Notices. Notice To Add a System of Records
22,841 words·~104 min read·
/register/2008/03/03/08-906A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [USAF-2008-0004] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Air Force. ACTION: Notice To Add a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force is proposing to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The changes will be effective on April 2, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Novell Hill at
(703)696-6518. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force notices for systems of records 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 proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on February 11, 2008, to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). Dated: February 26, 2008. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. F033 USSC A SYSTEM NAME: Information Technology and Control Records. SYSTEM LOCATION: Headquarters United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), Command Information Assurance
(IA)Branch (J672), 901 SAC Boulevard, Offutt Air Force Base, NE 68113-6600. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Military, civilian employees, contractor personnel, and individuals (to include foreign nationals) requiring access to Department of Defense information and information systems. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: System contains documents relating to requests for, and grants access to Department of Defense information and information systems, authorizes individuals to perform duties as a privileged user and/or Information Assurance manager, and/or authorizes individuals to bring Portable Electronic Devices
(PEDs)into the Command. Records may contain the individual's name; partial Social Security Number (last four-digits); electronic mail address; work telephone numbers; office symbol; contractor/employee status; computer logon address, user identification codes; types of access/permissions required; verification of need-to-know; dates of mandatory information assurance awareness training; types of duties performed; commercial certifications held; and/or security clearance data. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 5 U.S.C. 302, Delegation of Authority; 10 U.S.C. 133, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology; 10 U.S.C. 2224, Defense Information Assurance Program; 18 U.S.C. 1029 and 1030, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices and Computers; 44 U.S.C. 3536, National Security Systems; E.O. 10450 Security Requirements for Government Employees, as amended; Department of Department Instruction (DODI)8500.2, Information Assurance
(IA)Implementation, 6 February 2003; Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM) 6510.01, Defense-In-Depth: Information Assurance
(IA)And Computer Network Defense (CND), 25 March 03; Department of Defense Directive
(DODD)8570.1, Information Assurance Training, Certification, and Workforce Management, 15 August 2004; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). PURPOSE(S): To control and track access to Department of Defense-controlled information and information systems and/or to authorize use of Portable Electronic Devices
(PEDs)within the Command. Records may also be used by law enforcement officials to identify the occurrence of and assist in the prevention of computer misuse and/or crime. Statistical data, with all personal identifiers removed, may be used by management for system efficiency, workload calculations, or reporting purposes. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE 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 herein, may be specifically disclosed outside the Department of Defense as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The Department of Defense ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the Air Force'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: Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media. RETRIEVABILITY: Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), assigned user identification (I.D.) code, and/or system identification designator. SAFEGUARDS: The Command Information Assurance Manager, Headquarters United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM/J672), has full access to the information system file. Records are stored and kept in an area cleared for open storage of classified material. Paper records (completed forms) are kept in file cabinets located in a secure area and building under armed guard control and patrols 24-hours per day. Electronic records are stored on computer systems employing software programs and a Computer Network Defense Service Provider that monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information. Access to computer systems is password and/or Public Key Infrastructure controlled. The building is under armed guard control, video camera monitoring, and patrols 24-hours per day. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records are retained as long as the individual has access to USSTRATCOM information systems, and/or no longer needed for administrative, legal, audit, or other operational purposes. Records relating to contractor access are destroyed 3 years after contract completion or deletion. Paper records are disposed of using a Government-approved shredder; computer records are sanitized in accordance with Department of Defense remanence security policies. SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Chief, Information Assurance Branch, Headquarters United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM/J672), 901 SAC Blvd, Offutt AFB NE 68113-6600. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to Chief, Information Assurance Branch, USSTRATCOM/J672, 901 SAC Blvd, Offutt AFB NE 68113-6600. Inquiries should contain the individual's full name, mailing address, and bear the signature of the requester. Individuals may visit the Information Assurance Branch (USSTRATCOM/J672), 901 SAC Blvd, Offutt AFB NE 68113-6600, to view their record(s). The system manager will assist these individuals. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: An individual seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Chief, Information Assurance Branch, USSTRATCOM/J672, 901 SAC Blvd, Offutt AFB NE 68113-6600. Inquiries should contain the individual's full name, mailing address, and bear the signature of the requester. Individuals may visit the Information Assurance Branch (USSTRATCOM/J672), 901 SAC Blvd, Offutt AFB NE 68113-6600, to view their record(s). The system manager will assist these individuals. CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: The Air Force rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332, Privacy Act Program; 32 CFR Part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Contents of the records are obtained from the individual about whom the record pertains, from supervisors of personnel, the individual's Information Assurance Officer or Manager, and/or security manager. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1-R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3),
(c)and
(e)and published in 32 CFR part 701, subpart G. For additional information contact the system manager. [FR Doc. E8-4048 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [No. USN-2007-0048] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 2, 2008. *Title, Form, and OMB Number:* Mental Health Issues Among Deployed Personnel: Longitudinal Assessment of the Resilience of Deployed Sailors and Marines—Follow-up; OMB Control Number 0703-TBD. *Type of Request:* New. *Number of Respondents:* 3,700. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 3,700. *Average Burden Per Response:* 1 hour. *Annual Burden Hours:* 3,700. *Needs and Uses:* The proposed study builds on an existing study assessing the prevalence of mental health outcomes among Sailors and Marines transitioning from the Service, and identifying predictors of and changes in mental health and resilience over time. DoD regulations stipulate that all military personnel must receive pre-separation counseling no less than 90 days before leaving active duty. Enlisted Sailors and Marines attending Transition Assistance Program
(TAP)workshops were invited to participate in the current research. As part of the baseline component, TAP enrollees were surveyed at 12 installations (8 Navy and 4 Marine Corps) during the Summer—Fall 2007 time frame until the target sample size (N = 6000; 3000 in each Service) was obtained. Those respondents with high combat exposure will be assessed through a follow-on survey 6 months after separation from Military service, when participants have transitioned into civilian life. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Mr. John Kraemer. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD Health, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. *DoD Clearance Officer:* Ms. Patricia Toppings. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. Dated: February 25, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-4002 Filed 2-29-08; 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 April 2, 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: February 25, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Postsecondary Education *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* College Access Challenge Grant Program (CACGP) Application. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 58. *Burden Hours:* 2,320. * Abstract:* The U.S. Department of Education is collecting this information to ensure that States slated to receive CACGP funding are capable of implementing quality grant projects and complying with statutory and regulatory requirements. The CACGP statute requires States to submit an application containing a description of the capacity to administer grant activities and services, a plan for using grant funds to meet the requirements and special efforts to benefit underrepresented students, the non-federal share, and the structure the state has in place to administer activities and services. 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 3548. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. 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. E8-3832 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity; Notice of Members AGENCY: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education. What Is the Purpose of This Notice? The purpose of this notice is to list the members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (the Committee) and to give the public the opportunity to nominate candidates for the positions to be vacated by those members whose terms will expire on September 30, 2008. This notice is required under section 114(c) of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended. What Is the Role of the Committee? The Committee is established under section 114 of the HEA, as amended, and is composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Education from among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, including representatives of all sectors and type of institutions of higher education. The Committee meets at least twice a year and provides recommendations to the Secretary of Education pertaining to: • The establishment and enforcement of criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2 of Part H of Title IV, HEA. • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations. • The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations. As the Committee deems necessary or on request, the Committee also advises the Secretary about: • The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, HEA. • The development of standards and criteria for specific categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of higher education for which there are no recognized accrediting agencies, associations, or State agencies in order to establish the interim eligibility of those institutions to participate in Federally funded programs. • The relationship between
(1)accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and
(2)State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions. • Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe. What Are the Terms of Office for Committee Members? The term of office of each member is three years, except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed is appointed for the remainder of the term. A member may be appointed, at the Secretary's discretion, to serve more than one term. Who Are the Current Members of the Committee? The current members of the Committee are: Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/08 • Dr. Karen A. Bowyer, President, Dyersburg State Community College, Tennessee • Dr. Arthur Keiser, Chancellor, Keiser Collegiate System, Florida • Dr. Geri H. Malandra, Interim Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Strategic Management, University of Texas System • Dr. George A. Pruitt, President, Thomas A. Edison State College, New Jersey Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/09 • Dr. Carol D'Amico, President and Chief Executive Officer, Conexus Indiana • Mr. Patrick M. Callan, President, National Center for Public Policy/Higher Education • Mr. William P. Glasgow, CEO American Way Education, Texas • Ms. Anne D. Neal, President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, DC • Ms. Crystal Rimoczy, Student Member, Boston College, Massachusetts • Mr. H. James Towey, President, Saint Vincent College, Pennsylvania • Honorable Pamela P. Willeford, Former Chair, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Former Ambassador, Switzerland • Dr. George Wright, President, Prairie View A & M University, Texas Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/10 • Dr. Lawrence J. DeNardis, President Emeritus, University of New Haven, Connecticut • Ms. Andrea Fischer-Newman, Chair, Board of Regents, University of Michigan; Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Northwest Airlines, Washington, DC • Dr. Craig D. Swenson, President, Argosy University, Chicago, Illinois How Do I Nominate an Individual for Appointment as a Committee Member? If you would like to nominate an individual for appointment to the Committee, send the following information to the Committee's Executive Director: • A copy of the nominee's resume; and • a cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual and contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, and business phone and fax numbers). The information must be sent by May 1, 2008 to the following address: Melissa Lewis, Executive Director, National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, U.S. Department of Education, Room 7127, MS 7592, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. How Can I Get Additional Information? If you have any specific questions about the nomination process or general questions about the National Advisory Committee, please contact Ms. Melissa Lewis, the Committee's Executive Director, telephone:
(202)219-7009, fax:
