Therefore, all operational risk schedule data items with the exception of data items 1 and 2 will remain confidential. Commenters generally agreed that data items 1 and 2 of this schedule were appropriate for public disclosure. B. Non-Publicly Available Risk-Based Capital Data for the Advanced Approaches With the exception of data items 1 and 2 in Schedule S, information submitted in Schedules C through S will be shared among the four agencies but will not be released to the public. The data elements contained in these schedules will provide the agencies with additional, aggregated detail about the components and main drivers of reporting banks' risk-based capital levels. The agencies will use this information to help focus on-site supervisory examination efforts by facilitating off-site monitoring of banks' regulatory capital calculations and regulatory capital trends, and to facilitate peer comparisons of capital and capital risk estimation parameters. Reporting of Credit Risk by Fixed Supervisory Bands For the wholesale and retail credit portfolios (Schedules C through O), aggregated information is reported at the level of fixed supervisory PD bands as defined within the reporting proposal. The agencies received a number of comments on the use of supervisory PD bands for purposes of aggregating information in the wholesale and retail schedules (question 2 of the reporting proposal). Most commenters indicated such aggregations would impose reporting burdens over an alternative approach discussed in the reporting proposal that would have allowed banks to report information by internal loan grades and internal segments. One commenter indicated indifference to the two reporting approaches for wholesale exposures. However, this latter commenter indicated that reporting of retail exposures by fixed PD bands would be more practical since reporting by internal segments could be unwieldy, given the large number of possible segments and segmentation schemes within a given bank, and would reduce, if not eliminate, comparability. One commenter supported reporting by fixed PD band and suggested that reporting burdens could actually increase to achieve comparability under the alternative approach. The agencies have considered these comments and have decided to retain reporting by fixed supervisory PD bands as presented in the reporting proposal. While the agencies acknowledge some incremental reporting burden related to this approach, the agencies believe this reporting format achieves the desired objective of facilitating peer comparisons of risk-weighted asset and risk parameter estimation information. Moreover, the agencies believe that the alternative approach could introduce incremental reporting burdens over the adopted approach given the need to develop rules for combining and aggregating the large number of possible segmentation schemes used by banks. Lookback Portfolio Reporting The agencies also received many comments opposing the data collection alternative presented in question 1 of the reporting proposal. This alternative involved collecting additional information to help identify causes of changes in credit risk regulatory capital requirements (the lookback portfolio proposal). Commenters were strongly opposed to this alternative, citing significant additional reporting burdens and concerns about the lack of specificity of the alternative. Many of these same commenters indicated that changes in regulatory capital could be better and more efficiently identified through alternative processes such as on-site reviews. After considering these comments, the agencies have decided at this time not to require submissions of the additional information suggested by this alternative lookback reporting proposal. The agencies continue to see merit in being able to identify whether changes in a bank's assessment of risk are due to changes in the mix of exposures held or due to changes in risk assessments. As a result, the agencies intend to publish a proposal for comment that would facilitate such analyses. This notice would identify safety and soundness issues that could be addressed by additional data items contained in the proposal as well as other alternatives beyond a formal reporting process for obtaining this information. Comments received on this proposal will directly influence the agencies' decision whether to collect additional information beyond what is contained in the reporting requirements contained in this notice. Wholesale Exposures Data reported in Schedules C through J include information about the risk-weighted assets, balance sheet exposures, number of obligors, and main components or aggregated risk parameter estimates of the risk-based capital calculation for wholesale credit exposures. Each schedule represents a sub-portfolio of the wholesale exposure category and