(202)219-7008, e-mail: *Melissa.Lewis@ed.gov* between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1011c. Dated: February 14, 2008. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-4010 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, State Agencies for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education, and State Agencies for the Approval of Nurse Education AGENCY: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education (The Advisory Committee). What Is the Purpose of This Notice? The purpose of this notice is to invite written comments on accrediting agencies and State approval agencies whose applications to the Secretary for renewed recognition, requests for an expansion of the scope of recognition, or reports will be reviewed at the Advisory Committee meeting to be held Spring 2008, in Washington, DC. Where Should I Submit My Comments? Please submit your written comments by mail, fax, or e-mail no later than April 2, 2008 to Ms. Robin Greathouse, Accreditation and State Liaison. You may contact her at the U.S. Department of Education, Room 7126, MS 8509, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone:
(202)219-7011, fax:
(202)219-7005, or e-mail: *Robin.Greathouse@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. What is the Role of the Advisory Committee? The Advisory Committee is established under Section 114 of the HEA, as amended, and is composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Education from among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, including representatives of all sectors and type of institutions of higher education. The Advisory Committee meets at least twice a year and provides recommendations to the Secretary of Education pertaining to: • The establishment and enforcement of criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2 of Part H of Title IV, HEA. • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations. • The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations. As the Advisory Committee deems necessary or on request, the Advisory Committee also advises the Secretary about: • The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, HEA. • The development of standards and criteria for specific categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of higher education for which there are no recognized accrediting agencies, associations, or State agencies in order to establish the interim eligibility of those institutions to participate in Federally funded programs. • The relationship between
(1)accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and
(2)State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions. • Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe. Will This Be My Only Opportunity to Submit Written Comments? Yes, this notice announces the only opportunity you will have to submit written comments. However, a subsequent **Federal Register** notice will announce the meeting and invite individuals and/or groups to submit requests to make oral presentations before the Advisory Committee on the agencies that the Advisory Committee will review. That notice, however, does not offer a second opportunity to submit written comments. What Happens to the Comments That I Submit? We will review your comments, in response to this notice, as part of our evaluation of the agencies' compliance with Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies and State Approval Agencies. The Criteria are regulations found in 34 CFR Part 602 (for accrediting agencies) and in 34 CFR part 603 (for State approval agencies) and are found at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html.* We will also include your comments with the staff analyses we present to the Advisory Committee at its Spring 2008 meeting. Therefore, in order for us to give full consideration to your comments, it is important that we receive them by April 2, 2008. In all instances, your comments about agencies seeking continued recognition and/or an expansion of an agency's scope of recognition must relate to the Criteria for Recognition. In addition, your comments for any agency whose interim report is scheduled for review must relate to the issues raised and the Criteria for Recognition cited in the Secretary's letter that requested the interim report. What Happens to Comments Received After the Deadline? We will review any comments received after the deadline. If such comments, upon investigation, reveal that the accrediting agency or State approval agency is not acting in accordance with the Criteria for Recognition, we will take action either before or after the meeting, as appropriate. What Agencies Will the Advisory Committee Review at the Meeting? The Secretary of Education recognizes accrediting agencies and State approval agencies for public postsecondary vocational education and nurse education if the Secretary determines that they meet the Criteria for Recognition. Recognition means that the Secretary considers the agency to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education offered by institutions or programs it accredits that are encompassed within the scope of recognition she grants to the agency. The following agencies will be reviewed during the Spring 2008 meeting of the Advisory Committee: Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies Petitions for an Expansion of the Scope of Recognition 1. National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation in the United States of programs in practical nursing, and diploma, associate, baccalaureate and higher degree nurse education programs.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation in the United States of programs in practical nursing, and diploma, associate, baccalaureate and higher degree nurse education programs, including those offered via distance education.) Petitions for Renewal of Recognition 1. *American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (Current and requested scope of recognition:* The accreditation throughout the United States of programs in legal education that lead to the first professional degree in law, as well as freestanding law schools offering such programs. This recognition also extends to the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education (Accreditation Committee) for decisions involving continued accreditation (referred to by the agency as “approval”) of law schools.) 2. *American Board of Funeral Service Education, Committee on Accreditation (Current and requested scope of recognition:* The accreditation of institutions and programs within the United States awarding diplomas, associate degrees and bachelor's degrees in funeral service or mortuary science, including accreditation of distance learning courses and programs offered by these programs and institutions.) 3. *American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (Current and requested scope of recognition:* The accreditation and pre-accreditation (Accreditation Candidate) throughout the United States of education programs in audiology and speech-language pathology leading to the first professional or clinical degree at the master's or doctoral level, and the accreditation of these programs offered via distance education.) 4. *Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (Current and requested scope of recognition:* The accreditation and pre-accreditation throughout the United States of graduate-level, four-year naturopathic medical education programs leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.M.D.) or Doctor of Naturopathy (N.D.) 5. *Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education, Commission on Accreditation (Current and requested scope of recognition:* The accreditation of Montessori teacher education institutions and programs throughout the United States.) 6. *National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences (Current and requested scope of recognition:* The accreditation throughout the United States of postsecondary schools and departments of cosmetology arts and sciences and massage therapy.) *Interim Reports* (An interim report is a follow-up report on an accrediting agency's compliance with specific criteria for recognition.) 1. Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc., Accreditation Commission. 2. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges. 3. Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities. State Agency Recognized for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational Education Interim Reports 1. Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools. 2. Pennsylvania State Board of Vocational Education. State Agencies Recognized for the Approval of Nurse Education Petitions for Renewal of Recognition 1. Montana State Board of Nursing. 2. North Dakota Board of Nursing. Where Can I Inspect Petitions and Third-Party Comments Before and After the Meeting? All petitions and those third-party comments received in advance of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, Room 7126, MS 8509, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone
(202)219-7011 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, until May 16, 2008. They will be available again after the Spring 2008 Advisory Committee meeting. An appointment must be made in advance of such inspection. How May I Obtain Electronic Access to This Document? You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/legislation/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. 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/index.html.* Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. Dated: February 14, 2008. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-4011 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. PP-335] Application for Presidential Permit; Loring BioEnergy, LLC AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of application. SUMMARY: Loring BioEnergy, LLC,
(LBE)has applied for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada. DATES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before April 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Dr. Jerry Pell, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jerry Pell (Program Office) at 202-586-3362 or via electronic mail at *Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov* , or Michael T. Skinker (Program Attorney) at 202-586-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order
(EO)10485, as amended by EO 12038. On February 4, 2008, LBE, a Maine limited liability corporation, filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy
(DOE)for a Presidential permit. LBE proposes to construct and operate a single-circuit 138-kilovolt (138-kV) electric transmission line from Limestone, Maine, to the border between the United States and Canada. The proposed transmission line is referred to in the application as a 138-kV AC Generator Lead. The proposed transmission facilities would extend from a new cogeneration facility to be constructed by LBE at the Loring Commerce Centre near Limestone, Maine (the site of the former Loring Air Force Base), located approximately five and one-half miles west of the U.S.-Canada border, cross the U.S.-Canada border, and extend approximately three and one-half miles east to connect to the New Brunswick electrical grid in Grand Falls Parish, New Brunswick, Canada. New Brunswick Power, an agency of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, will construct the Canadian portion of the transmission facilities. Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, DOE invites comments on whether it would be appropriate to condition any Presidential permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles. *Procedural Matters:* Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments on or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment, or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above. Additional copies of such petitions to intervene, comments, or protests should also be filed directly with Hayes Gahagan, Vice President, Loring BioEnergy, LLC, 154 Development Drive, Suite G, Loring Commerce Centre, Limestone, ME 04750-6173. Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application. Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be reviewed or downloaded electronically at *http://www.oe.energy.gov/permitting/electricity_imports_exports.htm* . Upon reaching the Electricity Import/Exports page, select “Pending Proceedings.” Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2008. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E8-3993 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In this notice, the Department of Energy
(DOE)is forecasting the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2008 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene. DATES: *Effective Date:* The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective April 2, 2008 and will remain in effect until further notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,
(202)586-7892, *Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.* Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103,
(202)586-7432, *Francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(Act)(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the determination of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part 430, subpart B. Section 323(b) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission
(FTC)requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at *http://www.ftc.gov/appliances.* DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy for use in the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles on March 21, 2007 (72 FR 13268). Effective April 2, 2008, the cost figures published on March 21, 2007, will be superseded by the cost figures set forth in this notice. DOE's Energy Information Administration
(EIA)has developed the 2008 representative average unit after-tax costs found in this notice. The representative average unit after-tax costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the January, 2008, EIA *Short-Term Energy Outlook.* (EIA releases the *Outlook* monthly.) The representative average unit after-tax cost for kerosene is derived from its price relative to that of heating oil, based on the 2002-2006 averages for these two fuels. The source for these price data is the December 2007 *Monthly Energy Review* DOE/EIA-0035(2007/12). The *Short-Term Energy Outlook* and the *Monthly Energy Review* are available on the EIA Web site at *http://www.eia.doe.gov.* For more information on the two sources, contact the National Energy Information Center, Forrestal Building, EI-30, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202)586-8800, e-mail: *infoctr@eia.doe.gov.* The 2008 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 2, 2008. They will remain in effect until further notice. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2008. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Table 1.—Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for Five Residential Energy Sources
(2008)Type of energy Per million Btu 1 In commonly used terms As required by test procedure Electricity $31.65 10.80/kWh 2, 3 $.1080/kWh. Natural Gas 13.28 $1.328/therm 4 or $13.65/MCF 5, 6 .00001328/Btu. No. 2 Heating Oil 23.00 $3.19/gallon 7 .00002300/Btu. Propane 26.50 $2.42/gallon 8 .00002650/Btu. Kerosene 27.41 $3.70/gallon 9 .00002741/Btu. Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, *Short-Term Energy Outlook* (January 2008) and *Monthly Energy Review* (December 2007) 1 Btu stands for British thermal units. 2 kWh stands for kilowatt hour. 3 kWh = 3,412 Btu. 4 1 therm = 100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes. 5 MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet. 6 For the purposes of this table, one cubic foot of natural gas has an energy equivalence of 1,028 Btu. 7 For the purposes of this table, one gallon of No. 2 heating oil has an energy equivalence of 138,690 Btu. 8 For the purposes of this table, one gallon of liquid propane has an energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu. 9 For the purposes of this table, one gallon of kerosene has an energy equivalence of 135,000 Btu. [FR Doc. E8-3992 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 February 25, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* *EC06-78-002; EC07-37-002.* *Applicants:* Entegra Power Group LLC, Gila River Power, L.P., Union Power Partners, L.P., EPG LLC, Entegra TC LLC. *Description:* *Application for order extending blanket authorizations and amending reporting requirements for certain future transfers and acquisitions of equity interests etc re Entrega Power Group LLC et al.* *Filed Date:* 02/12/2008. *Accession Number: 20080221-0041.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 04, 2008. *Docket Numbers: EC08-42-000.* *Applicants:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc. *Description: Application for authorization to acquire an existing generation facility re Puget Sound Energy Inc.* *Filed Date:* 02/07/2008. *Accession Number: 20080212-0108.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 28, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers: EG08-39-000.* *Applicants:* Providence Heights Wind, LLC. *Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Providence Heights Wind, LLC.* *Filed Date:* 02/20/2008. *Accession Number: 20080220-5030.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. *Docket Numbers: EG08-40-000.* *Applicants:* Ocotillo Windpower, LP. *Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Ocotillo Windpower, LP as an Exempt Wholesale Generator.* *Filed Date:* 02/21/2008. *Accession Number: 20080221-5024.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 13, 2008. *Docket Numbers: EG08-41-000.* *Applicants:* Goat Wind, LP. *Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Goat Wind, LP.* *Filed Date:* 02/21/2008. *Accession Number: 20080221-5038.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 13, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers: ER08-389-001.* *Applicants:* San Diego Gas & Electric Company. *Description: Waiver of 30 day notice period in SDG&E's Transmission Owner Tariff.* *Filed Date:* 02/25/2008. *Accession Number: 20080225-5028.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-582-000.* *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits a notice of cancellation of an interconnection service agreement for an interconnection project that has been withdrawn from the PJM generation interconnection queue.* *Filed Date:* 02/20/2008. *Accession Number: 20080222-0113.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-583-000.* *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description: AEP Operating Companies requests acceptance of the Second Revised Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with the City of Olive Hill, KT et al.* *Filed Date:* 02/20/2008. *Accession Number: 20080222-0114.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-584-000; ER02-298-004.* *Applicants:* Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC. *Description: Thompson River Power LLC informs the Commission that it has succeeded to the market-based rate tariff of Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC and submits non-material change in status etc.* *Filed Date:* 02/21/2008. *Accession Number: 20080225-0187.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 13, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-585-000.* *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation submits revisions to it Grid Management Charge rate formula.* *Filed Date:* 02/20/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080225-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-586-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc submits a Revised and Restated Interconnection Agreement by and between Con Edison, KIAC Partners and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersy, dated as of 1/7/08. *Filed Date:* 02/21/2008. *Accession Number: 20080225-0058.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 13, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-587-000.* *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description: Connecticut Light and Power Company submits executed Preliminary Design Services Agreement, Schedule 22 of its Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff FERC Electric 3.* *Filed Date:* 02/21/2008. *Accession Number: 20080222-0152.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 13, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-588-000.* *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submits the executed Design, Engineering, & Permitting Agreement with Waterbury Generation, LLC.* *Filed Date:* 02/21/2008. *Accession Number: 20080222-0153.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 13, 2008. *Docket Numbers: ER08-589-000.* *Applicants:* Midwest Generation Energy Services, LLC. *Description: Notice of Succession of Midwest Generation Energy Services, LLC informing of name change to Edison Mission Solutions, LLC effective 1/24/08.* *Filed Date:* 02/22/2008. *Accession Number: 20080222-5055.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings: *Docket Numbers: RR07-16-002.* *Applicants:* North American Electric Reliability Corp. *Description: Request of North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendment to 2008.* *Filed Date:* 02/15/2008. *Accession Number: 20080215-5036.* *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 17, 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. E8-3983 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8536-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0048] Draft Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone: In Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the public review and comment period for the external review draft document titled, “Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” (NCEA-S-2764). The EPA intends to consider comments and recommendations from the public and an expert panel meeting, which will be scheduled at a later date and announced in the **Federal Register** , when EPA finalizes the draft document. The public comment period will 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. The draft document is 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 public comment period begins February 28, 2008, and ends April 28, 2008. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by April 28, 2008. EPA intends to submit comments from the public received by this date to the external peer-review panel. ADDRESSES: The draft Toxicological Review of 2-Hexanone: 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 Technical Information Staff; 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 *http://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 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 draft document, contact Amanda Persad, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709; telephone: 919-541-9781; facsimile: 919-541-1818; or e-mail: *persad.amanda@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. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0048 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 e-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-2008-0048. 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 *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center. Dated: February 21, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-4051 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8527-2] Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)database system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA)Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.* The document may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at:
(202)564-7027, or by e-mail at: *malave.maria@epa.gov.* For technical questions about the individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI)on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and memoranda may be searched by control number, date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number or by string word searches. Today's notice comprises a summary of 51 such documents added to the ADI on November 2, 2007. The subject, author, recipient, date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.* Summary of Headers and Abstracts The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on November 2, 2007; the applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is “of nationwide scope or effect” for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport to make any document that was previously non-binding into a binding document. ADI Determinations Uploaded on November 2, 2007 Control No. Category Subpart(s) Title A070001 Asbestos M Aluminum Sheds and Fruit Stands. A070002 Asbestos M Residential Homes Demolished for Highway Expansion. A070003 Asbestos M 260 Linear Feet Regulatory Threshold. A070004 Asbestos M Recycling Pipelines. A070005 Asbestos M Asbestos-Containing Waste Material. A070006 Asbestos M Rounding Reported Values. M070001 MACT A, DDDDD Alternative Monitoring for Gaseous Fuel Fired Sources. M070002 MACT DDDDD Multi-Cyclone Collectors. M070003 MACT RRR Alternative Calibration for Thermocouple. M070004 MACT RRR Secondary Aluminum Production. M070005 MACT DDDD, DDDDD Alternative Monitoring for CO. M070006 MACT DDDD, DDDDD Integrated Heat Energy Systems. M070007 MACT UUUU Alternative Monitoring for Biofilter Effluent Conductivity. M070008 MACT DDDDD Averaging Time and Performance Testing. M070009 MACT DDDDD De Minimis Fuels and HBCA Operation. M070010 MACT T Airless/Airtight Degreasers. M070011 MACT HH Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants Content Determination. M070012 MACT OOOO Solvent-Based Fabric Finishing. M070013 MACT MMMM, QQQQ Coating Wooden Window Components. M070014 MACT II Large Yacht Repainting and Repair. M070015 MACT GG Aerospace Solvent Use. Z070001 NESHAP M Debris Management and Disposal. 700001 NSPS NNN, RRR Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping for VOC Emissions. 700002 NSPS VV By-Product Chemical Mixture. 700003 NSPS Db, Dc Wood Gasification Systems. 700004 NSPS UUU Titanium Dioxide Spray Dryers. 700005 NSPS MM Performance Test Waiver Request. 700006 NSPS Appendix B RATA Extension and Alternative Monitoring. 700007 NSPS Appendix B RATA Extension and Alternative Monitoring. 700008 NSPS VV Alternative Monitoring for Leak Detection. 700009 NSPS NNN Alternative Flow Monitoring. 700010 NSPS DD Applicability of NSPS Subpart DD to Malted and Unmalted Processes. 700011 NSPS A, Db Delay of Continuous Opacity Monitoring System. 700012 NSPS GG Initial Performance Test Waiver Request. 700013 NSPS GG Natural Gas Demonstration. 700014 NSPS Db Fuel Usage Monitoring Requirement. 700015 NSPS GG Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule. 700016 NSPS Dc Change of Nozzle Tip to Accommodate Residual Fuel. 700017 NSPS III Notification of Exemption for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators. 700018 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 700019 NSPS Db, Dc Idaho Supreme Potato Boilers. 700020 NSPS A, GG Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule. 700021 NSPS A, GG Initial Performance Test Deadline Extension Request. 700022 NSPS A, I Alternative Test Method for Performance Evaluation. 700023 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping. 700024 NSPS Ec Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incineration. 700025 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping and Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 700026 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping. 700027 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping. 700028 NSPS Dc Relocated Boiler. 700063 NSPS NNN, RRR Production of Biodiesel and Glycerin from Soybean Oil and Methane. *Abstract for [A070001]:* Q: Could EPA clarify to the Florida Department of Transportation if aluminum sheds and fruit stands are subject to the notification and inspection requirements under the asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: EPA explains that prefabricated sheds and small structures that do not have utilities (water, electricity, and sewer) do not meet the definition of structures under the asbestos NESHAP regulations, and thus are not subject to the rule. If a structure meets the definition of structure in the asbestos NESHAP, which would include any structure acquired by the DOT, it must be inspected as required by § 61.145(a) of NESHAP subpart M. *Abstract for [A070002]:* Q: Could EPA clarify to the Air Pollution Control Program in Jefferson City, Missouri whether single family residences are subject to the Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, if they are being demolished as part of a highway expansion? A: EPA explains that a group of residential buildings under the control of the same owner or operator is considered an installation according to the definition of “installation,” and thus is covered by the asbestos NESHAP. As an example, several houses located on a highway right-of-way that are all demolished as part of the same highway project would be considered an “installation,” even when the houses are not proximate to each other. In this example, the houses are under the control of the same owner or operator, that is, the highway agency responsible for the highway project. *Abstract for [A070003]:* Q: Could EPA clarify to the City of Newport News, Virginia, whether the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet applies to other materials, other than pipes, such as caulking or roof flashing, under NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A: EPA explains that the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet is applicable only to pipes under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M. Other materials, such as caulking or roof flashing, would be subject to the 160 square foot standard. It is acknowledged that using the square foot requirement may reduce the chance of these materials triggering the regulated threshold. *Abstract for [A070004]:* Q1: Are pipelines at the South West Pipe Services facility in Texas subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: Yes. EPA finds that the pipeline is considered a facility component being renovated, and is subject to the asbestos NESHAP. Q2: If the pipeline renovation, containing more than one percent asbestos and more than 260 linear feet, is made friable (i.e., crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder) subjecting the project to the regulations under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, who is considered the owner/operator? A2: EPA finds that the owner/operator can be the owner of the pipeline, the contractor removing the pipe from the ground, and the company that purchases the pipe to recycle the steel pipe, based on the definition of owner or operator in the Asbestos NESHAP. Therefore, all entities involved in a pipeline renovation operation, which is subject to the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP, would have to comply with the asbestos NESHAP standards. Q3: If the pipeline renovation is not subject to the regulations under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, and the pipe is sold to a third party, which by its work practice causes the pipe to become friable, is the pipe now regulated under the asbestos NESHAP? A3: Yes. EPA finds that the asbestos-impregnated tar or asbestos paper coating use on pipelines is considered Category II asbestos-containing material. When it was removed as nonregulated, there is the expectation the coating would remain nonfriable and disposed in an approved landfill. Selling the pipe to a third party, who then causes the coating to become friable, defeats the purpose of the rule. Once the third party causes 260 linear feet of pipe coating to become friable the job is now regulated and all applicable regulations apply under the asbestos NESHAP. Q4: Are there guidelines for recycling of old pipelines under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A4: No. EPA explains that there are no guidelines for recycling. However, the recycling operation may be subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulations if it causes the pipeline to become friable. *Abstract for [A070005]:* Q1: Could EPA clarify to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources at what point asbestos-containing material