each portfolio corresponds to a data item on the summary Schedule B. The wholesale sub-portfolios are as follows: Corporate (Schedule C); Bank (Schedule D); Sovereign (Schedule E); Income Producing Real Estate or “IPRE” (Schedule F); High Volatility Commercial Real Estate or “HVCRE” (Schedule G); Eligible Margin Loans, Repo-Style Transactions, and OTC Derivatives with Cross-product Netting (Schedule H); Eligible Margin Loans and Repo-Style Transactions without Cross-product Netting (Schedule I); and OTC Derivatives without Cross-product Netting (Schedule J). As discussed above, exposures reported in these schedules are to be grouped into more detailed sub-portfolio segments using the fixed supervisory PD bands. Several commenters raised concerns about the reporting proposal's requirement to calculate and disclose the impact of guarantees and credit derivatives on risk-weighted assets for wholesale exposures. These commenters indicated that such a requirement would impose significant burden on institutions whose current practice is not to maintain separate risk information for obligors and guarantors on certain exposures. Some of these commenters suggested an alternative reporting approach that would require reporting of the EAD amounts associated with exposures where risk is mitigated by guarantees or credit derivatives. The agencies have considered these comments and note that similar concerns were raised with respect to the application of the substitution approach described in the agencies' proposed rule. For reporting, the agencies have revised the reporting instructions relating to credit risk mitigation to conform to the final rule. Specifically, banks need not calculate and report the impact of guarantees and credit derivatives on risk-weighted assets where a bank extends credit based solely on the financial strength of a guarantor, provided the bank applies the PD substitution approach to all exposures of that obligor. The agencies believe that this modification to the reporting instructions should alleviate much of the concern expressed in the comments since reporting the effects of credit risk mitigation on risk-weighted assets would be required only in those situations where the bank is required by the final rule to maintain separate internal risk ratings for a wholesale obligor and the guarantor or credit provider under a credit derivative. The agencies note that reporting under the double default approach is not affected by this modification since separate internal risk ratings are a necessary requirement to calculate regulatory risk-based capital using this approach. In those cases where it is feasible to do so, the agencies are retaining the approach contained in the reporting proposal to require institutions to report the impact of credit risk mitigation on risk-weighted assets rather than adopt the suggestion made in some comments to report the EAD related to exposures eligible for the substitution, LGD adjustment, or double default approaches. One commenter also questioned the need for a separate column for the weighted average LGD percentage before consideration of guarantees and credit derivatives, arguing that banks have little incentive to use the LGD adjustment approach since adjustment is subject to a floor based on the PD substitution approach (i.e., the risk-based capital requirement for a hedged exposure can never be lower than that of a direct exposure to the protection provider). Notwithstanding any disincentives to using the LGD adjustment approach, banks subject to the advanced approaches have the option of using this approach to reduce capital requirements against hedged wholesale exposures. Therefore, the agencies have decided to retain these columns in the wholesale schedules. The agencies intend to reevaluate the need for this information in light of actual submissions. The agencies received the following technical comments relating to data to be reported in Schedules C through J: • Two commenters indicated possible confusion in Schedule E of where to reflect the impact of sovereign guarantees since such guarantees often are used to reduce corporate exposures, not sovereign exposures. These commenters noted that the confusion could be eliminated by adopting a recommendation to report the EAD of exposures eligible for the substitution, LGD adjustment, or double default approaches. In response, the agencies have modified the reporting instructions to indicate that while banks should generally use the underlying obligor as the basis for categorizing wholesale credit exposures, the categorization of wholesale exposures may be determined by the guarantor in cases where a PD is not assigned to the obligor; • One commenter sought clarification of the term “Number of Obligors” listed as a column in Schedules C through G under the following scenarios:

(i)When a bank has multiple facilities outstanding to one borrower;

(ii)when a bank lends to both a subsidiary and to a parent of that same facility; and

(iii)when a bank has two exposures to an obligor, one with no guarantee and the other with a guarantee. The agencies note that similar comments were received with respect to the internal risk rating assignment process described in the proposed rule and that a formal definition for obligor was adopted in the final rule as a result. For reporting purposes, banks should apply this same definition when determining how to quantify the number of obligors to report in Schedules C through G; 4 4 The final rule defines an obligor as the legal entity or natural person contractually obligated on a wholesale exposure except that a bank may treat the following exposures as having separate obligors:

(1)Exposures to the same legal entity or natural person denominated in different currencies; (2)(i) an income-producing real estate exposure for which all or substantially all of the repayment of the exposure is reliant on cash flows of the real estate serving as collateral for the exposure; the bank, in economic substance, does not have recourse to the borrower beyond the real estate serving as collateral; and no cross-default or cross-acceleration clauses are in place other than clauses obtained solely out of an abundance of caution; and

(ii)other credit exposures to the same legal entity; and (3)(i) a wholesale exposure authorized under section 364 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 364) to a legal entity or natural person who is a debtor-in-possession for purposes of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; and

(ii)other credit exposures to the same legal entity or natural person. • One commenter sought clarification that exposures reported in the new Schedules I and J include transactions not subject to cross-product netting but may be subject to single-product netting. The agencies confirm this interpretation; and • One commenter indicated that the PD ranges for the reporting of eligible margin loans, repo-style transactions, and OTC derivatives (new Schedules H through J) should be consistent with the PD ranges contained in other wholesale schedules. The agencies believe that the different PD ranges for exposures in these schedules, which contain a larger number of lower-risk PD bands, will likely result in more meaningful reported distributions of exposures across the credit quality spectrum for these sub-portfolios. Accordingly, the agencies have decided to retain the PD bands as proposed. However, to capture a larger range of low-risk exposures and achieve better comparability across exposure categories, the agencies have also decided to widen one of the PD bands and align the end points of two PD bands with those in other wholesale credit schedules. Specifically, the PD band for line 2 on these schedules was widened to 0.03 to 0.10 (from 0.03 to 0.05 in the reporting proposal); and the PD bands for lines 3 and 4 were changed to 0.10 to 0.15 and 0.15 to 0.25, respectively (from 0.05 to 0.10 and 0.10 to 0.25, respectively). The agencies made two additional clarifications in the instructions to the wholesale exposure Schedules C through J to conform reporting to the final rule. Both of these clarifications relate to the basis for assigning exposures to the fixed supervisory PD bands specified within each wholesale exposure schedule. Generally, these assignments should be based on the PD estimates associated with the internal loan rating assigned to the obligor. However, consistent with the final rule, an exception is made in cases where the bank extends credit based solely on the financial strength of the guarantor provided that all of the bank's exposures to an obligor are fully covered by eligible guarantees and the bank applies the PD substitution approach to all of those exposures. In these cases, banks may use the PD estimate associated with the internal loan grade assigned to the guarantor for purposes of assigning exposures to a given fixed supervisory PD band. Another exception is made for eligible purchased wholesale exposures (as defined in the final rule). For these exposures, banks should use segment-level risk estimates for purposes of assigning exposures to a given fixed supervisory PD band. 5 This treatment is consistent with paragraph (d)(4) of section 31 of the final rule. 5 Reporting of other risk parameters (LGD, EAD, M, and ECL) for eligible purchased wholesale exposures should also be done on a segment-level basis. The agencies made the following additional modifications to Schedules H, I, and J:

(1)To conform reporting to the final rule, the agencies added a data item 13 to columns C and E in Schedules H and I to capture the EAD and risk-weighted asset amounts associated with eligible margin loans subject to a 300 percent risk weight,

(2)data items for reporting the number of counterparties were eliminated from all three schedules, and

(3)certain captions and footnotes were modified for clarity and to conform to the terminology used in the final rule. Retail Exposures Data reported in Schedules K through O include information about the risk-weighted assets, balance sheet exposures, the number of accounts, and the main components or risk parameters of the risk-based capital calculation for retail credit exposures. These schedules also incorporate information pertaining to risk characteristics believed to be commonly used drivers within banks' risk management and measurement processes, to include information on loan-to-values, credit bureau scores, and account seasoning. Each schedule represents a sub-portfolio of the retail exposure category and each portfolio corresponds to a data item on the public Schedule B. These retail sub-portfolios are as follows: Residential Mortgage—Closed-end First Lien Exposures (Schedule K); Residential Mortgage—Closed-end Junior Lien Exposures (Schedule L); Residential Mortgage—Revolving Exposures (Schedule M); Qualifying Revolving Exposures (Schedule N); and Other Retail Exposures (Schedule O). As with the wholesale credit schedules, exposures reported in these schedules are to be grouped into more detailed sub-portfolio segments using the fixed supervisory PD bands. Many commenters objected to the inclusion of information pertaining to loan-to-values