(ACM)becomes asbestos-containing waste material
(ACWM)subject to the provisions of under 40 CFR 61.150? A1: EPA explains that ACM becomes ACWM once the asbestos-containing material is removed from a facility component or, as part of a larger facility component, a portion of the facility component is removed. The asbestos-containing material must meet one of the three regulated thresholds, i.e., the 260 linear feet threshold on pipes, the 160 square feet threshold on other facility components, or the 35 cubic feet threshold where the length or area could not be measured previously for the asbestos-containing material to become asbestos-containing waste material, as specified under the asbestos NESHAP. Q2: Does 40 CFR 61.150(a) provide a choice between the no visible emission standard and a control or waste treatment method? A2: Yes. EPA explains that the subject rule provision allows the owner/operator the ability to choose between two compliance alternatives, i.e., the “no visible emission” standard or the control or waste treatment methods specified in 40 CFR 61.150(a). *Abstract for [A070006]:* Q: Could EPA clarify to the Saint Louis County Health Department in Missouri how best to interpret the following phrase in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E: “the value reported should be rounded to the nearest percent”, in connection with point counting results to determine the percentage of asbestos as between 1.0 percent and 1.5 percent and defining Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos-containing material (ACM)? A: EPA explains that when a bulk sample is analyzed using Polarized Light Microscopy, and further quantified using the point counting method/formula in 40 CFR part 763, Subpart E, Appendix E, Section 1.7.2.4, sample results are allowed to be rounded to the nearest percent. EPA interprets the rounding of results using the formula in Section 1.7.2.4 as, if the sample result yields a=4, “a” being the number of asbestos counts, the result is 1 percent, which does not meet the regulatory threshold of greater than 1 percent. If the sample result yields a=5, the result is 1.25 percent asbestos, which may be rounded down to 1 percent, which is not greater than 1 percent and therefore not regulated. If the sample result yields a=6, the result is 1.5 percent asbestos, which would be rounded to 2 percent and therefore regulated. *Abstract for [M070001]:* Q1: Could EPA clarify to the International Paper Company whether the health-based compliance alternative
(HBCA)includes the testing of natural gas fired sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? A1: EPA does not expect natural gas fired sources to emit regulated pollutants under Subpart DDDDD, and thus does not require that they be included in the HBCA. Q2: May a source request the use of an alternative monitoring under the health-based compliance alternative
(HBCA)under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? A2: Yes. EPA explains that a source may request alternative monitoring as allowed in the general provisions, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. *Abstract for [M070002]:* Q: Could EPA clarify to the American Forest and Paper Association whether multi-cyclone collectors on wood-fired boilers are considered “inherent process equipment” as defined in the Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM)rule, and thus not subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD as a “control device”? A: EPA cannot conclude categorically that multi-cyclones always qualify as “inherent process equipment” as defined in the CAM Rule in 40 CFR 64.1. However, there may be site-specific cases in which a multi-cyclone may serve as “inherent process equipment” rather than as a “control device.” Requests for site-specific determinations should be submitted in writing to the delegated agency responsible for implementing MACT subpart DDDDD. *Abstract for [M070003]:* Q: Does EPA approve an alternative to calibrating the thermocouple on an afterburner every six months for the City Wide Towing and Auto Wrecking facility in Springfield, Ohio, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves an alternative method under MACT subpart RRR where dual thermocouples are used so that both the data logger and the digital read out each has its own thermocouple to allow sufficient current for proper readings. Both thermocouples read the same temperature and report to their own piece of equipment. As part of the standard operating procedure, a second set of thermocouples must be kept on site to replace a malfunctioning unit immediately. *Abstract for [M070004]:* Q1: Could EPA clarify to Bacchus Environmental if a specific facility can process a charge “mixture” in excess of the performance test weight under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, if the charge weight of purchased scrap in a charge “mixture” does not exceed the performance test charge weight when 100 percent purchased scrap was melted? And may the facility exceed this weight when processing 100 percent clean charge? A1: EPA explains that the facility may exceed the performance test charge weight under MACT subpart RRR regulations as long as such exceedance does not result in the performance test no longer being representative of the facility operation that is likely to generate the highest emissions for the regulated pollutants. Q2: If a facility demonstrates through performance tests that each individual emission unit within the secondary aluminum production unit is in compliance with the applicable emission limits, are the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission calculations of dioxin/furan (D/F) required for this secondary aluminum processing unit under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR? A2: EPA explains that a facility with a secondary aluminum processing unit
(SAPU)that is meeting the requirements of § 63.1510(u) is not required to conduct the 3-day, 24 hour rolling average emission calculations of D/F in § 63.1510(t) under MACT subpart RRR regulations. As an alternate to § 63.1510(t), § 63.1510(u) requires, through performance tests, that each individual emission unit within the SAPU demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits *Abstract for [M070005]:* Q1: Is monitoring of firebox temperature in the Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
(RTO)units as required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, § 63.2269(b), a comparable alternative to carbon oxide
(CO)monitoring required under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, § 63.7510(c), in order to ensure adequate destruction of organic hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs)at the Norbord Texas Industries facility in Marion County, Texas? A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan request under the Boiler MACT to maintain the 3-hour block average firebox temperature of the RTO units at a level that is greater than or equal to the minimum firebox temperature established during the performance test as specifically required under the Plywood MACT, in §§ 63.2240(b) and 63.2262(k)). Q2: Because Norbord Industries has not yet conducted the performance test required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, may it utilize an interim set point of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit for the RTO firebox minimum temperature control until testing occurs? A2: Yes. EPA finds that data collected as part of the Plywood MACT shows this temperature set point is acceptable in the interim for the RTO Units at Norbord's oriented strandboard
(OSB)plant. *Abstract for [M070006]:* Q1: Is 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, “the Boiler MACT,” applicable to the Integrated Heat Energy System
(IHES)at the Norbord Industries LLP Jefferson Oriented Strandboard
(OSB)Plant located in Marrion, Texas, given that 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, “the Plywood MACT,” already applies? A1: Yes. EPA finds that the Teaford Furnace of the IHES is considered a process heater and an affected source under the Boiler MACT as defined in 40 CFR 63.7575. However, that portion of the combustion gases from the Teaford Furnace used to direct-fire the dryer unit is considered an affected source under the Plywood MACT, 40 CFR 63.2232(b), and is exempted from the Boiler MACT under 40 CFR 63.7491(l). *Abstract for [M070007]:* Q1: Does EPA approve the Viskase Companies request to monitor biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH at two of its facilities located which are located in Loudon, Tennessee and Osceola, Arkansas under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU? A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the monitoring request to establish and monitor an effluent conductivity operating limit for the biofilter units. The effluent conductivity operating limit must be based on a performance test and can be supplemented by engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. Q2: Could EPA clarify 40 CFR 63.505(c), which allows the owner or operator to supplement the parameter values measured during the performance test with engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations, for the Viskase Companies facility in Loudon, Tennessee? A2: EPA explains that 40 CFR 63.505(c) does not allow control device operating parameters to be based solely on good engineering practice and the manufacturer's recommendations. It does allow facilities to supplement the parameter monitoring levels established during the performance test with engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. This supplementary data may allow facilities to avoid performance testing over the entire range of expected parameter values. Operating limits must be established during a performance test and can then be supplemented by engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, must meet the performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535, as well as the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7 of the General Provisions (GP). Facilities must also meet the applicable notification requirements in the General Provisions, including the performance testing notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(e), as well as the notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 63.9(h). Q3: Does EPA approve the Viskase Companies request that testing for closed vent systems be waived because the vent system is operated under negative pressure, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU? A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to waive the closed vent system testing if the facility meets the requirements specified for negative pressure systems in other NESHAPs, (e.g., Pulp and Paper NESHAP) including an initial and annual demonstration of the negative pressure system using the procedures specified in the EPA response. *Abstract for [M070008]:* Q1: Could EPA clarify for the American Forest and Paper Association the averaging period for determining continuous compliance with the fuel operating limits under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? A1: EPA explains that there is no averaging period in MACT subpart DDDDD for determining continuous compliance with the fuel operating limit. Q2: Does a stack test conducted under the health-based compliance alternative
(HBCA)(Appendix A) qualify as a performance test as referred to in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, § 63.7540(a)(1)? A2: No. EPA explains that a stack test conducted under the HBCA does not qualify as a performance test under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD. Q3: Is soot blowing required during a stack test under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? A3: Yes. EPA explains that soot blowing should be included during the stack test under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD. Q4: Does EPA allow alternate pH calibration plans under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? A4: Yes. EPA explains that owners/operators may submit a request for an alternative pH schedule under MACT subpart DDDDD. *Abstract for [M070009]:* Q1: May a de minimis threshold be established to exclude small quantities of miscellaneous fuels (e.g., waste paper, oily rags, used oil, etc.) from the testing requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD? A1: No. EPA explains that MACT subpart DDDDD does not provide a de minimis threshold for small quantities of miscellaneous wastes. Q2: What are the operating limits and monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, when the health-based compliance option is used, the manganese emission rate is determined by stack testing, and the total selected metals (TSM), not including manganese, was determined via fuel analysis? A2: The operating limits and monitoring requirements for manganese under the health-based compliance alternative
(HBCA)are site-specific, determined by the owner or operator, and incorporated into the Title V operating permit. The operating limits and monitoring requirements for the remaining TSM using the fuel analysis option are in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, § 63.7521 and Table 6. *Abstract for [M070010]:* Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart T, apply to ultrasonic airless/airtight degreasers manufactured by the Tiyoda-Serec Company's facility in Ventura County, California? A: Yes. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.461 defines a solvent cleaning machine as “any device or piece of equipment that uses halogenated solvent liquid or vapor to remove soils from the surfaces of materials. Types of solvent cleaning machines include, but are not limited to, batch vapor, in-line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines.” Although airless/airtight ultrasonic cleaning machines are not specified in this definition, it is clear the definition does not exclude these types of machines. *Abstract for [M070011]:* Q: Does EPA agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality alternative method for determining that the volatile hazardous air pollutants
(VHAP)content of gas and liquid hydrocarbon process streams can be reasonably be expected never to exceed 10.0 percent by weight in accordance with NESHAP, Subpart HH, § 63.772(a)(1), for the ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (ONEOK) facility located in Medford, Oklahoma? A: Yes. EPA explains that well documented data from online gas chromatograph analyzers that are maintained according to manufacturer's QA/QC recommendations, mass balance calculation methods, process stream knowledge (including MSDS information), and other “good engineering judgment” techniques can be used as methods for determining, under MACT subpart HH, that the VHAP content of gas liquid hydrocarbon streams can be reasonably expected never to exceed 10.0 percent by weight. *Abstract for [M070012]:* Q: Is solvent used to dilute textile finishing materials at two TSG, Incorporated
(TSG)facilities, which are located in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, subject to the organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAP)emission limit for finishing operations, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO? A: Yes. The solvent used to dilute textile finishing materials is subject to the NESHAP subpart OOOO. The solvent that TSG uses to dilute stain repellent finishes is a transfer agent that is added to the finish as an auxiliary to improve the finishing process, and thus is a finishing material. For this reason, the added solvent, together with the other finishing materials used by TSG, would be subject to the 0.0003 kg of organic HAP per kg of applied finishing materials emission limit established in Table 1 of NESHAP subpart OOOO. *Abstract for [M070013]:* Q1: Is the coating of wooden window components prior to assembly at the Pella facility in Pella, Iowa, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ? A1: Yes. EPA finds that adhesives are considered coatings under NESHAP subpart QQQQ. Adhesives serve the function of bonding window components to each other. Thus, applied adhesive is a functional layer, and its application in this context constitutes the finishing of a wood building product. Therefore, adhesives are subject to NESHAP subpart QQQQ requirements when applied to a wooden window component or to the window assembly. Q2: Is the coating of aluminum window components with high performance architectural coatings prior to assembly at the Pella facility in Pella, Iowa, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM? A2: Yes. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.3881(a) establishes that the surface coating of metal components (“parts”) of industrial, household, and consumer products is subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM. Windows are considered industrial, household, or consumer products since these are part of the NESHAP subpart MMMM wood building products source category. Therefore, coating aluminum window components with high performance architectural coatings is subject to applicable NESHAP subpart MMMM requirements. Adhesives applied to aluminum window components and used to bond them to other wood, glass, or metal components, or to the window assembly, are also metal coatings, and therefore, are subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM. Abstract for [M070014]: Q: Is the repainting and repair, at the Atlantic Marine facility in Jacksonville, Florida, of yachts that exceed 20 meters in length and are not used for military or commercial operations, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart II? A: No. EPA finds that repainting and repair services performed on yachts exceeding 20 meters in length are not subject to the requirements under NESHAP subpart II. EPA plans to propose revisions to NESHAP subpart II to address this issue. *Abstract for [M070015]:* Q: Are eight aerospace cleaning activities utilizing azeotropic blends as described by 3M, Incorporated, exempt from 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG? Could EPA clarify compliance options for 3M facilities using the azeotropes for cleaning activities that are not exempt from MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG? 3M manufactures segregated hydrofluoroether volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)exempted by EPA, in an azeotropic blend with dichloroethylene (DCE), a non-exempt VOC. A: EPA made the following findings for the eight activities presented by 3M, which are based on the facts provided in the hypothetical given by 3M, and presumed to be facts for each scenario. Thus this response is considered only a guidance, and is not a binding adjudication of liability for any source, and does not constitute final agency action. Facilities needing a site-specific determination of applicability should discuss the specifics of their operation(s) with the appropriate delegated authority on a case-by-case basis. *Activity 1:* Cleaning of aircraft engine hydraulic fluid leaks is not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements. *Activity 2:* Cleaning parts for non-destructive testing is not exempt from MACT Subpart GG requirements. *Activity 3* : Cleaning aircraft and helicopter wheel and brake assemblies is not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements. *Activity 4:* Cleaning of hydraulic fluid leaks is not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements. *Activity 5:* Cleaning during operation of electrical equipment may or may not be subject to MACT subpart GG requirements, as discussed below. Cleaning operations using nonflammable liquids on unshielded assembled aircraft electrical circuits on or within five feet of them, once electrical power is connected, are exempted from the hand-wipe cleaning requirements. Cleaning operations on unshielded electrical circuits that are performed prior to installation on an assembled aircraft, or that are performed after installation on the aircraft but without electrical power connection, are not exempted from the hand-wipe cleaning requirements, unless they occur within five feet of an electrical system that is energized. Electric power tools, cooling fans, and portable power equipment are not energized electrical systems. *Activity 6:* Cleaning of composite systems prior to adhesive bonding is not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements. *Activity 7:* Cleaning of electronic assemblies and printed circuit boards may or not be subject to MACT subpart GG requirements, as discussed below. Cleaning (including flux removal) of completed electronic assemblies is exempt from Subpart GG requirements prior to their permanent installation in the aircraft, when their cleaning is distinct from what other aircraft parts receive. Cleaning of printed circuit boards is exempt from Subpart GG requirements. Cleaning, including flux removal, of electronic assemblies using hand-wipe cleaning, either during manufacture or rework, is not subject to hand-wipe cleaning requirements. However, for completed electronic assemblies that have been permanently installed in the aircraft, or that receive the same cleaning as other parts of the aircraft, the facility must satisfy the housekeeping requirements. *Activity 8:* Cleaning of aircraft instruments and instrumentation is exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements prior to their permanent installation. *Abstract for [Z070001]:* Q: Could EPA clarify the regulations regarding debris management and disposal under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, in reference to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the State of Louisiana assisting the efforts to address the debris generated as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? A: EPA explains that if a building or other structure has been totally destroyed by a hurricane, NESHAP subpart M does not apply to subsequent activities. However, the demolition and disposal of “partially-damaged” or “standing-but-unsafe-to-enter” structures are subject to Asbestos NESHAP requirements. *Abstract for [0700001]:* Q: May the Chalmette Refinery, located in Chalmette, Louisiana, comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, in lieu of 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping related specifically to use of boilers and process heaters for compliance with the standards of both subparts? A: Yes. The facility's refinery fuel gas system comprises boilers and process heaters, some with heat input capacities equal to or greater than 150 MMBTU/hr and some with heat input capacities less than 150 MMBTU/hr. Vent gases are mixed with other gaseous streams collected in the fuel gas system and distributed as a mixed gas stream that constitutes the primary fuel introduced into the flame zone of each boiler or process heater. None of the distillation vents are equipped with a bypass directly to the atmosphere. Thus, compliance with NSPS subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN similar requirements is acceptable. However, the facility must provide a copy of the schematic required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) and maintain the schematic in its onsite file for the life of the system to ensure that the affected vent streams are being routed to appropriate control devices under this approval. *Abstract for [0700002]:* Q1: The Cymetech facility in Calvert City, Kentucky, produces a by-product which contains a mixture of chemicals, some of which are listed in 40 CFR 60.489. Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, apply to the operation? A1: Yes. EPA finds that the operations are subject to NSPS subpart VV because the by-product includes listed chemicals and is sold because of the chemical characteristics of the listed chemicals. Q2: If the Cymetech facility in Calvert City, Kentucky, is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, does the exemption in 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3) apply? A2: Yes. EPA finds that because the affected facility produces heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy liquid feed or raw materials, the exemption in 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3) is applicable, and the facility is not subject to the standards in 40 CFR 60.482. *Abstract for [0700003]:* Q: Are wood gasification systems at Norbord South Carolina, Inc., in Kinards, South Carolina and the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db or Dc? The wood gasification systems will consist of wood gasifiers that produce synthetic gas, followed by secondary combustion chambers which combust the synthetic gas. Exhaust from the secondary combustion chambers will be used in steam generating boilers (and in a hot oil generator for one unit). A: Yes. EPA finds that each secondary combustion chamber in combination with a steam boiler (and hot oil generator for one unit) is a steam generating unit affected facility. NSPS subpart Dc applies to steam generating units with a heat input capacity of 100 mmBtu/hr or less, but greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr. NSPS subpart Db applies to steam generating units with a heat input capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/hr. *Abstract for [0700004]:* Q: Are the fabric filters used to control titanium dioxide spray dryers at the DuPont facility in New Johnsonville, Tennessee, considered dry control devices and therefore, required to meet the 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, opacity monitoring requirements? The company's argument that these are not subject is based on language from the Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM)rule at 40 CFR part 64, which exempts “inherent process equipment” from the CAM rule definition of “control device.” A: Yes. The opacity monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 60.734(b) apply to the titanium dioxide spray dryers controlled with fabric filters. The provisions of the CAM rule do not reduce or eliminate the monitoring requirements of existing regulations. *Abstract for [0700005]:* Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM, performance testing requirement for the E-coat, guide coat, and top coat lines at BMW's Spartanburg, South Carolina assembly plant during any month when the average volatile organic compound
(VOC)emission rate does not exceed 3.8 pounds per vehicle? A: Yes. Based upon historical emission rate data provided with BMW's request, demonstrating that the plant-wide VOC emission rate does not exceed 3.8 pounds per vehicle will provide adequate assurance of compliance for all three of the coating lines covered by the request. Given recordkeeping conducted in order to verify compliance with other applicable limits at the plant, BMW will have the information needed to verify NSPS subpart MM compliance during any month when the VOC emission rate does exceed 3.8 pounds per vehicle. Therefore, the request can be granted pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) of the General Provisions. *Abstract for [0700006] and [0700007]:* Q: Does EPA approve an alternative continuous emission monitoring frequency for NO <sup>X</sup> , CO, and O <sup>2</sup> , as provided by the quarterly cylinder gas audit
(CGA)and the annual relative accuracy test audit
(RATA)quality assurance procedures found under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, for the ANP Bellingham Energy Company, LLC
(ANP)facilities located in Bellingham and Blackstone, MA? The facilities propose to follow the “grace period” provisions of 40 CFR part 75, appendix B, section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) and section 2.3.3 (for RATAs). A: Yes. EPA grants ANP Bellingham permission to conduct CGAs and RATAs following the “grace period” provisions of 40 CFR part 75, appendix B, section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) and section 2.3.3 (for RATAs, which would require that a CGA be conducted at least once every four calendar quarters regardless of operation and conduct a RATA at least once every eight calendar quarters regardless of operation. *Abstract for [0700008]:* Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, smell), as an alternative to using EPA Method 21 as required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, for the identification of leaks from equipment in propionic acid service at the Eastman Chemical Company facility in Kingsport, Tennessee? A: Yes. The proposed alternative method for detection of leaks is acceptable. Monitoring results provided by Eastman indicate that leaks from equipment in propionic service are more easily identified through sensory methods than by using Method 21 because of the physical properties (high boiling points, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of propionic acid and the process conditions at the plant. *Abstract for [0700009]:* Q: Are the 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, flow monitoring procedures an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, requirements for the distillation operation at Degussa Corporation in Mobile, Alabama? A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS subpart RRR flow monitoring procedures are an acceptable alternative to the flow monitoring procedures required under NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The NSPS subpart RRR requirement to monitor diversions from the control device accomplishes the same result (i.e., providing a record of when vent streams are not controlled) as the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to monitor the flow to the control device. *Abstract for [0700010]:* Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, apply only to the unmalted barley grain portion of the operation at the Grupu-Modelo Agriculture, Inc.