(LTV)and EAD of accounts with updated LTVs for mortgage exposures. These commenters indicated in general that this risk driver information was not necessary for determination of risk-based capital requirements, is not always used in a bank's segmentation processes, and is not always readily available and therefore potentially burdensome to collect (particularly information pertaining to updated LTVs). The agencies note that the instructions accompanying the reporting proposal required reporting of LTV-related information only to the extent the information is available. The agencies continue to believe that LTV is likely to be an important risk driver for mortgage exposures and will be used by many institutions in the mortgage segmentation process. Several commenters also questioned the collection of weighted average bureau scores, and the names and types of credit scoring systems used, for retail exposures. These commenters indicated in general that this risk driver information was not necessary for determination of risk-based capital requirements, is not always used in a bank's segmentation processes, and may not be meaningful for banks that use internal scores or behavioral scores in their risk measurement and segmentation processes. Some commenters also indicated that some scoring systems (for example, non-U.S. scores) would not align with each other, making the calculation of weighted averages either incomplete or potentially misleading. The agencies note that the instructions accompanying the reporting proposal required reporting of credit bureau score information only to the extent the information is available, and only for commonly-mapped scoring systems used for the largest proportion of exposures in a sub-portfolio when multiple scoring systems are used. The agencies continue to believe that credit bureau scores are likely to be an important risk driver for many types of retail exposures and will be used by many institutions in their retail segmentation processes. Some commenters also raised concerns about reporting the age of mortgage exposures. These commenters indicated that this information is not always used to segment mortgage loan exposures and that there could be a number of possible ways to interpret the term “average age” used to calculate the weighted average age of a mortgage exposure depending on whether the loan was originated or purchased. These commenters indicated that it would be significantly burdensome to determine months since origination for purchased loans and sought confirmation that the number of months on books could be used instead. The agencies believe that loan seasoning is likely to be an important risk driver for many types of retail exposures, especially for closed-end mortgage exposures. Accordingly, for closed-end mortgages, the agencies are retaining the definition of account age, which requires that banks determine the age of an account (in months) with respect to the account's origination date. For revolving exposures, the agencies agree that account age (in months) should be determined with respect to the time on the bank's books. For all other retail exposures, the agencies will allow banks the flexibility to determine the age of an account using a reference point deemed most logical by the reporting bank. The agencies received the following technical comments relating to data to be reported in Schedules K through O: • Two commenters indicated that it was not a common practice to include both junior and senior lien positions in the calculation of LTVs when only the senior lien position was held. These comments recommended that only senior lien positions be included in the calculation for first lien exposures. The agencies agree with this comment and have revised the footnotes and instructions for first lien mortgage exposures accordingly; • A commenter sought confirmation that LTV cell values do not cumulate across the columns. The agencies confirm that the LTV cell values do not cumulate across the columns and have reworded the appropriate footnotes in the mortgage schedules; and • A commenter indicated that if LTV reporting is retained, an additional column should be added to encompass exposures where the LTV is unknown. Since the reporting of LTV information is required only when the information is available, the agencies do not believe it is necessary to collect information pertaining to exposures with unknown LTVs. After further consideration, the agencies have made an additional modification to the retail credit risk schedules to eliminate all columns requiring the reporting of weighted average LGD before consideration of eligible guarantees and credit derivatives. The agencies believe that the quantification of this data item could have imposed an excessive burden on banks since it would have required disentangling the effect of credit risk mitigation on LGDs assigned to a retail segment. Accordingly, the LGD estimates reflected in all retail credit exposure schedules should be inclusive of any credit risk mitigation effects. Securitization Exposures Schedule P provides information by rating categories about exposures subject to either the Ratings-Based Approach

(RBA)or the Internal Assessment Approach (IAA). Schedule Q provides additional memoranda information about unrated securitization exposures, exposures treated under the Supervisory Formula Approach (SFA), synthetic securitizations, and risk-weighted assets relating to early amortization features of securitizations as prescribed in the final rule. The agencies did not receive any substantive comments on the securitization exposure schedules but did receive the following technical comments: • One commenter requested clarification on how to report long-term securitization exposures rated more than one category below investment grade, and short-term securitization exposures rated below the third highest grade. The agencies have clarified reporting instructions to indicate that such exposures are not to be reported in Schedule P. These low-rated exposures are to be included in the appropriate data items of Schedule A (lines 9f and 17c); • One commenter requested clarification about the possible inconsistency of reporting between data items 1 and 2 on the securitization detail schedule (new Schedule Q) and data item 5 of schedule for securitization exposures subject to either the RBA or IAA (Schedule P). As described below, the agencies have made a number of modifications to the securitization detail schedule to improve the consistency and logical flow of the schedule as well as to conform reported data items and captions with the final rule; and • Multiple comments were received about the burdens associated with calculating the risk-weighted assets for securitization exposures not capped under section 42(d) of the final rule (data item 6b of Schedule T in the reporting proposal). The agencies have removed this data item from the new Schedule Q. The following additional modifications were made to the securitization detail schedule (new schedule Q) to more comprehensively capture securitization deductions specified in the final rule and to consolidate certain data items on the schedule:

(1)Data item 1 was added to require reporting of deductions under the RBA and IAA approaches;

(2)proposed data item 1, “unrated exposures requiring deduction because no IRB treatment for the underlying exposures,” was replaced by data item 2, requiring reporting of all other securitization deductions;

(3)proposed data item 2, deductions under the SFA, was consolidated with proposed data item 3 requiring reporting of exposures and risk-weighted assets for this approach (see data item 3);

(4)reporting of exposures and risk-weighted assets of synthetic exposures and hedged synthetic exposures on proposed data items 4 and 5 were consolidated into one line (see data item 4); and

(5)the captions for proposed data items 7 and 8, relating to investors' interest in securitization, were modified to conform to the terminology used in the final rule. Equity Exposures Data reported in Schedule R contains exposure amount and risk-weighted asset information about a bank's equity exposures by type of exposure and by approach to measuring required capital including equity exposures subject to specific risk weights and equity exposures to investment funds. Banks would also complete the appropriate section of the schedule based on whether it uses a simple risk weight approach, a full internal models approach, or a partially modeled approach to measuring required capital for equity exposures. The agencies received the following technical comments on the equity risk schedule: • Two commenters indicated that the flow of the schedule's sections was confusing and recommended that the schedule be redesigned. These commenters also requested clarification of reporting for certain data items such as equity investments in investment funds that have material liabilities. In response, the agencies have modified the equity schedule to more closely align with the structure and flow of the equity risk capital calculation approaches contained in the final rule. The agencies have also developed more specific reporting instructions and modified captions of reported data items to conform with the terminology used in the final rule. With respect to the treatment of equity investments in investment funds with material liabilities, the agencies refer to the discussion of such investments in section V.F.4 in the preamble of the final rule. The agencies made several additional modifications to the equity schedule to simplify reporting and conform data items within the schedule to the final rule. These changes include the following:

(i)The elimination of proposed data items 7 and 8, for “excluded equity exposures to investment funds” and “aggregate equity exposures in hedge pairs with smaller adjusted carrying value;”

(ii)the elimination of reporting for the 100 percent risk-weight category for FHLB/Farmer Mac exposures proposed data item 4 (such exposures are risk weighted at 20 percent under the final rule);

(iii)the addition of data item 9, “600 percent risk weight equity exposures under the Simple Risk Weighted Approach (SRWA)” to conform with the final rule;

(iv)the addition of data item 14 for reporting exposures to investment funds eligible for treatment under the Money Market Fund Approach defined within the final rule; and

(v)splitting proposed data items 13, 18, and 22 to better conform with the logical flow of the calculation of risk-weighted assets for equity exposures under the final rule using one of three different approaches: the SRWA, the full Internal Models Approach (IMA), or the partial IMA. Operational Risk The new Schedule S provides data items pertaining to risk-based capital held against operational risk as well as various details about historical operational losses used to model operational risk capital. The schedule also contains data items related to scenarios, distribution assumptions, and loss caps used to model operational risk capital. The agencies received several comments objecting to quarterly disclosures of certain data contained in the proposed operational risk schedule, particularly those disclosures pertaining to the disclosure of historical loss event frequency and severity information. These commenters indicated that such disclosures were contrary to the principles outlined in the Basel Committee's New Accord and represented only a portion of information that is used to develop regulatory capital for operational risk. After considering these comments, the agencies have made several modifications to the reporting requirements for operational risk data items that includes the elimination of certain data items (i.e., the reporting of current period loss distribution information) and the inclusion of conditional reporting for a number of data items depending on whether a bank uses a given technique (e.g., historical loss distributions or scenario analyses) or parameterization assumption (e.g., loss threshold) to develop regulatory capital requirements for operational risk. In cases where these techniques or assumptions are not used, banks would report either “N/A” or “0”

(none)for these data items, as discussed in the instructions. Several commenters also raised a question about which specific subsidiaries the operational risk disclosures would apply to. The agencies believe that all banking subsidiaries that qualify for and adopt the advanced approaches for calculating regulatory capital should be required to submit information about the regulatory capital held against operational risk capital to include certain details about the information used to model operational risk capital. In those situations where a banking subsidiary does not use a specified technique or assumption, it will be allowed to report either “N/A” or “0” depending on the context of the reported data item. The agencies received the following technical comments on the operational risk schedule: • Several commenters requested clarification whether column B in the proposed operational risk reporting schedule refers to the quarterly reporting period for the schedule or for a model that may be annual. The agencies have decided to eliminate column B from the schedule; • Several commenters requested clarification on how to report starting and ending dates for event loss data when these dates differ for frequency and for severity estimation purposes. The agencies have revised the schedule to request starting and ending dates for both historical frequency and severity distribution data, and only to the extent a bank uses this information to model operational risk capital (see data items 8a through 8d); • Several commenters requested clarification of how to report loss thresholds in data item 9 of the schedule when multiple thresholds are used within the modeling framework. The agencies have clarified the instructions to require reporting of the largest threshold used; • Several commenters requested clarification of how to report the number and dollar amount of individual loss events in data items 11 through 15 of the schedule when losses below internal thresholds are aggregated without capturing the number of individual events. Another commenter also requested that banks be allowed to report losses on an event basis rather than a dollar volume basis and that banks be allowed to report such information on a one quarter lagged basis. The agencies have clarified the instructions to specify that a loss event may encompass multiple loss transactions as long as they are all related to the same event. However, losses that do not relate to the same event should be considered separate loss events and should be separately counted for purposes of reporting data items 11 through 15. The instructions have also been clarified to state that reporting of the dollar volume of losses in data item 15 should be calculated on an event basis. In addition, data item 14a for loss events “less than $10,000” and data item 15a for the dollar amount of losses “Less than $10,000” have been added to provide a comprehensive distribution of loss events. The agencies have eliminated the requirement to report loss event information pertaining to the “current reporting period” and therefore see no need to allow banks to report remaining loss event information on a one quarter lagged basis; • Two commenters requested confirmation that information pertaining to the number of scenarios used to model operational risk capital on data items 16 through 18 referred to the number of relevant industry events. The agencies have clarified the reporting instructions to state that only scenarios used in calculating the risk-based capital requirements for operational risk should be included in these data items. In addition, data item 18a, for scenario analysis in the range of “less than $1 million” was added in order to provide a comprehensive distribution of scenario data; • Several commenters requested clarification of information pertaining to distributional assumptions in data items 20 and 21 as to whether the change in assumptions refers to a change in a parameter of a distribution or a change in the distribution class or type. The agencies have clarified the instructions to specify that the change in assumptions refers to a change in distribution type. Further, no reporting is required when the bank does not use a frequency or severity distribution to model risk-based capital for operational risk; and • Several commenters requested confirmation that the agencies would accept “not applicable” in response to the loss cap information requested in data items 22 through 24 when a bank does not use loss caps. The agencies have clarified the instructions to report the number “0” on line 22 and “N/A” in lines 23 and 24 when no loss caps are used. V. Request for Comment Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed new collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the proposed information collections, 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 information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 10, 2008. Stuart E. Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 17, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC, this 14th day of January, 2008. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Dated: January 17, 2008. Deborah Dakin, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations and Legislation Division, The Office of Thrift Supervision. [FR Doc. E8-1198 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P, 6714-01-P, 6210-01-P, 6720-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011839-007. *Title:* Med-Gulf Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Hapag-Lloyd AG and Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would reduce the amount of space chartered to Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. *Agreement No.:* 011962-004. *Title:* Consolidated Chassis Management Pool Agreement. *Parties:* The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association and its member lines; the Association's subsidiary Consolidated Chassis Management LLC and its affiliates; China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd.; Companhia Libra de Navegacao; Compania Libra de Navegacion Uruguay; Matson Navigation Co.; Mediterranean Shipping Co., S.A.; Norasia Container Lines Limited; Westwood Shipping Lines; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. *Filing Party:* Jeffrey F. Lawrence, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would add the Midwest Consolidated Chassis Pool LLC as a member to the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 012023. *Title:* CSAV/NYK ECUS-WCSA Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. and Nippon Yusen Kaisha. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes CSAV to charter space to NYK for the carriage of vehicles from Baltimore and Miami to ports in Chile and Peru. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Dated: January 18, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-1225 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [Docket No. 9325] Herbs Nutrition Corporation, et al.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Herbs Nutrition, Docket No. 9325,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following email box: *consentagreement@ftc.gov* . 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Ashe (202-326-3719) or Janice Frankle (202-326-3022), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 3.25(f) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty

(30)days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 17, 2008), on the World Wide Web, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/01/index.htm* . A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling

(202)326-2222. Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Herbs Nutrition Corporation, a corporation, and Syed Jafry, individually and as an officer of Herbs Nutrition (together, “respondents”). The proposed order resolves the allegations of the complaint issued against the respondents on September 28, 2007. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty

(30)days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty

(30)days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order. This matter involves the advertising and promotion of Eternal Woman Progesterone Cream and Pro-Gest Body Cream, transdermal creams that, according to their respective labels, contain, among other ingredients, natural progesterone. According to the Commission’s complaint, the respondents represented that Eternal Woman Progesterone Cream and Pro-Gest Body Cream:

(1)were effective in preventing, treating, or curing osteoporosis;

(2)were effective in preventing or reducing the risk of estrogen-inducted endometrial (uterine) cancer; and

(3)did not increase the user’s risk of developing breast cancer and/or were effective in preventing or reducing the user’s risk of developing breast cancer. The complaint alleged that the respondents failed to have substantiation for these claims. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order requires the respondents to have competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating claims that any progesterone product or any other dietary supplement, food, drug, device or health-related service or program is effective in preventing, treating, or curing osteoporosis, in preventing or reducing the risk of estrogen-induced endometrial cancer or breast cancer, or in the mitigation, treatment, prevention, or cure of any disease, illness, or health condition; that it does not increase the user’s risk of developing breast cancer, is safe for human use, or has no side effects; or about its health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects. Part II of the proposed order prevents the respondents from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research. Part III of the proposed order provides that the order does not prohibit the respondents from making representations for any drug that are permitted in labeling for the drug under any tentative final or final Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) standard or under any new drug application approved by the FDA; representations for any medical device that are permitted in labeling under any new medical device application approved by the FDA; and representations for any product that are specifically permitted in labeling for that product by regulations issued by the FDA under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Parts IV through VIII require the respondents to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements; to provide copies of the order to certain of their personnel; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure and changes in employment that might affect compliance obligations under the order; and to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part IX provides that the order will terminate after twenty

(20)years under certain circumstances. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary [FR Doc. E8-1169 Filed 1-23-08: 8:45 am] [BILLING CODE 6750-01-S] FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 072 3046] Life is good, Inc., and Life is good Retail, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Life is good, File No. 072 3046,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following email box: *consentagreement@ftc.gov* . 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Rich, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202)326-2252. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty

(30)days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 17, 2008), on the World Wide Web, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/01/index.htm* . A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling

(202)326-2222. Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement from Life is good, Inc. and Life is good Retail, Inc. (collectively, “Life is good”). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty

(30)days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty

(30)days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement’s proposed order. Life is good designs and distributes retail apparel and accessories and operates a retail website at *www.lifeisgood.com* . In selling its products, Life is good routinely has collected sensitive information from consumers, including name, address, e-mail address, phone number, credit card number, credit card expiration date, and credit card security code (hereinafter “consumer information”). Life is good has collected this consumer information through its website and telephone orders and stored it on a network computer accessible through the website. This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations Life is good made about the security it provided for this information. The Commission’s proposed complaint alleges that Life is good represented that it implemented reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect the privacy and confidentiality of sensitive consumer information. The complaint alleges this representation was false because Life is good engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for the sensitive consumer information stored on its computer network. In particular, Life is good:

(1)created unnecessary risks to credit card information by storing it indefinitely in clear, readable text on its network without a business need, and by storing credit card security codes;

(2)failed to assess adequately the vulnerability of its web application and corporate computer network to certain commonly known or reasonably foreseeable attacks, such SQL injection attacks;

(3)failed to implement simple, free or low-cost, and readily available defenses to SQL and related types of attacks;

(4)failed to use readily available security measures to monitor and control connections from the network to the internet; and

(5)failed to employ sufficient measures to detect unauthorized access to credit card information. The complaint further alleges that between June and August 2006, a hacker exploited Life is good’s failures by using SQL injection attacks on Life is good’s website and web application and exporting to the hacker’s browser consumer information for thousands of customers, including credit card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. The proposed order applies to personal information Life is good collects from or about consumers. It contains provisions designed to prevent Life is good from engaging in the future in practices similar to those alleged in the complaint. Part I of the proposed order prohibits Life is good, in connection with the collection of personally identifiable information from or about consumers, in or affecting commerce, from misrepresenting the extent to which it maintains and protects the privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of such information. Part II of the proposed order requires Life is good to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program in writing that is reasonably designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information collected from or about consumers. The security program must contain administrative, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to Life is good’s size and complexity, the nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of the personal information collected from or about consumers. Specifically, the order requires Life is good to: 1. Designate an employee or employees to coordinate and be accountable for the information security program. 2. Identify material internal and external risks to the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information that could result in the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, loss, alteration, destruction, or other compromise of such information, and assess the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks. 3. Design and implement reasonable safeguards to control the risks identified through risk assessment, and regularly test or monitor the effectiveness of the safeguards’ key controls, systems, and procedures. 4. Develop and use reasonable steps to retain service providers capable of appropriately safeguarding personal information they receive from respondents, require service providers by contract to implement and maintain appropriate safeguards, and monitor their safeguarding of personal information. 5. Evaluate and adjust its information security program in light of the results of the testing and monitoring, any material changes to its operations or business arrangements, or any other circumstances that it knows or has reason to know may have a material impact on the effectiveness of their information security program. Part III of the proposed order requires that Life is good obtain, covering the first 180 days after the order is served, and on a biennial basis thereafter for twenty

(20)years, an assessment and report from a qualified, objective, independent third-party professional, certifying, among other things, that

(1)it has in place a security program that provides protections that meet or exceed the protections required by Part II of the proposed order; and

(2)its security program is operating with sufficient effectiveness to provide reasonable assurance that the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumers’ personal information is protected. Parts IV through VII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part IV requires Life is good to retain documents relating to their compliance with the order. For most records, the order required that the documents be retained for a five-year period. For the third-party assessments and supporting documents, Life is good must retain the documents for a period of three years after the date that each assessment is prepared. Part V requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part VI ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part VII mandates that Life is good submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty

(20)years, with certain exceptions. The purpose of the analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary [FR Doc. E8-1168 Filed 1-23-08: 8:45 am] [BILLING CODE 6750-01-S] GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0197] General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation;Information Collection; GSAR Provision 552.237-70, Qualifications of Offerors AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA. ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding the qualifications of offerors. The clearance currently expires on April 30, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. DATES: Submit comments on or before: March 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Jackson, Contract Policy Division, GSA,

(202)208-4949. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0197, GSAR Provision 552.237-70, Qualifications of Offerors, in all correspondence. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose The General Services Administration

(GSA)has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of service contracts. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of contracts for building services. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection and reporting requirements on contractors not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents* : 6794 *Responses Per Respondent* : 1 *Hours Per Response* : 1 *Total Burden Hours* : 6794 *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS* : Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0197, GSAR Provision 552.237-70, Qualifications of Offerors, in all correspondence. Dated: January 15, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-1144 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Application Requirements for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Program (REACH) Model Plan. *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* States, including the District of Columbia, Tribes, Tribal organizations and Territories applying for LIHEAP REACH funds must submit an annual application prior to receiving Federal funds. The Human Services Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-252) amended the LIHEAP statute to add Section 2607B, which established the REACH Program. REACH was funded for the first time in FY 1996 and is intended to:

(1)Minimize health and safety risks that result from high energy burdens on low-income Americans;

(2)reduce home energy vulnerability and prevent homelessness as a result of the inability to pay energy bills;

(3)increase the efficiency of energy usage by low-income families, helping them achieve energy self-sufficiency; and

(4)target energy assistance to individuals who are most in need. The REACH Model Plan clarifies the information being requested and ensures the submission of all the information required by statute. The form facilitates our response to numerous queries each year concerning the information that should be included in the REACH application. Submission of a REACH application and use of the REACH Model Plan is voluntary. Grantees have the option to use another format. *Respondents:* State Governments, Tribal governments, Insular Areas, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours REACH Model Plan 51 1 72 3,672 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 3,672. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 08-246 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 34

Traces to 34 documents

U.S. Code