(GMA)new malting facility located in Idaho Falls, Idaho? A1: Yes. EPA has concluded that NSPS subpart DD applies to the unmalted barley grain portion of GMA operation. However, it does not apply to the malting processes, the second part of the operations of the malting plant. NSPS subpart DD does not apply to malted barley because it is not considered a grain. Furthermore, NSPS subpart DD does not apply to operations involving malt because the rule addresses emissions resulting from handling processes and not from processes which effect a chemical or physical change in the product. Q2: Is GMA required to perform performance testing under EPA 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, on the kiln vents used for drying green malt that has been transformed from barley? A2: EPA has determined the GMA kilns are not subject to NSPS subpart DD since these are used only for the malt process. Therefore, GMA is not required to conduct performance tests on the two kiln vents pursuant to NSPS subpart DD. *Abstract for [0700011]:* Q: Does EPA approve a delay in the installation of a Continuous Opacity Monitor System (COMS), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, on a boiler at the Bennett Forest Industries
(BFI)facility located in Grangeville, Idaho, until the facility reaches steaming rates above half its physical and permitted capacity? A: No. EPA denies this request. A COMS must be installed and operated in accordance with the timeframes and requirements specified in NSPS subpart Db. The General Provisions require that the COMS be installed and operational no later than 180 days after initial startup of the BFI boiler. Furthermore, if COMS data will be used to demonstrate compliance with the opacity requirements as provided in 40 CFR 60.11(e)(5), there are additional requirements that must be met prior to conducting the performance test, described in 40 CFR 60.13(c). Even if EPA were to construe the request for the delay of the installation of the COMS as a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures, EPA does not believe BFI has provided sufficient justification for an alternative monitoring. EPA does not believe that the costs of complying with other environmental regulations alone provide a sufficient basis for an alternative monitoring request. BFI has not shown that timely installation of the COMS is technically or economically infeasible, or otherwise impracticable. *Abstract for [0700012]:* Q: Does EPA waive the initial performance test for a gas producer unit (turbine compressor and combustor) at Unocal Alaska's Dolly Varden Platform (Unocal) in Cook Inlet, Alaska? A: Yes. EPA waives the requirement to conduct an initial performance test pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, § 60.8(b)(4), because Unocal has demonstrated compliance with the standard using other means. *Abstract for [0700013]:* Q: Does EPA approve Alyeska Pipeline Service Company's fuel gas demonstration for fuel gas combusted at the Trans Alaska Pipeline System
(TAPS)pump stations 1 through 4? A: Yes. Based on the information submitted to EPA, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company has demonstrated that the fuel gas combusted at TAPS meets the definition of a natural gas as defined by 40 CFR 60.331(u). *Abstract for [0700014]:* Q1: Is an exclusively wood-fired boiler at the Bennett Forest Industries
(BFI)facility located in Grangeville, Idaho, subject to the requirement to record the amount of wood combusted each day and to calculate the annual capacity factor for wood as detailed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, § 60.49b(d)? A1: No. EPA has determined that if BFI is subject to the more stringent emission limit for particulate matter of 0.10 lb/million Btu and a restriction to combust only wood, the requirement to record the amount of wood combusted each day is not needed for the purposes of calculating the annual capacity factor, as required by NSPS subpart Db, § 60.49b(d). Assuming the restriction to burn only wood is required by a federally enforceable permit, EPA can be assured that the annual capacity factors for all other fuels aside from wood will be zero. If BFI is subject to the more stringent limit for particulate matter of 0.10 lb/million Btu, there is also no need for BFI to calculate the annual capacity factor for wood. Q2: Does EPA accept the use of a steaming rate monitor, which is capable of calculating fuel usage, as an alternate method for determining the amount of wood combusted for a wood-fired boiler at a BFI facility? BFI has requested this alternative method because there are physical difficulties in measuring the actual mass of the wood that they combust as it comes in various forms resulting from their operation as a lumber mill. A2: Yes. EPA has determined that considering BFI's circumstances related to this request, if needed, this approach is acceptable for calculating the amount of wood combusted. *Abstract for [0700015]:* Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for Union Oil Company of California at its Steelhead Platform, Cook Inlet Alaska? A: Yes. EPA approves the custom fuel monitoring schedule according to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows EPA regional offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules on a case-by-case basis. In this case, what is being approved is the inclusion of a new turbine into the existing custom fuel monitoring schedule. *Abstract for [0700016]:* Q: Is the changing of a nozzle tip to accommodate residual fuel in Boiler #3 at the Idahoan Foods (Idahoan) facility located in Lewisville, Idaho, considered a modification according to 40 CFR 60.14 of the General Provisions? A: No. Idahoan intended to purchase a boiler that was designed to accommodate multiple liquid fuel types at its construction. EPA determines that the need to change-out the nozzle tips to accommodate different fuels is an inherent design of the boiler, and therefore Boiler #3 was originally designed to accommodate residual and diesel fuel in addition to natural gas. Under 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4), the use of an alternative fuel, if prior to the applicability date the existing facility was designed to accommodate that alternative fuel, shall not by itself be considered a modification. *Abstract for [0700017]:* Q1: Does EPA agree that three of Unocal Alaska incinerators located at Granite Point Platform, Swanson River Field, and Trading Bay Production Facility that are subject to 40 CFR Part 62, subpart III, for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), meet the criteria for the exemption for municipal waste combustion units under 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2)? A1: Yes. EPA agrees that the three Unocal's incinerators meet the exemption in 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2) and therefore, accepts this notification of exemption under 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2). Q2: Is Unocal currently required to submit a Title V permit application for an incinerator, located at the East Foreland Dock Facility (EFDF), that was subject to 40 CFR part 62, subpart III, but that was permanently shut down as of June 15, 2004? A2: No. Unocal is no longer required to submit a Title V permit application for the EFDF incinerator because it has been permanently shut down and is no longer operating. *Abstract for [0700018]:* Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, § 60.48(c), from daily to monthly, for a natural gas-fired boiler at a BARI facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho? A: Yes. EPA approves the request from BARI for a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, § 60.48(c), from daily to monthly, and to use a gas meter to record monthly fuel usage, with the monthly fuel bill as a back-up record in the event of a meter malfunction. *Abstract for [0700019]:* Q: Does EPA waive applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for Boilers No. 3 and No. 4 at the Idaho Supreme Potato
(ISP)facility in Firth, Idaho, given that an assumed modification of replacing nozzles reported on February 13, 2001, did not actually happen? A: Yes. EPA has determined that Boilers No. 3 and No. 4 were not modified pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14, and therefore, are currently not subject to NSPS subparts Db or Dc. This determination is based on the assumption that although Boiler No. 4 still has the physical ability to burn coal in Boiler No. 4 it will not do so. In a previous EPA applicability determination on ISP's Boiler No. 4 dated March 13, 1995, EPA assumed that this boiler would not burn coal in the future. Therefore, if coal were to be burned in Boiler No. 4 in the future, the 1995 EPA determination would no longer be valid. In such an event, NSPS and PSD review would be triggered. *Abstract for [0700020]:* Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG, for ConocoPhillips Alaska's Alpine Development Project in North Slope, Alaska? A: Yes. EPA approves the custom fuel monitoring schedule according to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows EPA regional offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules on a case-by-case basis. In this case, what is being approved is a custom fuel monitoring schedule for fuel oil monitoring and demonstration that the facility's gaseous fuel meets the definition of a natural gas. *Abstract for [0700021]:* Q: Does EPA grant an extension of the initial performance test date for stationary gas turbines, subject to 40 CFR part 60, Subpart GG, which are located at the ConocoPhillips Alpine
(CPA)Development Project, in North Slope, Alaska? A: No. EPA denies CPA's request for an extension. *Abstract for [0700022]:* Q: Does EPA approve alternative test methods for the performance evaluation to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart I, § 60.90, at the Alaska Roadbuilders'
(ARB)RB350 ADM Asphalt Plant in Alaska? A: Yes. EPA concludes that the proposed testing meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart I, and the EPA test methods specified therein. Assigning a value of 30.0 to the dry gas molecular weight, in lieu of actual measurements of O <sup>2</sup> and CO is an acceptable alternative for processes burning natural gas, coal or oil according to EPA Method 3, Section 1.3, subject to the approval of the Administrator. Q2: Does EPA waive the 30-day notice prior to conducting a performance evaluation that is required according to 40 CFR § 60.7(a)(5) and 60.8(d) at the ARB RB350 ADM Asphalt Plant? A2: Yes. EPA grants the request for a waiver of this requirement pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3). *Abstract for [0700023]:* Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, § 60.48c, from daily to monthly, as well as the use of one gas meter to record monthly natural gas usage for four boilers at the Saint Lucas Regional Medical Center (SLRMC)? A: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping requirement in NSPS Subpart Dc from daily to monthly and the use of one gas meter to record monthly natural gas usage for SLRMC's four boilers. The approval for the reduction in the recordkeeping to monthly instead of daily is based on a memorandum dated February 20, 1992, from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards which states that there is little value in requiring daily recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel combusted for an affected unit that fires only natural gas with clean low-sulfur fuel oil (sulfur content less than 0.5 percent) as a backup. *Abstract for [0700024]:* Q: Is the incineration unit at a pet crematory in Palmer, Alaska, exempted from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incineration (HMIWI), because only pathological wastes will be combusted? Is a permit required for this operation? A: EPA has determined that provided the requirements are met for the pathological wastes, according to 40 CFR 60.50c(b), the incineration unit is not subject to the HMIWI regulation. A Federal Title V Air Operating Permit (Title V permit) is not required for the purposes of the HMIWI regulation if the exemption is maintained. *Abstract for [0700025]:* Q1: Does EPA approve monthly instead of daily monitoring of natural gas usage for a vaporizer subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the BOC Edwards
(BOC)facility in Hillsboro, Oregon? A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves monthly instead of daily monitoring of natural gas usage for the BOC affected vaporizer pursuant to NSPS subpart Dc. Q2: Does EPA approve the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier to serve as monthly monitoring method, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc? A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier to serve as monthly monitoring method under NSPS subpart Dc. Q3: Could EPA determine whether the amount of natural gas used by the affected facility (vaporizer) can be determined by the following calculation method rather than direct measurement: (monthly vaporizer gas usage) = (monthly site natural gas usage from fuel bill)−(average monthly site natural gas usage before installation of the vaporizer). A3: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of natural gas used by the affected facility (vaporizer) can be determined by the calculation method proposed rather than by direct measurement, as long as the average monthly site natural gas usage before installation of the vaporizer was nearly constant and will remain the same with no new natural gas usage. *Abstract for [0700026]:* Q1: Does EPA approve a request for a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, § 60.48c, from daily to monthly for two 25.13 MMBTU/hr boilers fueled by propane and located at Glanbia Foods Inc. (Glanbia) facility in Richfield, Idaho? A1: Yes. EPA approves the request for a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from daily to monthly. This approval is based on a memorandum dated February 20, 1992, from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which states that there is little value in requiring daily recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel combusted for an affected unit that fires only natural gas, and the definition of natural gas, from the Acid Rain Program, in 40 CFR part 72. Q2. Does EPA approve one gas meter for two boilers that will measure the total natural gas usage per month? A2. Yes. When more than one boiler is firing propane simultaneously, they will divide each boiler design heat input capacity by the total of the design heat input capacities of each boiler, and use this to prorate the natural gas usage of each boiler on a monthly basis. EPA determines that this will adequately determine the fuel usage by each boiler. *Abstract for [0700027]:* Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, § 60.48c, from daily to monthly for boilers fueled by natural gas, diesel fuel and/or biomass located at the Glanbia Foods Incorporated facility in Gooding, Idaho? A1: EPA finds that boiler No. 1 is not subject to NSPS subpart Dc requirements since it was installed before the applicability date of the rule. EPA approves the request from Glanbia for a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c of Subpart Dc from daily to monthly for Boilers 2, 3, and 4, which burn natural gas exclusively or natural gas with diesel fuel as a backup. The approval for boilers No. 2 through 4 is based on a memorandum dated February 20, 1992, from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards which states that there is little value in requiring daily recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel combusted for an affected unit that fires only natural gas or natural gas with clean low-sulfur fuel oil (sulfur content less than 0.5 percent) as a backup. Q2: Does EPA approve one gas meter for several boilers fueled by natural gas that will measure the total natural gas usage per month? A2: Yes. EPA determines that this will adequately determine the fuel usage by each boiler. When more than one boiler is firing natural gas simultaneously, they will divide each boiler design heat input capacity by the total of the design heat input capacities of each boiler, and use this to prorate the natural gas usage of each boiler on a monthly basis. For boilers 2 and 3, which are capable of firing low sulfur diesel fuel, each boiler will maintain individual fuel oil meters. Q3: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from daily to monthly for boiler No. 5, which is fueled by biogas, from the wastewater treatment effluent process as the primary fuel and can burn natural gas as a backup? A3: No. EPA cannot approve this request at this time because the decision to reduce this requirement for certain boilers is based on the assumption that that fuel has low sulfur content. The sulfur content of natural gas is well known; however, the use of biogas in the context of this regulation has not been addressed before and it is uncertain what the sulfur content of biogas would be in this particular case. *Abstract for [0700028]:* Q: Is 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, applicable to Trident's Boiler No. 6, which was installed at the facility in 1994 but which the manufacturer's nameplate shows as constructed in 1976? A: No. NSPS subpart Dc applies to “Each steam generating unit for which construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced after June 9, 1989.” The boiler was operated prior to June 9, 1989, elsewhere in Alaska before its relocation and it has not been rebuilt, reconstructed, or modified since its original installation. Under the NSPS general provisions, 40 CFR 60.14(e)(6), the relocation or change in ownership of an existing facility shall not, by itself, be considered a modification. *Abstract for [0700063]:* Q: Do 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN (Distillation Operations in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Industry (SOCMI)) and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart RRR (Reactor Operations in the SOCMI), apply to the manufacturing of biodiesel and glycerin from soybean oil and methanol at the North Prairie Productions
(NPP)facility located in Evansville, Wisconsin? A: Yes. NSPS subparts NNN and RRR apply to the production of glycerin from soybean oil and methanol at the NPP biodiesel manufacturing facility, although certain exemptions may apply to the facility based on its production capacity and vent stream characteristics. The Agency finds that the production of glycerin in the process described by NPP is SOCMI, as both glycerin and methanol are SOCMI chemicals and appear on the chemical use trees. Additionally, the NPP process will use distillation and reaction operations, the units defined as affected facilities under Subparts NNN and RRR, respectively, which will result in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are the pollutants of concern under those NSPS. Dated: November 16, 2007. Lisa C. Lund, Acting Director, Office of Compliance. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on February 27, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-4030 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Report No. 2851] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding February 22, 2008. A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI)(1-800- 378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by March 18, 2008. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. *Subject:* In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications (PR Docket No. 92-257). *Number of Petitions Filed:* 1. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4050 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 31, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond** (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: *1. Bank of America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina;* to acquire Countrywide Financial Corporation, Calabasas, California, and thereby indirectly acquire Countrywide Bank, FSB, Alexandria, Virginia, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial Holding Company, Inc., Calabasas, California, Effinity Financial Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, Countrywide Tax Services Corporation, Simi Valley, California, CTC Real Estate Services, Calabasas, California, Countrywide Servicing Exchange, Calabasas, California, Countrywide Asset Management Corp., Calabasas, California, Landsafe Appraisal Services, Inc., Plano, Texas, Landsafe Credit, Inc., Richardson, Texas, Landsafe Flood Determination, Inc., Richardson, Texas, Landsafe Title of California, Inc., Rosemead, California, Landsafe Title of Texas, Inc., Rosemead, California, Landsafe Title of Florida, Inc., Calabasas, California, Countrywide Warehouse Lending, Calabasas, California, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, Plano, Texas, Countrywide Mortgage Ventures, LLC, Calabasas, California, Countrywide Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc., Calabasas, California, The Countrywide Foundation, Calabasas, California, Recontrust Company, National Association, Thousand Oaks, California, CWB Community Assets, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, Countrywide Commercial Administration LLC, Calabasas, California, Recontrust Company (Nevada) Thousand Oaks, California, Countrywide KB Home Loans, LLC, Thousand Oaks, California, CWB Mortgage Ventures, LLC, Thousand Oaks, California, Landsafe Services of Alabama, Inc., Rosemead, California, Landsafe Title of Maryland, Inc., Calabasas, California and thereby engage in
(1)operating a savings association;
(2)operating a nondepository trust company;
(3)community development activities;
(4)extending credit and servicing loans;
(5)real estate and personal property appraising;
(6)credit bureau services;
(7)asset management, servicing, and collection activities;
(8)acquiring debt in default; and
(9)providing tax services for residential mortgage transaction pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1), 225.28(b)(2), 225.28(b)(4), 225.28(b)(5), 225.28(b)(6) and 225.28(b)(12) of Regulation Y. In connection with this proposal Bank of America Corporation, has applied to acquire from Bank of America, National Association, Charlotte, North Carolina, 20,000 shares of Series B Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock of Countrywide Financial Corporation, Calabasas, California, which is convertible at the option of the holder into approximately 15.7 percent of the voting common stock of Countrywide Financial Corporation. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 27, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-4013 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee: *Times and Dates:* 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., March 18, 2008. 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., March 19, 2008. *Place:* CDC Global Communication Center, Roybal Facility, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333, *Telephone:*
(770)488-3300. *Status:* Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people. *Please Note:* Due to current security measures, a valid government issued identification card with photo is required for admittance into the Roybal facility. Non-U.S. citizens wishing to attend should contact Claudine Johnson, *Telephone:*
(770)488-3629. Individuals should ask for the meeting by name: CDC Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention when they arrive at the Roybal Visitors Center. *Purpose:* The Committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary; the Assistant Secretary for Health; and the Director, CDC, regarding new scientific knowledge and technological developments and their practical implications for childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts. The committee also reviews and reports regularly on childhood lead poisoning prevention practices and recommends improvements in national childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts. *Matters To Be Discussed:* A discussion on the potential approaches to strengthen existing strategies to achieve the Healthy People 2010 goal of eliminating Elevated Blood Lead Levels as a public health problem in the U.S. by 2010; Update the school performance and concurrent Blood Lead Levels (BLLs); Discuss the study designs related to adverse effects from BLLs < 10 μg/dl; and discuss the development of a prevention-based research agenda. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. There will be an opportunity for oral comments during the meeting. Depending on the time available and the number of requests, it may be necessary to limit the time of each presenter. *Contact Person for More Information:* Claudine Johnson, Clerk, Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, Division of Environmental Emergency Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, 4770 Buford Hwy., NE., Mailstop F-60, Atlanta, GA 30341, *Telephone:*
(770)488-3629, Fax
(770)488-3635. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: February 27, 2008. Diane Allen, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-4085 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0118] Draft Guidance for Industry on Diabetes Mellitus: Developing Drugs and Therapeutic Biologics for Treatment and Prevention; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Diabetes Mellitus: Developing Drugs and Therapeutic Biologics for Treatment and Prevention.” The draft guidance provides recommendations for industry for developing drugs and therapeutic biologics for the prevention and treatment of diabetes mellitus. Because diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, FDA recognizes the need for new products that can be used as part of a comprehensive treatment strategy in the treatment and prevention of diabetes. In addition to the draft guidance, FDA plans to convene a public advisory committee meeting to specifically discuss new approaches for the development of products for the treatment of diabetes, with particular emphasis on the design and implementation of studies to assess long-term cardiovascular risks and benefits of these new products. FDA plans to announce the meeting date in a future issue of the **Federal Register** . DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ilan Irony, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 3100, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Diabetes Mellitus: Developing Drugs and Therapeutic Biologics for Treatment and Prevention.” Although a number of drugs are available for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, many patients remain inadequately controlled, and thus are exposed to a higher risk of long-term complications. This draft guidance provides recommendations on the following topics related to the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: • Diabetes-specific preclinical studies; • Different study designs in different phases of drug development for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes; • Study endpoints in the assessment of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and for efficacy and safety assessment in treating patients with diabetes; • Study population considerations in different phases of development; • Sample sizes; • Study duration; and • Specific statistical issues related to development of drugs and biologics intended for the treatment of diabetes. The draft guidance also provides recommendations regarding the development of products for the prevention of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the treatment and prevention of diabetes mellitus. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either *http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* . Dated: February 25, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-3974 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS. ACTION: Request for information. SUMMARY: HRSA, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation
(DoT)is in the process of information- gathering to assist in determining whether it should engage in rulemaking with respect to vascularized composite allografts, described more fully below. The purpose of this solicitation is to receive feedback from stakeholders and the public on the following questions:
(1)Whether vascularized composite allografts should be included within the definition of organs covered by the regulations governing the operation of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
(OPTN)(referred to here as the “final rule”), and regulated as such, and the likely impact of such an amendment;
(2)whether vascularized composite allografts should be added to the definition of human organs covered by section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, as amended,
(NOTA)and the likely impact of such an addition; and
(3)if either of these changes are pursued, the optimal way to define vascularized composite allografts for the above-described purposes. This Request for Information is limited to information-gathering and is not a proposal to make any determinations regarding Federal oversight of vascularized composite allografts. DATES: Written comments must be received at HRSA by May 2, 2008. Comments will be made publicly available by submitting a written request to the address below. In addition, HRSA will hold a meeting to which the public and all stakeholders are invited for discussion and recommendations about the issues described above. The meeting will be held on Friday, April 4, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20057. ADDRESSES: Please send all written comments to James F. Burdick, M.D., Director, Division of Transplantation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room12C-06, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone
(301)443-7577; fax
(301)594-6095; or e-mail: *jburdick@hrsa.gov.* Requests to attend the meeting in person should be addressed to Elizabeth Ortiz-Rios, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Medical Officer, Division of Transplantation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12C-06, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone
(301)443-4423; fax
(301)594-6095; or e-mail: *EOrtiz-Rios@hrsa.gov.* A call-in number will be provided for individuals who would like to participate by phone. The call-in information will be posted in the `Highlights' section on the home page of *http://www.organdonor.gov.* If you plan to participate by phone, we request that you notify Dr. Ortiz-Rios by e-mail at *EOrtiz-Rios@hrsa.gov* no later than March 24, 2008, so that we can better estimate the number of phone lines that will be needed. Please include in the subject line of electronic correspondence “Vascularized Composite Allografts.” *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, phone
(301)443-7577 to schedule an appointment to view public comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Burdick, M.D., Director, Division of Transplantation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, at the contact information cited above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and General Questions The first successful hand transplant in the United States was performed in 1999. Worldwide there have been over two dozen limb transplants, at least two transplants of portions of the face, and a small number of transplants of other such anatomical parts (e.g., abdominal wall, vascularized skeletal muscle, uterus, digits, thymus). Although the body parts involved vary significantly, two characteristics that are shared in such transplants are that they are susceptible to ischemia (damage or death from lack of blood flow) and their need for revascularization, done through a surgical reconnection of blood vessels to accomplish the transplant, as opposed to secondary ingrowth of vessels. In viable vascularized transplants, immunosuppression is necessary to prevent or treat rejection. This immunosuppression has risks, which have been justified in patients needing organs as presently defined in the final rule, because of their lifesaving potential. In the past, the risks of immunosuppression have inhibited transplantation of vascularized composite allografts because the risks associated with the prolonged use of immunosuppressive drugs were thought to exceed the expected benefits of the transplant. However, the powerful impact these transplants can have to overcome and improve the quality of life for individuals with grievous disabilities has become increasingly apparent. Coupled with this, immunosuppressive management for these transplants has improved so that risks associated with immunosuppression, such as cancer, infection, or other morbidities in recipients are lessened considerably. For these reasons, it is likely that the numbers of vascularized composite allografts transplanted will increase in the future. Given this anticipated increase, HRSA is considering the advisability of proposing that such transplants (i.e., transplants of vascularized composite allografts) be regulated under the final rule and governed by section 301 of NOTA. HRSA is considering whether to propose that viable vascularized composite allografts, or body segments, be considered organs subject to the oversight of the OPTN under the authority of the final rule. This might be accomplished by adding vascularized composite allografts to the final rule's definition of organs through rulemaking. Currently, the final rule defines covered organs as “a human kidney, liver, heart, lung, or pancreas, or intestine (including the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract). Blood vessels recovered from an organ donor during the recovery of such organ(s) are considered part of an organ with which they are procured for purposes of this part if the vessels are intended for use in organ transplantation and labeled ‘For use in organ transplantation only.’ ” Once a body part is considered an organ under the final rule, transplants involving such organs are subject to the requirements of the final rule. For example, entities performing transplants with the organs must receive designation as an organ-specific designated transplant program within an OPTN member institution. In addition, OPTN members must comply with the final rule's data submission requirements with respect to the transplants performed. In addition, OPTN members are subject to oversight by the OPTN contractor for compliance with OPTN policies regarding donor screening and allocation, and may be subject to enforcement actions for violations of such policies. The Definition of Organs Under the Final Rule HRSA is seeking feedback from stakeholders and from the public about the advisability of exploring rulemaking to include vascularized composite allografts within this definition of organs, as well as the potential ramifications of such a change. If, upon consideration of public comments, HRSA is persuaded that such a change may be warranted, HRSA may initiate rulemaking setting forth a more specific set of proposals. For example, HRSA is interested in the public's assessment of the likely impact if OPTN policies concerning issues such as membership designation to receive organs, the retrieval of organs, allocation of organs, data collection and reporting, and OPTN policy compliance oversight were extended to vascularized composite allograft transplants. HRSA seeks feedback concerning whether regulation under the OPTN final rule would be effective in addressing special safety and allocation issues presented by vascularized composite allograft transplants as the field grows. Further, HRSA is interested in the public's assessment as to whether the clinical aspects of transplants of such vascularized composite allografts are more analogous to transplants of organs, as defined currently by the final rule, than to conventional tissue transplantation without surgical revascularization. Presently, it is HRSA's understanding that these transplants of vascularized composite allografts are done by individual arrangements with local organ procurement organizations
(OPOs)to allow retrieval of the needed structure during routine deceased donor organ retrievals. However, some of these vascularized composite allografts, e.g., testes, ovaries, or other endocrine glands, may come from living donors. HRSA is interested in perceived vulnerabilities concerning the current regulatory status of such transplants and the potential benefits of subjecting such transplants to the oversight of the OPTN and HRSA under the final rule. The Definition of Human Organs Under Section 301 of NOTA HRSA is also seeking feedback as to whether it should explore rulemaking to add vascularized composite allografts to the definition of human organs covered by section 301 of NOTA, as well as the potential consequences of such an action. Section 301 prohibits the purchase, sale, or other exchange for valuable consideration of human organs for transplantation. Although the statute lists covered human organs, the Secretary is authorized to add to this list through rulemaking. “Human organ,” as defined by NOTA and modified by the Secretary, means “the human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, skin, and intestine, including the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract.” Adding to the definition of human organs covered by section 301 would make transfers of organs meeting the statute's requirements subject to its criminal sanctions. If, after receiving public comments, HRSA is persuaded that a change to this definition may be appropriate, HRSA may initiate rulemaking setting forth a more specific set of proposals. Defining Vascularized Composite Allografts To assist the Secretary in the event that he proposes, through rulemaking, to add vascularized composite allografts to the definition of organs covered by the final rule and/or to the definition of human organs governed by section 301 of NOTA, HRSA seeks feedback from stakeholders and from the public as to how such allografts should be defined. HRSA has identified two potential approaches. Under the first approach, a regulatory definition could be broad, describing the features of the allografts without listing particular body parts. Under such an approach, the definition might extend to transplants of body parts that are not known to have been performed clinically to date, or even to body parts whose transplantation has not yet been envisioned. HRSA is interested in what elements would need to be included in such a definition in order to be broad enough to cover the universe of intended body parts, but narrow enough to put the public on notice as to which parts meet the regulatory definitions of organs. Shared characteristics that might be included in a regulatory definition could include some or all of the following:
(1)A vascularized allograft containing multiple tissue types;
(2)recovered from a human donor as an anatomical/structural unit;
(3)transplanted into a human recipient as an anatomical/structural unit;
(4)minimally manipulated, as defined by FDA in Title 21 CFR 1271.3(f);
(5)for homologous use as defined by FDA in Title 21 CFR 1271.3(c);
(6)not combined with another article such as a device;
(7)used fresh and not cryopreserved;
(8)susceptible to ischemia and, therefore, only stored temporarily (e.g., cold storage in preservation medium and intended for implantation into a recipient within hours of the recovery); and
(9)susceptible to allograft rejection which requires immunosuppression that may increase infectious disease risk to the recipient. HRSA seeks feedback from the public as to whether some or all of these characteristics describe vascularized composite allografts, which would be included in the definition of organ. HRSA invites feedback on such an approach as well as the particular characteristics listed here and invites suggestions concerning the advisability of including any additional characteristics. Under a second alternative, HRSA could propose a definition that lists specific body parts to be added to the definition of organs (e.g., face, hand, etc.). HRSA seeks feedback as to the feasibility of creating such a definition, which body parts should be included in such a definition, and whether such a definition would necessarily exclude certain body parts for which transplantation might be possible, but has not been performed to date (either in the United States or internationally). Following this comment period and meeting, if HRSA decides to proceed with rulemaking to include vascularized composite allografts in the definition of organ, this decision will be written and published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Dated: February 20, 2008. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-3994 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Innovations in Cancer Sample Preparation. *Date:* March 20, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8053, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-1822, *githenss@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Antibody Array for Cancer Detection. *Date:* March 26-27, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8053, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-1822, *githenss@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Cancer Stem Cells. *Date:* March 27, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Irina Gordienko, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 7073, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1566, *gordienkoiv@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Portable Energy Balance Review Panel (PEBRP). *Date:* April 2, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* C. Michael Kerwin, PhD, MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd., Rm. 8057, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-7421, *kerwinm@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, A web-based tailored health behavior intervention for African American colon cancer. *Date:* April 2, 2008. *Open:* 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* C. Michael Kerwin, PhD, MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd., Rm. 8057, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-7421, *kerwinm@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Development of Clinical Mass Spectrometric Immunoassays. *Date:* April 3, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, CR 6008, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8053, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-1822, *githenss@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Network for Translational Research: Optical Imaging (NTROI). *Date:* June 2-3, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hilton Washington DC North—Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 20877. *Contact Person:* Kenneth L. Bielat, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7147, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-7576, *bielatk@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Cancer Prevention Research. *Date:* June 17-18, 2008. *Time:* 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Irina Gordienko, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6166 Executive Blvd., Rm. 7073, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1566, *gordienkoiv@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: February 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 08-906 Filed 2-29-08: 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 34
Traces to 34 documents
U.S. Code
- Records maintained on individuals§ 552a
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- DEFINITIONS.§ 302
- Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title IX, § 901(a)(1), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2339]§ 133
- Defense Information Assurance Program§ 2224
- Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices§ 1029
- Rule making§ 553
- National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity§ 1011c
- Test procedures§ 6293
- Interests in nonbanking organizations§ 1843
CFR
- Protests other than under Rule 208 (Rule 211).§ 385.211
- Determination of construction or modification.§ 60.5
- Monitoring requirements.§ 60.13
- Standard for waste disposal for manufacturing, fabricating, demolition, renovation, and spraying operations.§ 61.150
- What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?§ 63.2232
- Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.§ 63.505
- Performance testing requirements.§ 63.7
- Notification requirements.§ 63.9
- Definitions.§ 63.461
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.§ 60.705
- List of chemicals produced by affected facilities.§ 60.489
- Applicability and designation of affected facility.§ 60.480
- Monitoring of emissions and operations.§ 60.734
- Performance tests.§ 60.8
- Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.§ 60.11
- Definitions.§ 60.331
- Modification.§ 60.14
- Can my combustion unit be exempt from this subpart?§ 62.14525
- Notification and record keeping.§ 60.7
- General notification and reporting requirements.§ 60.19
- Applicability and designation of affected facility.§ 60.50
- List of permissible nonbanking activities.§ 225.28
- Good guidance practices.§ 10.115
- How does FDA define important terms in this part?§ 1271.3
27 references not yet in our index
- 44 USC 3536
- 32 CFR 806
- 32 CFR 701
- 34 CFR 602
- 34 CFR 603
- 42 USC 6291-6309
- 16 CFR 305
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 61
- 40 CFR 82
- 40 CFR 63
- 40 CFR 763
- 40 CFR 64.1
- 40 CFR 63.7575
- 40 CFR 63.7491(l)
- 40 CFR 63.5535
- 40 CFR 63.3881(a)
- 40 CFR 60.482
- 40 CFR 64
- 40 CFR 75
- 40 CFR 62
- 40 CFR 60.48
- 40 CFR 72
- 47 CFR 1.429(e)
- 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)
- 12 CFR 225
- Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice To Add a System of Records
Cite44 USC 3536
Cite32 CFR 806
Cite32 CFR 701
Cites 61 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources