Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-03-19 · National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments

108,951 words·~495 min read·/register/2008/03/19/08-1052

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 RIN 0648-AW08 A Vessel License Limitation Program for the Pacific Whiting Fishery; Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 15 would modify the FMP to implement a limited entry program for the non-tribal Pacific whiting fishery. Amendment 15 is intended to limit participation in the Pacific whiting fishery within the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone until the implementing of a trawl rationalization program in the Pacific whiting fishery. DATES: Comments on Amendment 15 must be received on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW08 by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the FederaleRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko. • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Attn: Becky Renko, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. *Instructions:* All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6129; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail: *becky.renko@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access Amendment 15 is available on the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's or Pacific Council's) website at: *http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gffmp.html* . The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve Amendment 15 to the FMP. Amendment 15 would implement a limited entry program for the Pacific whiting fishery, which occurs within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The whiting fishery is currently managed with separate allocations for the tribal and non-tribal whiting fisheries, and with sector-specific whiting allocations for the three non-tribal sectors: mothership, catcher/processor, and shore-based. Vessels that participate in the mothership sector include both the motherships themselves and the catcher vessels that deliver to the at-sea mothership processors. Vessels that participate in the catcher/processor sector are self-contained at-sea processors that both catch and process fish. Vessels that participate in the shore-based sector are catcher vessels that deliver their catch to land-based processing plants. This action would limit participation in each of the three non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery to those vessels, both catcher vessels and at-sea processing vessels, with historic participation in those particular sectors. NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 15 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 15 in the near future. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 13, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5561 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 RIN 0648-AW37 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes Amendment 24 the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
(FMP)to: specify a five-tier system for determining the status of the crab stocks managed under the FMP, establish a process for annually assigning each crab stock to a tier and for setting the overfishing and overfished levels, and reduce the number of crab stocks managed under the FMP. Amendment 24 is necessary to establish new overfishing definitions that contain objective and measurable criteria for determining whether each managed stock is overfished or whether overfishing is occurring and to remove several crab stocks managed by the State of Alaska from FMP management. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws. DATES: Comments on Amendment 24 must be submitted on or before May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW37, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Fax:
(907)586-7557. • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file
(pdf)formats only. Copies of Amendment 24 and the Environmental Assessment
(EA)for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228 or *gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This action constitutes such notice for Amendment 24 to the FMP for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve this FMP amendment. In December 2007, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) unanimously recommended Amendment 24 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. Amendment 24 would satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that FMPs contain objective and measurable criteria for determining whether a stock is overfished, whether overfishing is occurring, and for rebuilding overfished stocks. Section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes national standards for fishery conservation and management, and requires that all FMPs create management measures consistent with those standards. National Standard 1 requires that conservation and management measures shall “prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield” from fisheries in Federal waters. Amendment 24 would
(1)specify a five-tier system for determining the status of the crab stocks managed under the FMP,
(2)establish a process for annually assigning each crab stock to a tier and for setting the overfishing and overfished levels, and
(3)reduce the number of crab stocks managed under the FMP. The stocks status determination criteria in Amendment 24 are necessary to reflect current scientific information and accomplish the following: • Provide an FMP framework to annually define values using the best available scientific information. • Provide a new tier system that accommodates varying levels of uncertainty of information and takes advantage of alternative biological reference points. • Define the status determination criteria and their application to the appropriate component of the population. Removal of Stocks Amendment 24 would remove twelve state-managed stocks from the FMP for which the State of Alaska (State) has a legitimate interest in the conservation and management. For each of these stocks, the majority of catch in the fisheries occurs in State waters or the State either has closed the directed fishery or manages a limited incidental or exploratory fishery. The State would continue to manage these stocks as they currently do under the deferred management authority of the FMP. Five-Tier System The stocks status determination criteria for crab stocks would be annually calculated using a five-tier system that accommodates varying levels of uncertainty of information. The five-tier system would incorporate new scientific information and provide a mechanism to continually improve the stock status determination criteria as new information becomes available. The five-tier system would be used to determine the status of the crab stocks and whether
(1)overfishing is occurring or the rate or level of fishing mortality for a stock or stock complex is approaching overfishing, and
(2)a stock or stock complex is overfished or a stock or stock complex is approaching an overfished condition. Overfishing would be determined by comparing the overfishing level, as calculated in the five-tier system for the crab fishing year, with the catch estimates for that crab fishing year. An overfished condition would be determined by comparing annual biomass estimates to the established minimum stock size threshold (MSST), defined as one half the biomass estimated to produce maximum sustainable yield to the fishery. For stocks where MSSTs (or proxies) are defined, if the biomass drops below the MSST (or proxy thereof) then the stock would be considered to be overfished. MSST or proxies would be set for stocks in Tiers 1 through 4. For Tier 5 stocks, it would not be possible to set an MSST because there are no reliable estimates of biomass. Annually, the overfishing level for each stock would be calculated for the upcoming crab fishing year based on the most recent abundance estimates prior to the State of Alaska setting the total allowable catch or guideline harvest level for that stock's upcoming crab fishing season. First, a stock would be assigned to one of the five tiers based on the availability of information for that stock. Tier assignments would be made through the Council's Crab Plan Team process and recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. Once a stock is assigned to a tier, the stock status level would be determined based on biomass estimates from recent survey data and simulation models, as available. The tier system would specify three levels of stock status: “a,” “b,” and “c.” At stock status level “a,” current stock biomass exceeds the biomass estimated to produce maximum sustainable yield to the fishery. At status level “b,” current stock biomass is less than necessary produce maximum sustainable yield to the fishery but greater than a level specified as the critical biomass threshold. At stock status level “c,” current stock biomass is below the critical biomass threshold and directed fishing would be prohibited. The stock status level determines the equation for calculating the fishing rate used to determine the overfishing level. For stocks in Tiers 1 through 4, the fishing rate would be reduced as biomass declines by stock status level. Tier 5 stocks have no reliable estimates of biomass or natural mortality and only historical data of retained catch is available. For stocks in Tier 5, the overfishing level would be specified in terms of an average catch value over an historical time period, unless the Scientific and Statistical Committee recommends an alternative value based on the best available scientific information. After the crab fishing year, NMFS would determine whether overfishing occurred by comparing the overfishing level with the catch from the previous crab fishing year. For stocks where non-target fishery removal data are available, catch would include all fishery removals, including retained catch and discard losses. Discard losses would be determined by multiplying the appropriate handling mortality rate by observer estimates of bycatch discards. For stocks where only retained catch information is available, the overfishing level would be set for and compared to the retained catch. Annually, the Council, Scientific and Statistical Committee, and Crab Plan Team will review
(1)the stock assessment documents,
(2)the OFLs and total allowable catches or guideline harvest levels for the upcoming crab fishing year,
(3)NMFS's determination of whether overfishing occurred in the previous crab fishing year, and
(4)NMFS's determination of whether any stocks are overfished. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center
(AFSC)reviewed the proposed overfishing definitions in Amendment 24 and supporting environmental assessment for compliance with guidelines provided for National Standards 1 and 2 in 50 CFR part 600. During this review, the AFSC recommended modifications to the amendment text to clarify the Council's intent and comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. At its February 2008 meeting, the Council adopted the FMP text for Amendment 24 which included the AFSC's recommendations. On February 14, 2008, the AFSC certified that the proposed definitions
(1)have sufficient scientific merit,
(2)are likely to result in effective Council action to protect a managed stock from closely approaching or reaching an overfished status,
(3)provide a basis for objective measurement of the status of a managed stock against the definition, and
(4)are operationally feasible. An EA was prepared for Amendment 24 that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES ). Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 24 through May 19, 2008. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendment will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by the close of business on the last day of the comment period. Dated: March 13, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5562 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 54 Wednesday, March 19, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 080229350-8434-01] Request for Public Comments on Crime Control License Requirements in the Export Administration Regulations AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security is seeking public comment on the crime control export and reexport license requirements contained in the Export Administration Regulations. Specifically, BIS is seeking public input on whether the scope of items currently subject to crime control license requirements should be revised to add or remove items. BIS is also seeking public comments on whether the destinations to which crime control license requirements apply should be revised. DATES: Comments must be received no later than June 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted via *http://www.regulations.gov* (at the home page, in the field under the search tab, enter BIS-2008-0005-0001. When the page containing this notice appears, click on the “comment” link). Comments may also be submitted by e-mail directly to BIS at *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* or on paper to U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, Room H-7205, Washington DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chantal Lakatos, Office of Non-proliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, telephone: 202-482-1739; fax: 202-482-4145; e-mail: *clakatos@bis.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Export Administration Regulations (15 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Parts 730-774) impose license requirements for certain exports from the United States and reexports from other countries. One of the reasons that a license may be required is “crime control.” The purpose of the crime control license requirement is the “support of U.S. foreign policy to promote human rights throughout the world” (15 CFR 742.7(a)). The items to which crime control license requirements apply are listed in the Commerce Control List
(CCL)(15 CFR Part 774, Supp. No. 1). The specific entries on the CCL that describe items to which crime control license requirements apply are set forth in 15 CFR 742.7(a)(1) through (4). That section also describes, in part through reference to the country chart in 15 CFR Part 738, Supp. No. 1, the destinations to which licenses are required. Items currently subject to crime control license requirements generally are either exclusively or primarily used for law enforcement purposes. In light of the recent significant technological advances in many industries, a review of the scope of items subject to crime control license requirements is warranted. The existing controls are described below. Existing Crime Control License Requirements Based on 15 CFR 742.7(a)(1) Through
(4)Items Subject to License Requirements The following list describes in general terms the items for which a license is required for crime control reasons. Some of these items may also require licenses for other reasons and some of these Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) may include some items to which the crime control license requirement does not apply. This list provides a general outline of the overall scope of items for which a license is required for crime control reasons as set forth in 15 CFR 742.7(a)(1) through (4). For more detailed and exact descriptions, see the individual CCL entries. ECCN Item. 0A978 Saps. 0A979 Police helmets and shields. 0A982 Restraint devices. 0A984 Shotguns with a barrel length of 18 inches or more. 0A985 Discharge type arms. 0A987 Optical sighting devices. 0E982 Technology exclusively for development or production of commodities covered by 0A982 or 0A985. 0E984 Technology for development or production of shotguns covered by 0A984. 1A984 Tear gas, smoke bombs, liquid pepper, et cetera. 1A985 Fingerprinting powders, dyes and inks. 3A980 Voice print identification equipment. 3A981 Polygraphs, fingerprint analyzers. 3D980 Software specially designed for development, production, or use of commodities covered by 3A980 or 3A981. 3E980 Technology specially designed for development, production, or use of commodities covered by 3A980 or 3A981. 4A003 Digital computers (for fingerprint equipment). 4A980 Computers for fingerprint equipment not elsewhere specified on the CCL. 4D001 Software specially designed or modified for the development, production or use of computerized fingerprint equipment controlled by ECCN 4A003. 4D980 Software for development, production or use of ECCN 4A980 fingerprint computers. 4E001 Technology for development, production or use of digital computers for fingerprint equipment controlled by ECCN 4A003. 4E980 Technology for development, production or use of ECCN 4A980 fingerprint equipment computers. 6A002.c Police-model infrared viewers. 6E001 Technology for police-model infrared viewers development. 6E002 Technology for police-model infrared viewer production. 9A980 Mobile crime laboratories. Destinations Subject to License Requirements The destinations to which crime control license requirements apply vary according to the item. Restraint devices as described in ECCN 0A982, discharge type arms as described in ECCN 0A985, and technology as described in ECCN 0E982 require a license to all destinations other than Canada. Shotguns described in ECCN 0A984 with a barrel length of 24 inches or greater and technology described in ECCN 0E984 for the development or production of such shotguns require a license for crime control reasons to all end-users in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cambodia, Fiji, Georgia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgystan, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. Shotguns with a barrel length of 24 inches or greater and technology described in ECCN 0E984 for the development or production of such shotguns require a license if they are to be sold or transferred to the police in a destination other than Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. All other items for which a license is required for crime control reasons pursuant to 15 CFR 742.7(a), including shotguns with a barrel length equal to or greater than 18 inches but less than 24 inches and technology for the development or production of such shotguns, require a license for export or reexport to all destinations except Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. BIS is not seeking comments on license requirements for shotguns with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, rifles or pistols because their export and reexport is subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which are administered by the Department of State. Requests for Comments BIS is seeking public comments on whether the scope of items subject to the crime control license requirements of 15 CFR 742.7(a)(1) through
(4)should be modified. Such modification might include adding items, removing items or altering the descriptions of items currently subject to such license requirements. BIS is particularly, but not exclusively, interested in comments on whether items such as biometric devices, integrated security systems, and training software, particularly firearms training software, should be subject to crime control license requirements. BIS is also seeking public comments on whether the universe of destinations to which a license is required should be changed, either by adding or removing destinations. Comments that address practical considerations such as defining license requirements with sufficient clarity to be understood by the public and sufficient precision to support the U.S. foreign policy to promote human rights without placing excessive costs on transactions that do not impact human rights are likely to be more useful than comments that do not address those considerations. Comments that provide a reasoned explanation in support of the position taken in the comment are likely to be more useful than comments that merely assert a position without such explanation. Dated: March 14, 2008. Matthew S. Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5614 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-837] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 65299 (November 20, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The Department preliminarily rescinded the administrative review with respect to DSEC Co., Ltd. (“DSEC”) and found that the other company subject to review, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (“DSM”), had a *de minimis* net subsidy rate during the period of review. We did not receive any comments on our preliminary results and have made no revisions to those results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The products covered by the CVD order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order:
(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Final Results of Review As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, consistent with the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find the net subsidy for DSM to be 0.29 percent *ad valorem* , which is *de minimis* . *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). As there have been no changes to or comments on the *Preliminary Results* , we are not attaching a decision memorandum to this **Federal Register** notice. For further details of the programs included in this proceeding, see the *Preliminary Results* . Final Partial Rescission The Department preliminarily rescinded the administrative review with respect to DSEC. The Department did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding its decision to preliminarily rescind the administrative review of DSEC. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we are rescinding the administrative review of DSEC. Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by DSM entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, without regard to countervailing duties. We will also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on shipments of the subject merchandise by DSM entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the CVD order. *Notice of Amended Final Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until reviews of companies assigned these rates are completed. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5554 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: (March 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4114. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, covering the period of review of February 1, 2007, to July 31, 2007, and Dujiangyan Xingda Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Xingda”). *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 54899 (September 27, 2007). Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), the Department shall issue preliminary results in a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. The Act and regulations further provide, however, that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that this review is extraordinarily complicated. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The Department finds that this review is extraordinarily complicated and that it is not practicable to complete this new shipper review within the foregoing time period. Specifically, the Department must issue supplemental questionnaires to obtain additional information about
(1)Xingda's complex methodology for allocating consumption rates of factors of production, and
(2)the *bona fides* of its U.S. sale. Accordingly, the Department finds that additional time is needed in order to complete these preliminary results. Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to a maximum of 300 days from the date of initiation of the new shipper review. The current deadline for the preliminary results is March 19, 2008. For the reasons noted above, we are extending the 180-day deadline for the completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper review by an additional 60 days, to 240 days from September 21, 2007, the date of initiation, until no later than May 19, 2008. 1 The deadline for the final results of this new shipper review continues to be 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. 1 Because 240 days from September 21, 2007, falls on May 18, 2008, which is a Sunday, the deadline for completing the preliminary results of this new shipper review shall be the next business day, May 19, 2008. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Dated: March 13, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5553 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-908] Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on sodium hexametaphosphate (“SHMP”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On March 12, 2008, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination of material injury to a U.S. industry. *See Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China* (Investigation No. 731-TA-1110 (Final), USITC Publication 3984, March 2008). EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1442, or
(202)482-1386, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), on February 4, 2008, the Department published the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 6479 (February 4, 2008) (“ *Final Determination* ”). Scope of Order The merchandise subject to this investigation is sodium hexametaphosphate (“SHMP”). SHMP is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass that consists of a distribution of polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a collection of sodium polyphosphate polymers built on repeating NaPO3 units. SHMP has a P2O5 content from 60 to 71 percent. Alternate names for SHMP include the following: Calgon; Calgon S; Glassy Sodium Phosphate; Sodium Polyphosphate, Glassy; Metaphosphoric Acid; Sodium Salt; Sodium Acid Metaphosphate; Graham's Salt; Sodium Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt; Glass H; Hexaphos; Sodaphos; Vitrafos; and BAC-N-FOS. SHMP is typically sold as a white powder or granule (crushed) and may also be sold in the form of sheets (glass) or as a liquid solution. It is imported under heading 2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It may also be imported as a blend or mixture under heading 3824.90.3900, HTSUS. The American Chemical Society, Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) has assigned the name “Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt” to SHMP. The CAS registry number is 68915-31-1. However, SHMP is commonly identified by CAS No. 10124-56-8 in the market. For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP in all grades, whether food grade or technical grade. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP without regard to chain length i.e., whether regular or long chain. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP without regard to physical form, whether glass, sheet, crushed, granule, powder, fines, or other form, and whether or not in solution. However, the product covered by this investigation does not include SHMP when imported in a blend with other materials in which the SHMP accounts for less than 50 percent by volume of the finished product. Antidumping Duty Order On March 12, 2008, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of SHMP from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of SHMP from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after September 14, 2007, the date on which the Department published its preliminary determination. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 52544 (September 14, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of SHMP, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months. * See Postponement of Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China * , 72 FR 55176 (September 28, 2007); *see also Postponement of Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 5176 (January 29, 2008). In this investigation, the six-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination ends on March 11, 2008. Furthermore, section 737 of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of SHMP from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 11, 2008, and before the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the **Federal Register** . Suspension of liquidation will continue on or after this date. Effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP, pursuant to section 735(c)(3) of the Act, will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as listed below. The “PRC-wide” rate applies to all exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Jiangyin Chengxing International Trading Co., Ltd. 92.02 Sichuan Mianzhu Norwest Phosphate Chemical Company Limited 92.02 PRC-Wide Rate (including Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd., Mianyang Aostar Phosphorous Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., and Hubei Xingfa Chemicals Group Co., Ltd. ) 188.05 This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to SHMP from the PRC pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect. This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211. Dated: March 14, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5657 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction Meeting AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR or Committee), will meet Thursday, April 10, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday, April 11, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. The primary purpose of this meeting is to review the draft National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Strategic Plan and the Committee's report to the NIST Director. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at *http://nehrp.gov/.* DATES: The ACEHR will meet on Thursday, April 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The meeting will continue on Friday, April 11, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Employee Lounge, in the Administration Building at NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jack Hayes, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8603, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8603. Dr. Hayes' e-mail address is *jack.hayes@nist.gov* and his phone number is
(301)975-5640. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 103 of the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-360). The Committee is composed of 15 members appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. In addition, the Chairperson of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) serves in an ex officio capacity on the Committee. The Committee assesses: • Trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; • The effectiveness of NEHRP in performing its statutory activities (improved design and construction methods and practices; land use controls and redevelopment; prediction techniques and early-warning systems; coordinated emergency preparedness plans; and public education and involvement programs); • Any need to revise NEHRP; and • The management, coordination, implementation, and activities of NEHRP. Background information on NEHRP and the Advisory Committee is available at *http://nehrp.gov.* Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR), will meet Thursday, April 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The meeting will continue on Friday, April 11, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Employee Lounge at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The primary purpose of this meeting is to review the draft National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Strategic Plan and the Committee's annual report to the NIST Director. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at *http://nehrp.gov/.* Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On April 10, 2008, approximately one-half hour will be reserved at the end of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the ACEHR, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8630, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8630, via fax at
(301)975-5433, or electronically by e-mail to *info@nehrp.gov.* All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by close of business Thursday, April 3, 2008, in order to attend. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Carmen Pardo. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor, and address. Ms. Pardo's e-mail address is *carmen.pardo@nist.gov* and her phone number is
(301)975-6132. Dated: March 13, 2008. James M. Turner, Acting Director. [FR Doc. E8-5487 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 080307400-8401-01] RIN 0648-ZB88 Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO) AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of funding availability. SUMMARY: This announcement is a solicitation for proposals for the Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO) Program. The purpose of CAMEO is to strengthen the scientific basis for an ecosystem approach to stewardship of ocean and coastal resources and ecosystems. To fulfill this purpose, CAMEO will assist policy makers and resource managers to make ecosystem-science based decisions that fulfill policy goals and management objectives of society. The program will support research to understand complex dynamics controlling productivity, behavior, population connectivity, climate variability and anthropogenic pressures. It envisages the use of a diverse array of ecosystem models, comparative analyses of managed and unmanaged areas, and ecosystem-scale mapping in support of research, forecasting and decision support. Proposals are requested for 1-2 year projects for initial modeling, retrospective, and pilot studies. DATES: Proposals must be received no later than June 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Electronic application packages are strongly encouraged and are available at: *http://www.grants.gov/* . Paper application packages are available on the NOAA Grants Management website at: *http://www.ago.noaa.gov/grants/appkit.shtml* . If the applicant has difficulty accessing Grants.gov or downloading the required forms from the NOAA website, they should contact: Roy Williams, CAMEO, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12436, Silver Spring, MD, 20910 or by phone at
(301)713-2367, ext. 141, or via internet at *Roy.Williams@noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical Information: Michael Ford, CAMEO Program Manager, NOAA/NMFS, 301-713-2239, *Michael.Ford@noaa.gov* ; Phil Taylor, Program Director, Biological Oceanography, OCE/GEO/NSF, 703-292-8582, *prtaylor@nsf.gov* ; or Cynthia Suchman, Associate Program Director, Biological Oceanography, OCE/GEO/NSF, 703/292-8582, *csuchman@nsf.gov* . Business Management Information: Roy Williams, NMFS/S&T Grants Administrator, 301-713-2367 x 141, *Roy.Williams@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Objective of Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO) is to strengthen the scientific basis for an ecosystem approach to stewardship of ocean and coastal resources and ecosystems. To fulfill its objective, the product of the CAMEO program must assist policy makers and resource managers to make science based decisions that fulfill policy goals and management objectives of society. This means that for CAMEO to be successful, it must include an explicit and realistic path for translating research results into usable decision-making support tools. Comparative studies of ecosystems have a long history in marine ecology. Many of these studies have been theoretical, using mathematical models with limited or no data, and narrow in scope in terms of the properties of ecosystems and the drivers of change. Others have compared and contrasted large amounts of observational data to draw general inferences. CAMEO's goal, and challenge, is to carefully design approaches by which similarities and divergences among observed ecosystems (comparative ecosystem analyses) are effectively interpreted in a manner that can yield management insights. The spatial scale of comparative analyses can range from ocean basins to local oceanic (e.g., seamounts, shelves) and coastal (e.g., bays and estuaries) features. The scale should be appropriate to the ecosystem properties considered in the proposal. In some cases, a hierarchy of nested scales may be appropriate. Obvious components of this comparative approach involve the use of experiments, models, and observational data, ultimately leading to sophisticated integrations of all three. Spatial contrasts offered by comparing ecosystem function and structure within and outside marine protected areas are one form of comparative analysis that may offer insights into how ecosystems respond to human activities. An important and ancillary challenge will be to identify recent and emerging technologies (e.g. molecular techniques and instrumentation) that may be applied toward the significant challenges of CAMEO. In framing issues to be addressed by CAMEO, some important ecosystem concepts, such as resilience, regime shifts and connectivity are used without rigorously defining or thoroughly discussing them. These are evolving concepts, and it is expected that they will be defined in the context of the research that is proposed and refined through CAMEO research. ELECTRONIC ACCESS: The full text of the full funding opportunity announcement for this program can be accessed via the Grants.gov web site at *http://www.grants.gov* . The announcement will also be available by contacting the program officials identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Authority for CAMEO is provided by the following: 33 U.S.C. 1442 for the National Marine Fisheries Service and 42 U.S.C. 1861-75 for the National Science Foundation. CFDA: 11.472, Unallied Science Program FUNDING AVAILABILITY: It is anticipated that about $2,000,000 in FY 2008 will be available to support approximately 5-10 projects in response to this announcement. ELIGIBILITY: Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, state, local, Indian Tribal Governments, and Federal agencies that possess the statutory authority to receive financial assistance. COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS: None is required. EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES: The general evaluation criteria and selection factors that apply to full applications to this funding opportunity are summarized below. The evaluation criteria for full applications will have different weights and details. Further information about the evaluation criteria and selection factors can be found in the full funding opportunity announcement. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PROJECTS: The following evaluation criteria and weighting of the criteria are as follows: 1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals: (20 percent). This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, or local goals and priorities. For this competition, this criterion assesses whether proposals address research that will make substantial contributions or develop products leading to improved management of coastal resources (this criterion fulfills the Broader Impacts requirement for NSF proposals); 2. Technical/Scientific Merit (50 percent): This assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives for this management activity. For this competition, this criterion assesses whether proposals address the intrinsic scientific value of the proposed work and the likelihood that it will lead to fundamental advancements, new discoveries or will have substantial impact on progress in that field. The proposed work should have focused science objectives and a complete and efficient strategy for making measurements and observations in support of the objectives. The approach should be sound and logically planned throughout the cycle of the proposed work; 3. Overall qualifications of applicants (20 percent): This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. For this competition, this criterion assesses whether the proposals address the capability of the investigator and collaborators to complete the proposed work as evidenced by past research accomplishments, previous cooperative work, timely communication, and the sharing of findings, data, and other research products; 4. Project costs (10 percent): The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. For this competition, this criterion assesses whether proposals address the adequacy of the proposed resources to accomplish the proposed work, and the appropriateness of the requested funding with respect to the total available funds. 5. Outreach and Education (0 percent): Outreach and education NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nations natural resources. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS: Proposals will be evaluated individually in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria by independent peer mail review and/or by independent peer panel review. Both Federal and non-Federal experts in the field may be used in this process. The peer mail reviewers have expertise in the subjects addressed by the proposals. Each mail reviewer will see only certain individual proposals within his or her area of expertise, and will score them individually on the following scale: Excellent (1), Very Good (2), Good (3), Fair (4), Poor (5). The peer panel will comprise 6 to 10 individuals, with each individual having expertise in a separate area, so that the panel, as a whole, covers a range of scientific expertise. The panel will have access to all mail reviews of proposals, and will use the mail reviews in discussion and evaluation of the entire slate of proposals. All proposals will be evaluated and scored individually. The peer panel shall rate the proposals using the evaluation criteria and scores provided above. Scores from each peer panelist shall be averaged for each application and presented to the program officers. No consensus advice will be given by the independent peer mail review or the review panel. The program officers will neither vote or score proposals as part of the independent peer panel nor participate in discussion of the merits of the proposal. Those proposals receiving an average panel score of “Fair” or “Poor” will not be given further consideration, and proposers will be notified of non selection. For the proposals rated by the panel as either “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good”, the program officers will
(a)select the proposals to be recommended for funding according to the averaged ratings, and/or by applying the project funding priorities listed below;
(b)determine the total duration of funding for each proposal; and
(c)determine the amount of funds available for each proposal subject to the availability of fiscal year funds. Awardsmay not necessarily be made in rank order. In addition, proposals rated by the panel as either “Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good” that are not funded in the current fiscal period, may be considered for funding in another fiscal period without having to repeat the competitive, review process. Recommendations for funding are then forwarded to the selecting official, the Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor for NOAA/NMFS, or the Program Director for NSF Biological Oceanography, for the final funding decision. The Director shall make the final funding decisions based upon reviewer/program officer recommendations, project funding priorities and availability of funds. At the conclusion of the review process, NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team Lead and the NSF Biological Oceanography Program Director or staff will notify lead proposers for those projects recommended for support, and negotiate revisions in the proposed work and budget. Final awards will be issued by the agency responsible for a specific project after receipt and processing of any specific materials required by the agency. Investigators may be asked to modify objectives, work plans or budgets, and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to the award. When a decision has been made (whether an award or declination), verbatim anonymous copies of reviews and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, will be made available to the proposer. Declined applications will be held in the NMFS/S&T office for the required 3 years in accordance with the current retention requirements, and then destroyed. SELECTION FACTORS FOR PROJECTS: The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based on one or more of the following factors: 1. Availability of funding 2. Balance and distribution of funds a. By research area b. By project type c. By type of institutions d. By type of partners e. Geographically 3. Duplication of other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA/Federal agencies. 4. Program priorities and policy factors as set in Sections I.A and B of the FFO. 5. Applicants prior award performance. 6. Partnerships with/Participation of targeted groups. 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the NOAA Grants Officer. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA): NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA website: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* . Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects,and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PRE-AWARD NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to this solicitation. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866: This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132 (FEDERALISM): It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT/REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: March 13, 2008. Steven A. Murawski, Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-5567 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council: Tourism alternate and Research alternate. Applicants chosen for the Tourism seat should expect to serve until February 2011. Applicants chosen for the Research seat should expect to serve until February 2010. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the Sanctuary. DATES: Applications are due by May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from Nicole Capps at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, California 93940. Completed applications should be sent to the same address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Capps at
(831)647-4206r or *Nicole.Capps@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MBNMS Advisory Council was established in March 1994 to assure continued public participation in the management of the Sanctuary. Since its establishment, the Advisory Council has played a vital role in decisions affecting the Sanctuary along the central California coast. The Advisory Council's twenty voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus six local and state governmental jurisdictions. In addition, the respective managers or superintendents for the four California National Marine sanctuaries (Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary), the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve and the U.S. Coast Guard sit as non-voting members. Four working groups support the Advisory Council: The Research Activity Panel (“RAP”) chaired by the Research Representative, the Sanctuary Education Panel (“SEP”) chaired by the Education Representative, the Conservation Working Group (“CWG”) chaired by the Conservation Representative, and the Business and Tourism Activity Panel (”BTAP”) co-chaired by the Business/Industry and Tourism Representatives, each dealing with matters concerning research, education, conservation and human use. The working groups are composed of experts from the appropriate fields of interest and meet monthly, or bi-monthly, serving as invaluable advisors to the Advisory Council and the Sanctuary Superintendent. The Advisory Council represents the coordination link between the Sanctuary and the state and federal management agencies, user groups, researchers, educators, policy makers, and other various groups that help to focus efforts and attention on the central California coastal and marine ecosystems. The Advisory Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Superintendent and is instrumental in helping develop policies, program goals, and identify education, outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection, and revenue enhancement priorities. The Advisory Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Superintendent by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Superintendent in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program within the context of California's marine programs and policies. Authority: 16 D.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: March 11, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5436 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Public Hearing on the Proposed St. Louis River Site for a Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve in Wisconsin AGENCY: The Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Public Hearing Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the University of Wisconsin—Extension, the WI Department of Administration's Coastal Management Program and the WI Department of Natural Resources with the support of the Estuarine Reserves Division of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments on the preliminary recommendation that the St. Louis River Estuary be proposed for designation as a National Estuarine Research Reserve in Wisconsin. The state agencies will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. on April 3rd, 2008 at the Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College—Superior Conference Center, 600 North 21st Street, Superior, WI 78701. The views of interested persons and organizations on the proposed site recommendation are solicited, and may be expressed orally and/or in written statements. An informational presentation on the St. Louis River Estuary and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is scheduled for 7 p.m. All comments received at the hearing will be considered in a formal nomination by the state to NOAA. The NERRS is a federal-state partnership that is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The system protects more than 1.3 million acres of estuarine habitat for long-term research, monitoring, education and stewardship throughout the coastal United States. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, each reserve is managed by a lead state agency or university, with input from local partners. NOAA provides funding and national programmatic guidance. The NERR site selection effort is a culmination of several years of local, grassroots support for a Wisconsin NERR on Lake Superior. The recommendation of the St. Louis site follows a year-long process to gather information about all of the freshwater estuaries on Lake Superior's south shore. The site selection process involved dozens of meetings with scientists, agency land managers, public officials and citizens. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laurie McGilvray
(301)713-3155 extension 158, Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA, 1305 East West Highway, N/ORM2, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Dated: March 13, 2008. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.420 (Coastal Zone Management) Research Reserves. [FR Doc. E8-5457 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT): Closing Date AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of funds. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007), the U.S. Department of Commerce announces the solicitation of applications for a grant for the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program. Projects funded pursuant to this Notice are intended to support the PEACESAT Program's acquisition of satellite communications to service Pacific Basin communities and to manage the operations of this network. Applications for the PEACESAT Program grant will compete for funds from the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account. DATES: Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, April 18, 2008. Applications submitted by facsimile are not acceptable. NTIA will not accept applications received after the deadline. However, if an application is received after the Closing Date due to
(1)carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the Closing Date and Time, or
(2)significant weather delays or natural disasters, NTIA will, upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline. ADDRESSES: To obtain a printed application package, submit completed applications, or send any other correspondence, write to: NTIA/PTFP, Room H-4812, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Application materials may be obtained electronically via the Internet at *http://www.grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cooperman, Director, Public Broadcasting Division, telephone:
(202)482-5802; fax:
(202)482-2156. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access The full funding opportunity announcement for the PEACESAT Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 grant cycle is available through *http://www.Grants.gov* or by contacting the PTFP office at the address noted above. Application materials may be obtained electronically via the Internet at *http://www.grants.gov.* Funding Availability Funding for the PEACESAT Program is provided pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007), and Public Law 106-113, “The Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000.” Public Law 106-113 provides “That, hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program is eligible to compete for Public Broadcasting Facilities, Planning and Construction funds.” The Congress has appropriated $16.8 million for FY 2008 Public Telecommunications Facilities Program
(PTFP)and PEACESAT awards. Of this amount, NTIA anticipates making a single award for approximately $500,000 for the PEACESAT Program in FY 2008. For FY 2007, NTIA issued one award for the PEACESAT project in the amount of $499,351. Statutory and Regulatory Authority The PEACESAT Program was authorized under Public Law 100-584 (102 Stat. 2970) and also Public Law 101-555 (104 Stat. 2758) to acquire satellite communications services to provide educational, medical, and cultural needs of Pacific Basin communities. The PEACESAT Program has been operational since 1971 and has received funding from NTIA for support of the project since 1988. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation for PEACESAT applications are not subject to the PTFP regulations at 15 CFR Part 2301. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:* N/A. Eligibility Eligible applicants will include any for-profit or non-profit organization, public or private entity, other than an agency or division of the Federal government. Individuals are not eligible to apply for the PEACESAT Program funds. Evaluation and Selection Process Each eligible application is evaluated by three independent reviewers who have demonstrated expertise in the programmatic and technological aspects of the application. The reviewers will evaluate applications according to the criteria in the following section and provide individual written ratings of each application. No consensus advice will be provided by the reviewers. State Single Point of Contact
(SPOC)offices, per Executive Order 12372, may provide recommendations on applications under consideration. The Public Broadcasting Division
(PBD)administers the PEACESAT Program and places a summary of applications received on the Internet. Listing an application merely acknowledges receipt of an application to compete for funding with other applications. Listing does not preclude subsequent return of the application or disapproval of the application, nor does it assure that the application will be funded. The listing will also include a request for comments on the applications from any interested party. The reviewer's ratings are provided to the PBD staff and a rank order is prepared according to score. The PBD program staff prepares summary recommendations for the Director of the Public Broadcasting Division. These recommendations incorporate the outside reviewers' ratings and incorporate analysis based on the degree to which a proposed project meets the PEACESAT Program purposes and cost eligibility. Staff recommendations also consider
(1)project impact,
(2)the cost/benefit of a project, and
(3)whether the reviewers consistently applied the evaluation criteria. The analysis by program staff is provided to the Director of the Public Broadcasting Division in writing. The Director considers the summary recommendations prepared by program staff in accord with the funding priorities and selection factors referenced in the next section and recommends the funding order of the applications for the PEACESAT Programs in three categories: “Recommended for Funding,” “Recommended for Funding If Funds Are Available,” and “Not Recommended for Funding.” The Director presents recommendations to the Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), for review and approval. Upon review and approval based on the funding priorities and selection factors referenced in the next section by the Associate Administrator of the Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), the Associate Administrator's and the Director's recommendations are presented to the Selecting Official, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, who is the NTIA Administrator. The NTIA Administrator selects the applications to be negotiated for possible grant award, taking into consideration the outside reviewers' ratings, the Director's recommendations, and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the PEACESAT Program's stated purposes. The selected applications are negotiated between NTIA staff and the applicant. The negotiations are intended to resolve whatever differences might exist between the applicant's original request and what NTIA is considering funding. Negotiation does not ensure that an award will be made. When the negotiations are completed, the Director recommends final selections to the NTIA Administrator, applying the same selection factors described above. The Administrator then makes the final award selections from the negotiated applications taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the stated purposes for the PEACESAT Program. Funding Priorities and Selection Factors The PBD Director will consider the summary evaluations prepared by program staff, rank the applications, and present recommendations to the OTIA Associate Administrator for review and approval. The Director's recommendations and the OTIA Associate Administrator's review and approval will take into account the following selection factors:
(1)The program staff evaluations, including the outside reviewers.
(2)Whether the applicant has any current NTIA grants.
(3)The geographic distribution of the proposed grant awards.
(4)The availability of funds. Upon approval by the OTIA Associate Administrator, the Director's recommendations will then be presented to the Selecting Official, the NTIA Administrator. The Administrator makes final award selections taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the program's stated purposes. No grant will be awarded until confirmation has been received from the Federal Communications Commission that any necessary authorization will be issued. After final award selections have been made, the Agency will notify the applicant of one of the following actions:
(1)Selection of the application for funding, in whole or in part;
(2)Deferral of the application for subsequent consideration; or
(3)Rejection of the application with an explanation and the reason, if an applicant is not eligible or if the proposed project does not fall within the purposes of the PEACESAT program. Evaluation Criteria Each eligible application that is timely received, is materially complete, and proposes an eligible project will be considered under the evaluation criteria described here. The first three criteria—1. Meeting the Purposes of the PEACESAT Program, 2. Extent of Need for the Project, and 3. Plan of Operation for the Project—are each worth 25 points. Criterion 4, Budget and Cost Effectiveness, is worth 20 points. Criterion 5, Quality of Key Personnel, is worth 5 points. *Criterion 1. Meeting the Purposes of the PEACESAT Program,* including
(i)how well the proposal meets the objectives of the PEACESAT Program and
(ii)how the objectives of the proposal further the purposes of the PEACESAT Program. *Criterion 2. Extent of Need for the Project.* The extent to which the project meets the needs of the PEACESAT Program, including consideration of:
(i)The needs addressed by the project;
(ii)how the applicant identifies those needs;
(iii)how those needs will be met by the project; and
(iv)the benefits to be gained by meeting those needs. *Criterion 3. Plan of Operation for the Project,* including
(i)the quality of the design of the project;
(ii)the extent to which the plan of management is effective and ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;
(iii)how well the objectives of the project relate to the purposes of the PEACESAT Program;
(iv)the quality of the applicant's plan to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and
(v)how the applicant will ensure that project participants who are otherwise eligible to participate are selected without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapped condition. *Criterion 4. Budget and Cost Effectiveness.* The extent to which
(i)the budget is adequate to support the project; and
(ii)costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project. *Criterion 5. Quality of Key Personnel* the applicant plans to use on the project, Including
(i)the qualifications of the project director if one is to be used;
(ii)the qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;
(iii)the time that each person will commit to the project; and
(iv)how the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, will ensure that its personnel are selected for employment without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapped condition. In this section, “qualifications” refers to experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project, and any other qualifications that pertain to the quality of the project. Cost Sharing Requirements Grant recipients under this program will not be required to provide matching funds toward the total project cost. The costs allowable under this Notice are not subject to the limitation on costs contained in the January 10, 2008, Notice regarding the PTFP Program, see 73 FR 1864 (2008). Intergovernmental Review PEACESAT applications are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” if the state in which the applicant organization is located participates in the process. Usually submission to the State Single Point of Contact
(SPOC)needs to be only the first two pages of the Application Form, but applicants should contact their own SPOC offices to find out about and comply with its requirements. The names and addresses of the SPOC offices are listed on the PTFP Web site and at the Office of Management and Budget's home page at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.* Universal Identifier All applicants (nonprofit, state, local government, universities, and tribal organizations) will be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66177) and April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17000) **Federal Register** notices for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet at *www.dnb.com/us/.* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification of Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696) is applicable to this solicitation. Limitation of Liability In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The PEACESAT application package requires the use of the following forms: SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, SF-LLL, CD-511. These forms have been approved under OMB Control Nos. 4040-0004, 4040-0006, 4040-007, and 0348-0046. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications. [FR Doc. E8-5604 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0141] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Buy American Act—Construction AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0141). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning the Buy American Act—Construction (Grimberg Decision). The clearance currently expires on September 30, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Meredith Murphy, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)208-6925. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose The clauses at FAR 52.225-9, Buy American Act—Construction Materials, and FAR 52.225-11, Buy American Act—Construction Materials under Trade Agreements, provide that offerors/contractors requesting to use foreign construction material, other than construction material eligible under a trade agreement, shall provide adequate information for Government evaluation of the request. These regulations implement the Buy American Act for construction (41 U.S.C. 10a-10d). B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 500. *Responses Per Respondent:* 2. *Annual Responses:* 1,000. *Hours Per Response:* 2.5. *Total Burden Hours:* 2,500. *Obtaining Copies Of Proposals:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0141, Buy American Act—Construction (Grimberg Decision), in all correspondence. Dated: March 11, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5478 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 19, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: March 13, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Partnerships in Character Education Program Data Collection. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; Businesses or other for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 450. Burden Hours: 164. *Abstract:* The four attached documents were created to collect information on projects funded under the Partnerships in Character Education Program (PCEP). This collection of data will assist in program planning and management of the PCEP. The collection of data will help to identify:
(1)Areas in which the grantees are experiencing problems in implementing, administering, or meeting grant requirements;
(2)impact of the character education project on school, home and community environments;
(3)products and materials in character education developed with federal funds; and provide participation feedback on special and annual meeting activities with grantees sponsored by PCEP. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3536. 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. E8-5488 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Technical Advisory Council; Notice of Establishment and Call for Nominations AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of Establishment of the National Technical Advisory Council. SUMMARY: The Secretary announces her intention to establish the National Technical Advisory Council. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2)
(FACA)will govern the Committee. *Purpose:* In order to help ensure that the Department is making sound technical decisions related to the approval of State-designed standards, assessments, and accountability systems under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the National Technical Advisory Council
(NTAC)shall advise the Secretary of Education and the Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) on the design and implementation of standards, assessments, and accountability systems consistent with Federal statutes and regulations. The NTAC shall consist of no more than 15 members. The members shall be experts in assessment and accountability and shall consist of academicians, researchers, and national, state, and local policymakers. At least one-third of the members must have experience working in or with State educational agencies or local educational agencies. Members will be appointed by the Secretary to terms of no more than three
(3)years, and initial terms shall be staggered. The Secretary seeks nominations from the public for members to serve on the NTAC. A submission for a nomination for membership on the NTAC must include the nominee's contact information and information regarding the nominee's qualifications, such as a resume, current or recent positions, or research undertaken related to educational assessment and accountability. To submit a nomination, send an e-mail to *oese@ed.gov* with the subject “NTAC” or respond in writing to Patrick Rooney, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202. The period for nominations will close three weeks from the date of this notice. The Assistant Secretary shall appoint a Designated Federal Officer for the Council. The DFO, in consultation with the NTAC Chair, will set the agenda for the NTAC and schedule meetings on an as-needed basis but at least twice a year. Meetings will be open to the public except as may be determined otherwise by the Secretary. At the request of the Chair, the DFO may create sub-councils consisting of at least three
(3)members of the NTAC to provide guidance on an ad-hoc basis to the Assistant Secretary. The sub-councils' recommendations will be reviewed by the full Council before being submitted to the Assistant Secretary. In lieu of an annual report, following each meeting of the full NTAC or a sub-council of the NTAC, a summary of the proceedings will be prepared by the Department and then reviewed by the Council, and, upon approval of the Council, submitted to the Assistant Secretary. The reports will be made available to the public. The report shall, at a minimum, contain the topics discussed, a summary of the discussion, and recommendations for the Department, including research to be undertaken. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Rooney, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202, Telephone:
(202)401-0113. Dated: March 13, 2008. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education. [FR Doc. E8-5485 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information, Training and Information for Parents of Children With Disabilities; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 84.328C and 84.328R. Note: This notice invites applications for two separate competitions. For key dates, contact person information, and funding information regarding each competition, see the chart in the *Award Information* section of this notice. *Dates:* *Applications Available:* See chart. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See chart. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* See chart. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of this program is to ensure that parents of children with disabilities receive training and information to help improve results for their children. *Priorities:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv) and (v), these priorities are from allowable activities specified in the statute, or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 672, 673 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). Each of the absolute priorities announced in this notice corresponds to a separate competition as follows: Absolute priority Competition CFDA No. Community Parent Resource Centers 84.328C Technical Assistance for the Parent Centers 84.328R *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2008 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applications from these competitions, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), for each competition, we consider only applications that meet the absolute priority for that competition. These priorities are: *Absolute Priority 1—Community Parent Resource Centers (84.328C).* *Background:* This priority supports community parent resource centers (CPRCs) in targeted communities that will provide underserved parents of children with disabilities, including low-income parents, parents of limited English proficient children, and parents with disabilities in that community, with the training and information they need to enable them to participate cooperatively and effectively in helping their children with disabilities to—
(a)Meet developmental and functional goals, and challenging academic achievement goals that have been established for all children; and
(b)Be prepared to lead productive, independent adult lives, to the maximum extent possible. *Priority:* To be considered for funding under the Community Parent Resource Centers
(CPRC)absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in the priority. All projects funded under the absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements.* An applicant must include in its application—
(a)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* section of this priority; and
(b)A budget for attendance at a three-day National Technical Assistance for Parent Center Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period. *Project Activities.* To meet the requirements of this priority, the CPRC, at a minimum, must:
(a)Provide training and information that meets the training and information needs of parents of children with disabilities within the proposed targeted community to be served by the CPRC, particularly underserved parents and parents of children who may be inappropriately identified as having disabilities when they do not have them. Note: For purposes of this priority, “community to be served” refers to a geographically defined, local community whose members experience significant isolation from available sources of information and support as a result of cultural, economic, linguistic, or other circumstances deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
(b)Carry out the following activities required of parent training and information centers:
(1)Serve the parents of infants, toddlers, and children, from ages birth through 26, with the full range of disabilities described in section 602(3) of IDEA.
(2)Ensure that the training and information provided meets the needs of low-income parents and parents of limited English proficient children.
(3)Assist parents to—
(i)Better understand the nature of their children's disabilities and their educational, developmental, and transitional needs;
(ii)Communicate effectively and work collaboratively with personnel responsible for providing special education, early intervention services, transition services, and related services;
(iii)Participate in decision making processes, including those regarding participation in State and local assessments, and the development of individualized education programs under Part B of IDEA and individualized family service plans under Part C of IDEA;
(iv)Obtain appropriate information about the range, type, and quality of—
(A)Options, programs, services, technologies, practices, and interventions that are based on scientifically based research, to the extent practicable; and
(B)Resources available to assist children with disabilities and their families in school and at home, including information available through the Office of Special Education Programs'
(OSEP)technical assistance centers and communities of practice ( *http://www.tacommunities.org* );
(v)Understand the provisions of IDEA for the education of, and the provision of early intervention services to, children with disabilities;
(vi)Participate in activities at the school level that benefit their children; and
(vii)Participate in school reform activities.
(4)In States where the State elects to contract with the CPRCs, contract with the State educational agencies
(SEAs)to provide, consistent with paragraphs
(B)and
(D)of section 615(e)(2) of IDEA, individuals to meet with parents in order to explain the mediation process.
(5)Assist parents in resolving disputes in the most expeditious and effective way possible, including encouraging the use, and explaining the benefits, of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as the mediation process described in section 615(e) of IDEA.
(6)Assist parents and students with disabilities to understand their rights and responsibilities under IDEA, including those under section 615(m) of IDEA upon the student's reaching the age of majority (as appropriate under State law).
(7)Assist parents to understand the availability of, and how to effectively use, procedural safeguards under IDEA.
(8)Assist parents in understanding, preparing for, and participating in, the resolution session as described in section 615(f)(1)(B) of IDEA.
(c)Establish cooperative partnerships with any Parent Training and Information Centers
(PTIs)and any other CPRCs funded in the State under sections 671 and 672 of IDEA.
(d)Be designed to meet the specific needs of families who experience significant isolation from available sources of information and support.
(e)Be familiar with the provision of special education, related services, and early intervention services in the CPRC's community to be served to help ensure that children with disabilities are receiving appropriate services.
(f)Annually report to the Department on—
(1)The number and demographics of parents to whom it provided information and training in the most recently concluded fiscal year, including additional information regarding their unique needs and levels of service provided to them; and
(2)The effectiveness of strategies used to reach and serve parents, including underserved parents of children with disabilities, by providing evidence of how those parents were served effectively.
(g)Respond to requests from the OSEP-funded National Technical Assistance Center
(NTAC)and Regional Parent Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs), and use the technical assistance services of the NTAC and PTACs in order to serve the families of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities as efficiently as possible. PTACS are charged with assisting parent centers with administrative and programmatic issues.
(h)If the CPRC maintains a Web site, include relevant information and documents in a format that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility.
(i)In collaboration with OSEP and the NTAC, participate in an annual collection of program data for the PTIs and CPRCs funded under sections 671 and 672 of IDEA, respectively. *Competitive Preference Priorities:* Within Absolute Priority 1, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following two priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we will award up to 10 additional points to an application that meets these priorities. Note: The 10 points an applicant can earn under these competitive preference priorities are in addition to those points awarded under the selection criteria for this competition (see *Selection Criteria* in section V in this notice). That is, an applicant meeting the competitive preference priorities could earn a maximum total of 110 points. These priorities are: *Competitive Preference Priority 1—Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Renewal Communities.* We will award five points to an application that proposes to provide services to one or more Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Renewal Communities that are designated within the areas served by the center. (A list of areas that have been selected as Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Renewal Communities can be found at *http://egis.hud.gov/egis/cpd/rcezec/ezec_open.htm* ). To meet this priority, an applicant must indicate that it will—
(1)Either
(i)design a program that includes special activities focused on the unique needs of one or more Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Renewal Communities; or
(ii)devote a substantial portion of program resources to providing services within, or meeting the needs of residents of, these zones and communities; and
(2)As appropriate, contribute to the strategic plan of the Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Renewal Communities and become an integral component of the Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Community, or Renewal Community activities. *Competitive Preference Priority 2—Novice Applicants* . We will award an additional five points to an application from a novice applicant. This priority is from 34 CFR 75.225. The term “novice applicant” means any applicant for a grant from the U.S. Department of Education that—
(1)Has never received a grant or subgrant under the program from which it seeks funding;
(2)Has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129, that received a grant under the program from which it seeks funding; and
(3)Has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for applications under this program (Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities—Community Parent Resource Centers). For the purposes of this requirement, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds. In the case of a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129, all group members must meet the requirements described in this priority to qualify as a novice applicant. *Absolute Priority 2—Technical Assistance for the Parent Centers (84.328R).* *Background:* This priority, authorized under section 673 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), supports the establishment and operation of seven technical assistance centers—one national in scope and six regional in scope. These centers will provide technical assistance
(TA)to support the development and coordination of parent training and information programs carried out by Parent Training and Information Centers
(PTIs)funded under section 671 of IDEA and the Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs) funded under section 672 of IDEA. This priority builds on the investments made by the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP)in the area of TA by supporting a unified and coordinated TA system for the parent programs carried out by PTIs and CPRCs by strengthening connections between the TA system for parent centers and the Department's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network (TA&D Network), which is comprised of national and regional projects funded by the Department. Due to the increase in information available regarding services for children with disabilities and the complexity of that information, TA centers are needed to support PTIs and CPRCs to build their content knowledge and expertise in special and regular education laws, policies, and evidence-based practices. TA centers also are needed to support PTIs and CPRCs as they increase their capacity to help families of children with disabilities, ages birth through 26, understand special and regular education laws, policies, and evidence-based practices and use that knowledge to best advocate for appropriate services and supports for their children. The activities of the TA centers funded under this priority will help strengthen partnerships among the PTIs, CPRCs, and their respective State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and lead agencies. These partnerships facilitate shared decision-making between agencies and parent programs, resulting in improved outcomes for children and families served under IDEA. For further information on OSEP's support of TA to the PTIs and CPRCs go to *http://www.taalliance.org.* *Priority:* This priority will fund seven centers, through cooperative agreements, in two focus areas. Under Focus Area 1, the Department intends to fund one National Technical Assistance Center for Parent Centers (National Parent TAC); and under Focus Area 2, the Department intends to support six Regional Technical Assistance Centers for Parent Centers (Regional Parent TACs). The six Regional Parent TACs will be awarded to represent the following six geographic regions: *Region 1 Parent TAC:* CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT. *Region 2 Parent TAC:* DE, KY, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, DC, WV. *Region 3 Parent TAC:* AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, OK, Puerto Rico, TX, U.S. Virgin Islands. *Region 4 Parent TAC:* IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, PA, WI. *Region 5 Parent TAC:* AZ, CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, NM, SD, UT, WY. *Region 6 Parent TAC:* AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA, the outlying areas of the Pacific Basin, and the Freely Associated States. To be considered for funding under the Technical Assistance for the Parent Centers absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in the priority. All projects funded under the absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements for Focus Areas 1 and 2.* An applicant must include in its application—
(a)A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; Note: For more information on logic models, the following Web site lists multiple online resources: *http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm.*
(b)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* sections of this priority;
(c)A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
(d)A budget for attendance at the following:
(1)A one and one half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC with the OSEP Project Officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
(2)A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(3)A four-day Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(4)A three-day National Technical Assistance for Parent Center Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project; and
(e)A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP. Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the center must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period. *Project Activities for Focus Areas 1 and 2.* To meet the requirements of this priority, each center, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
(a)Review documents and publications from centers in the OSEP-funded TA&D Network, as requested by OSEP, to ensure that the documents and publications are relevant to and understandable by families.
(b)Maintain communication and collaboration between the National Parent TAC and the Regional Parent TACs, as requested by OSEP, to ensure that products and services are relevant to and accessible to families. This collaboration could include the shared development of products, the coordination of technical assistance services, and the planning and carrying out of technical assistance meetings and events.
(c)Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, OSEP communities of practice ( *http://www.tacommunities.org/* ) that are aligned with the center's objectives as a way to support discussions and collaboration among key stakeholders.
(d)Prior to developing any new product, whether paper or electronic, submit to the OSEP Project Officer and the Proposed Product Advisory Board at OSEP's Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC), which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008, for approval, a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product.
(e)Coordinate with the National Dissemination Center for Individuals with Disabilities, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008, to develop an efficient and high-quality dissemination strategy that reaches broad audiences. The Center must report to the OSEP Project Officer the outcomes of these coordination efforts.
(f)Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the Center's services to OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Matrix ( *http://matrix.rrfcnetwork.org* ), which provides current information on Department-funded TA services to a range of stakeholders.
(g)Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility and that links to the Web site operated by the TACC.
(h)Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through monthly phone conversations and e-mail communication. *Project Activities for Focus Area 1.* To meet the requirements of Focus Area 1 under this priority, the National Parent TAC, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
(a)Contribute to improved outcomes for PTIs and CPRCs by supporting collaborative activities among and between the six Regional Parent TACs and the National Parent TAC.
(b)Develop or adapt and disseminate, in collaboration with the Regional Parent TACs, resources and training materials that incorporate evidence-based practices for the PTIs and CPRCs to use in their training and information activities. When developing or adapting and disseminating these materials, the National Parent TAC must solicit feedback from experts in the field. The resource and training materials must address, at a minimum, the following topics identified in section 673 of IDEA:
(1)Promoting effective strategies for the use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services.
(2)Developing strategies to reach underserved populations, including parents of low-income and limited English proficient children with disabilities.
(3)Promoting strategies to include children with disabilities in general education programs.
(4)Facilitating effective transitions for children with disabilities from early intervention services to preschool, preschool to elementary school, elementary school to secondary school, and secondary school to postsecondary environments.
(5)Promoting alternative methods of dispute resolution, including mediation.
(6)Disseminating scientifically based research and information, particularly in the areas of assessment, literacy, behavior, instructional strategies, early intervention, and inclusive practices.
(c)Establish and maintain a cadre of experts available to the National Parent TAC during product development to provide content knowledge and information on evidence-based practices to support infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and their families.
(d)Conduct, in collaboration with the six Regional Parent TACs, an assessment of the PTIs and the CPRCs' training and information needs on such topics as parental involvement, evidence-based practices, and improving outcomes for children with disabilities.
(e)Develop or adapt, in collaboration with the six Regional Parent TACs, training materials for the PTIs and CPRCs on: Best practices in non-profit management; developing parent leadership; developing and sustaining outreach strategies to reach the broad range of families the PTIs and CPRCs serve; participating in systems change; working with SEAs, LEAs, and local agencies; and understanding State information sources such as State Performance Plans
(SPPs)and Annual Performance Reports (APRs).
(f)Maximize the technological capacity of the PTIs and CPRCs by identifying and providing access to appropriate training.
(g)Provide direct TA to the OSEP-funded National Parent Centers Serving Native American and Military Families.
(h)Develop an evaluation instrument, in collaboration with the six Regional Parent TACs and the OSEP Project Officer and to be approved by the OSEP Project Officer, that enables the PTIs and CPRCs to measure their program effectiveness and the outcomes for the families of children with disabilities that they serve.
(i)Establish a mechanism for annually collecting and reporting data on parent program outcomes that are gathered by the evaluation instrument developed in paragraph
(h)of this priority and from other relevant data sources. The mechanism for collecting and reporting data referenced in this paragraph will be identified collaboratively with the OSEP Project Officer and the six Regional Parent TACs.
(j)Develop, maintain, and make available on its Web site, a database of all OSEP-funded parent program centers, which must include PTIs, including the National Parent Centers Serving Native American and Military Families, CPRCs, and the National and Regional Parent TACs, in order to connect families to parent programs that serve them.
(k)Plan and conduct an annual National Technical Assistance for Parent Center Conference for OSEP-funded parent program centers and other stakeholders in collaboration with the OSEP Project Officer and with input from the six Regional Parent TACs, PTIs and CPRCs, as well as a conference advisory panel approved by the OSEP Project Officer to be convened by the National Parent TAC.
(l)Plan and conduct, as designated by the OSEP Project Officer and with input from the six Regional Parent TACs, a New Directors' Conference in the fall of each year of the project period for all new directors of PTIs and CPRCs as well as other project staff, as appropriate.
(m)Conduct a summative evaluation of the National Parent TAC in collaboration with the Center to Improve Project Performance
(CIPP)as described in the following paragraphs. This summative evaluation must examine the outcomes or impact of the National Parent TAC's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities. Note: In FY 2008, OSEP intends to fund CIPP. The major tasks of CIPP would be to guide, coordinate, and oversee the summative evaluations conducted by selected Technical Assistance, Personnel Development, Parent Training and Information Center, and Technology projects that individually receive $500,000 or more funding from OSEP annually. The efforts of CIPP are expected to enhance individual project evaluations by providing expert and unbiased assistance in designing evaluations, conducting analyses, and interpreting data. To fulfill the requirements of the summative evaluation to be conducted under the guidance of CIPP, the National Parent TAC must—
(1)Hire or designate, with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time and knowledge of the National Parent TAC to work with CIPP on the following tasks:
(i)planning the National Parent TAC's summative evaluation (e.g., selecting evaluation questions, developing a timeline for the evaluation, locating sources of relevant data, and refining the logic model used for the evaluation),
(ii)developing the summative evaluation design and instrumentation (e.g., determining quantitative or qualitative data collection strategies, selecting respondent samples, and pilot testing instruments),
(iii)coordinating the evaluation timeline with the implementation of the National Parent TAC's activities,
(iv)collecting summative data, and
(v)writing reports of summative evaluation findings;
(2)Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph
(1)of this section; and
(3)Dedicate $20,000 of the annual budget request for this project to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs
(1)and
(2)of this section as well as implementing the National Parent TAC's proposed formative evaluation. *Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:* In deciding whether to continue funding the National Parent TAC for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—
(a)The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period. The National Parent TAC must budget for travel expenses associated with this one-day intensive review;
(b)The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the National Parent TAC; and
(c)The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the National Parent TAC's activities and products and the degree to which the National Parent TAC's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved child and family outcomes. *Project Activities for Focus Area 2.* To meet the requirements of Focus Area 2 under this priority, each Regional Parent TAC must conduct the following activities:
(a)Conduct, in collaboration with the National Parent TAC, an assessment of the training and information needs of the PTIs and CPRCs located in its region.
(b)Provide direct TA to PTIs and CPRCs in its region on relevant topics including, but not limited to:
(1)Promoting effective strategies for the use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services.
(2)Developing strategies to reach underserved populations, including parents of low-income and limited English proficient children with disabilities.
(3)Promoting strategies to include children with disabilities in regular education programs.
(4)Facilitating effective transitions for children with disabilities from early intervention services to preschool; preschool to elementary school; elementary school to secondary school; and secondary school to postsecondary environments.
(5)Promoting alternative methods of dispute resolution, including mediation.
(6)Promoting the use of evidence-based practices.
(c)Make two TA site visits to each PTI and CPRC in its region during the project period and additional site visits as determined jointly by the Regional Parent TAC and the region's PTIs and CPRCs. At these site visits, Regional Parent TACs could provide, for example, trainings on State and local systems change activities, working with SEAs, LEAs, and local agencies, and understanding State information sources such as SPPs and APRs, financial management, measuring program effectiveness and outcomes, strategic planning, capacity building, leadership development, continuous development and assessment of the effectiveness of outreach strategies, effective PTI and CPRC service-delivery models, and effective board management.
(d)Respond to requests from the OSEP Project Officer and the National Parent TAC for feedback on materials developed by the National Parent TAC.
(e)Participate in the National Parent TAC's conference advisory panel for the purpose of planning the annual National Technical Assistance for Parent Center Conference in each year of the project period.
(f)Conduct one regional conference each year for PTI and CPRC directors and staff in the region.
(g)Serve as members of the National Parent TAC cadre of experts to provide content knowledge and information on evidence-based practices that support infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and their families during product development. *Competitive Preference Priorities:* Within Absolute Priority 2, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we will award additional points to an application that meets these priorities. Note: The points an applicant can earn under these competitive preference priorities are in addition to those points awarded under the selection criteria for this competition (see *Selection Criteria* in section V in this notice). Applications under Focus Area 1 can be awarded a total of 10 points in addition to those awarded under the selection criteria for this program for a maximum total of 110 points. Applications under Focus Area 2 can be awarded 10 points in addition to those awarded under the selection criteria for this program if they meet the requirements of Competitive Preference Priority 1 or Competitive Preference Priority 2 for a maximum total of 110 points, and 20 points if they meet both Competitive Preference Priorities for a maximum total of 120 points. These priorities are: *Competitive Preference Priority 1—Parent Organizations, as Defined in Section 671(a)(2) of IDEA.* We will award 10 points under Focus Areas 1 and 2 of the absolute priority to any applicant that is a parent organization, as defined in section 671(a)(2) of IDEA. This section of IDEA defines the term “parent organization” as a private non-profit organization (other than an institution of higher education) that—
(1)Has a board of directors—
(i)The majority of whom are parents of children with disabilities ages birth through 26;
(ii)That includes—
(A)Individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, and early intervention; and
(B)Individuals with disabilities; and
(C)The parent and professional members of which are broadly representative of the population to be served, including low-income parents and parents of limited English proficient children; and
(2)Has as its mission serving families of children with disabilities who—
(i)Are ages birth through 26; and
(ii)Have the full range of disabilities described in section 602(3) of IDEA. *Competitive Preference Priority 2—Applicants under Focus Area 2 that are Located in the Region They Propose to Serve.* We will award 10 points to an applicant applying under Focus Area 2 of the absolute priority if that applicant is located in the region it proposes to serve. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priorities in this notice. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1472, 1473 and 1481. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97, 98, and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants for competition CFDA 84.328C and cooperative agreements for competition CFDA 84.328R. *Estimated Available Funds:* $3,400,000. Please refer to the “Estimated Average Size of Awards” column of the chart in this section for the estimated dollar amounts for individual competitions. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications for the competitions announced in this notice, we may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the lists of unfunded applicants from individual competitions. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* See chart. *Maximum Award:* See chart. *Estimated Number of Awards:* See chart. *Project Period:* See chart. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Training and Information for Parents of Children With Disabilities Program Application Notice for Fiscal Year 2008 CFDA No. and name Applications available Deadline for transmittal of applications Deadline for intergovernmental review Estimated available funds Estimated average size of awards Maximum award (per year)* Estimated number of awards Project period Page limit Contact person 84.328C Community Parent Resource Centers 03/19/08 04/18/08 06/17/08 $1,000,000 $100,000 $100,000* 10 Up to 36 mos 50 Carmen Sanchez,
(202)245-6595, Rm 4055. 84.328R Technical Assistance for the Parent Centers: Focus Area 1: National Parent TAC 03/19/08 04/18/08 06/17/08 $765,000 $765,000 $765,000* 1 Up to 60 mos 70 Lisa Groove,
(202)245-7357, Rm 4056. Focus Area 2: Regional Parent TAC 03/19/08 04/18/08 06/17/08 $1,635,000 $272,500 $272,500* 6 Up to 60 mos *We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum award for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* Absolute priority Eligible applicants Community Parent Resource Centers (84.328C) Local parent organizations. Technical Assistance for the Parent Centers (84.328R) Nonprofit private organizations. Note: Under section 672(a)(2) of IDEA, a “local parent organization” is a parent organization (as that term is defined in section 671(a)(2) of IDEA) that—
(a)Has a board of directors, the majority of whom are parents of children with disabilities ages birth through 26 from the community to be served.
(b)Has as its mission serving parents of children with disabilities from that community who
(1)are ages birth through 26, and
(2)have the full ranges of disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of IDEA. Section 671(a)(2) of IDEA defines a “parent organization” as a private nonprofit organization (other than an institution of higher education) that—
(a)Has a board of directors—
(1)The majority of whom are parents of children with disabilities ages birth through 26;
(2)That includes—
(i)Individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, and early intervention; and
(ii)Individuals with disabilities; and
(iii)The parent and professional members of which are broadly representative of the population to be served including low-income parents and parents of limited English proficient children; and
(b)Has as its mission serving families of children with disabilities who are ages birth through 26, and have the full range of disabilities described in section 602(3) of IDEA. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other: General Requirements* —(a) The projects funded under this program must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b)Applicants and grant recipients funded under this program must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify the competition to which you want to apply, as follows: CFDA number 84.328C or 84.328R. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for the competitions announced in this notice. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. For each competition, you must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than the number of pages listed under “Page Limit” for that competition in the chart under *Award Information,* using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative (Part III). We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or if you use other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* See chart. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See chart. Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV.6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: See chart. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for each of the competitions announced in this notice. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications* . To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities competitions, CFDA Numbers 84.328C and 84.328R, announced in this notice are included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov. If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities program competitions—CFDA Numbers 84.328C and 84.328R at *http://www.Grants.gov* . You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.328, not 84.328C). Please note the following: • Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary. • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for the competition to which you are applying to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You also can find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf* . • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328C or 84.328R), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328C or 84.328R), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328C or 84.328R), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package for each competition announced in this notice. 2. *Peer Review:* In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions, because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific group. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers, by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary also may require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities program. The measures focus on: The extent to which projects provide high-quality materials, the relevance of project products and services to educational and early intervention policy and practice, and the usefulness of products and services to improve educational and early intervention policy and practice. Grantees will be required to provide information related to these measures. Grantees also will be required to report information on their projects' performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590). VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* See chart in the *Award Information* section in this notice for the name, room number, and telephone number of the contact person for each competition. You can write to the contact person at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2600. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: March 13, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-5497 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings March 13, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP99-176-156. *Applicants:* Natural Gas Pipeline Co of America. *Description:* Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits amendment to the Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement with negotiated rate between Natural and JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0148. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-165-001. *Applicants:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC. *Description:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Substitute Second Revised Sheet 402 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective March 1, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-269-000. *Applicants:* Quest Pipelines (KPC). *Description:* Quest Pipelines
(KPC)submits proposed revisions to First Revised Sheet 173 and 349 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective April 11, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0071. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-270-000. *Applicants:* Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC. *Description:* Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC submits its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 an original of its Second Revised Sheet 226 to be effective June 1, 2007. *Filed Date:* 03/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080311-0396. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5534 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 March 12, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-36-001. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Development, Inc.; CED/SCS Newington, LLC; North American Energy Alliance, LLC. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Development, Inc et al submits response to the 3/3/08 deficiency letter, updated of certain information provided in the 1/9/08 filed application with regard to purchasers. *Filed Date:* 03/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-52-000. *Applicants:* Noble Thumb Windpark, LLC; Noble Thumb Windpark I, LLC; Babcock & Brown Renewable Holdings Inc. *Description:* Noble Thumb Windpark, LLC and Noble Thumb Windpark I, LLC et al submits the Joint Application for authorization for the sale by Noble Thumb and acquisition by BBRH of 100% membership interests and requests for waivers of filing requirements. *Filed Date:* 03/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080311-0175. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 27, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER04-230-033; ER01-3155-023; ER01-1385-032; EL01-45-031. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* NYISO's 13th quarterly report regarding progress to resolve the issue of penalty exemptions for grouped generating facilities whose output is metered at a single location during start-up and shutdown periods. *Filed Date:* 02/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080229-5018. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1071-004; ER07-1072-004. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection L.L.C. *Description:* Refund Report of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Filed Date:* 03/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080310-5041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-649-000. *Applicants:* EFS Parlin Holdings LLC. *Description:* EFS Parlin Holdings LLC's application for Market-Based Rate Authority Request for Waivers and Pre-Approvals, and Request for Finding of Qualifications as Category 1 Seller. *Filed Date:* 03/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080311-0399. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-29-001. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Supplement to Joint Application of Entergy Services, Inc., *et al.* *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-5023. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 21, 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. E8-5535 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 March 13, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-32-000. *Applicants:* Grand Ridger Energy LLC. *Description:* Grand Ridger Energy LLC submits its Amended and Restated Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 03/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-0098. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EG08-42-000. *Applicants:* Invenergy Nelson, LLC. *Description:* Invenergy Nelson, LLC submits Amended and Restated Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 03/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-0099. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EG08-43-000. *Applicants:* Turkey Track Energy Wind LLC. *Description:* Turkey Track Energy Wind, LLC submits its amended and restated Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status. *Filed Date:* 03/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-0097. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EG08-49-000. *Applicants:* NRG Southaven LLC. *Description:* Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of NRG Southaven LLC. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-5139. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 02, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER04-432-005; ER04-433-005. *Applicants:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; New England Power Pool *Description:* ISO New England Inc submits a Report on Intra-zonal Deliverability. New England Power Pool *et al.* *Filed Date:* 02/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080306-0021. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-628-002; ER07-629-002; ER07-630-002. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits report of refunds pursuant to FERC letter order of February 6, 2008. *Filed Date:* 03/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0146. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-296-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Midwest ISO Transmission Owners. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and Midwest ISO Transmission Owners submits proposed revisions to the Midwest ISO's Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 03/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080306-0024. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-349-004. *Applicants:* Georgia Energy Cooperative. *Description:* Georgia Energy Cooperative submits an amendment to the notice of non-material change in status and filing in compliance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 03/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0024. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-564-001. *Applicants:* Vision Power Systems, Inc. *Description:* Vision Power Systems Inc. submits supplemental documents following the discussion with staff on 3/3/08. *Filed Date:* 03/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080307-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-596-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits amendment to Schedule 12 of the Restated and Restarted Operating Agreement to update their member list etc. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0134. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-649-000. *Applicants:* EFS Parlin Holdings L.L.C. *Description:* EFS Parlin Holdings LLC's application for Market-Based Rate Authority Request for Waivers and Pre-Approvals, and Request for Finding of Qualifications as Category 1 Seller. *Filed Date:* 03/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080311-0399. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 31, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-650-000. *Applicants:* Mountain Wind Power, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Mountain Wind Power LLC for order accepting market-based rate tariff for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals and request for expedited action re Mountain Wind Power LLC. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0132. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-651-000. *Applicants:* Ameren Energy Marketing Company. *Description:* Ameren Energy Marketing Company submits an application to make power sales to its affiliates, the Ameren Illinois Utilities. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0135. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-652-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits Notice of Termination of the Participating Generator Agreement with the Northern California Power Agency, to become effective 1/1/00. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0131. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-653-000. *Applicants:* Union Electric Company. *Description:* Union Electric Company submits an application to make power sales to its affiliates the Ameren Illinois Utilities. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0130. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-654-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp et al submits an unexecuted Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Nevada Hydro Co., Inc. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080312-0129. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-655-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits an amendment to the amended and restated Metered Subsystem Aggregator Agreement with Northern California Power Agency. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-656-000. *Applicants:* Shell Energy North America (U.S.), LP. *Description:* Petition of Shell Energy North America (U.S.) LP for order accepting market-based rate tariff for filing, granting waivers and blanket approvals, and request for expedited action. *Filed Date:* 03/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-0067. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 01, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5536 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 March 14, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP96-320-081. *Applicants:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. *Description:* Amendment to Negotiated Rate Letter Agreement of Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP under RP96-320. *Filed Date:* 03/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080305-5009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP00-426-032. *Applicants:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC. *Description:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Fourth Revised Sheet 52 *et al.* to Second Revised Volume 1 and a Negotiated Rate Agreement between Texas Gas and Tennessee Valley Authority. *Filed Date:* 03/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080313-0064. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-226-001. *Applicants:* High Island Offshore System, L.L.C. *Description:* High Island Offshore System, LLC submits their request for waiver of its tariff to the extent necessary in the 2/29/08 filing of Seventh Revised Sheet 11 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1 etc. *Filed Date:* 03/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080311-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5537 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0293; FRL-8354-9] Cypermethrin; Response to Comments and Amendment to Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's intention to modify certain risk mitigation measures that were imposed as a result of the 2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)for the pesticide cypermethrin. EPA conducted this reassessment of the cypermethrin RED in response to public comments directed towards product labeling, risk mitigation, and the upcoming registration review process for pyrethroids, pyrethrins, and synergist chemicals. In response to the commenters and continuing efforts to mitigate risk, the Agency has made several modifications to the cypermethrin RED label requirements for pre-construction termiticide applications, spray drift language for agricultural products, and ventilation for total release foggers. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Friedman, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)347-8827; fax number:
(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *friedman.dana@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0293. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the **Federal Register** listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. Background What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. In 2006, EPA issued a RED for cypermethrin under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA and the Agency received substantive comments. The Agency's response to these comments is available for viewing in the public docket. The amended cypermethrin RED reflects changes resulting from these comments as well as subsequent efforts by the Agency to mitigate overall risk. III. What Does this Amendment Do? The amended cypermethrin RED reflects revisions resulting from Agency consideration of public comments to the RED and efforts to develop standardized label language for certain applications. The label table incorporated into the cypermethrin RED amendment includes modifications which provide mandatory label language for pre-construction termiticide applications, spray drift language for agricultural products, and ventilation requirements for total release foggers. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 6, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-5292 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0045; FRL-8354-2] Nominations to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Request for Comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice provides the names, addresses, professional affiliations, and selected biographical data of persons nominated to serve on the Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP)established under section 25(d) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Panel was created on November 28, 1975, and made a statutory Panel by amendment to FIFRA, dated October 25, 1988. The Agency is, at this time, selecting two new members to serve on the panel as a result of membership terms that will expire this year. Public comment on the nominations is invited, as these comments will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the new chartered Panel members. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-OPP-2008-0045, must be received on or before April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0045, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery:* OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0045. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the docket 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Bailey, Designated Federal Official, FIFRA SAP, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-2045; fax number:
(202)564-8382; e-mail addresses: *bailey.joseph@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date, and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee, established in 1975 under FIFRA, that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH)and the National Science Foundation (NSF). FIFRA, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the Scientific Advisory Panel on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency. The Agency is, at this time, selecting two new members to serve on the permanent panel as a result of membership terms that will expire this year. The Agency requested nominations of experts to be selected from the fields of toxicology, pathology, endocrine disruption and environmental exposure analysis. Nominees should be well published and current in their fields of expertise. The statute further stipulates that we publish the name, address, and professional affiliations in the **Federal Register** . III. Charter A Charter for the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel dated October 25, 2006 was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. App. I). A. Qualifications of Members FIFRA SAP members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. No persons are ineligible to serve on the Panel by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). The Deputy Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Panel for staggered terms of 4 years. Panel members are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 3, subpart F, Standards of Conduct for Special Government Employees, which include rules regarding conflicts of interest. Each nominee selected by the Deputy Administrator, before being formally appointed, is requested to submit a confidential statement of employment and financial interests, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any. In accordance with section 25(d)(1) of FIFRA, the Deputy Administrator shall require all nominees to the Panel to furnish information concerning their professional qualifications, educational background, employment history, and scientific publications. B. Applicability of Existing Regulations With respect to the requirements of section 25(d) of FIFRA that the Administrator promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest, the Charter provides that EPA's existing regulations applicable to Special Government Employees, which include advisory committee members, will apply to the members of the Scientific Advisory Panel. These regulations appear in 40 CFR part 3, subpart F. In addition, the Charter provides for open meetings with opportunities for public participation. C. Process of Obtaining Nominees In accordance with the provisions of section 25(d) of FIFRA, EPA, in March 2007, requested that the National Institutes of Health
(NIH)and the National Science Foundation
(NSF)nominate scientists to fill two vacancies soon to occur on the Panel. The Agency requested nominations of experts in the fields of toxicology, pathology, endocrine disruption and environmental exposure analysis. NIH and NSF responded by letter, providing the Agency with a total of 24 nominees. Thirteen of the 24 nominees are interested and available to actively participate in SAP meetings (see Unit IV. of this document). The following 11 nominees are not available: 1. Barnthouse, Lawrence W., Ph.D., LWB Environmental Service, Inc., Hamilton, OH; 2. Daston, George, Ph.D., The Proctor and Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH; 3. Dement, John, Ph.D., CIH, Duke University Medical Centers, Durham, NC; 4. Faustman, Elaine, Ph.D., DABT, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 5. MacGregor, James, Ph.D., Toxicology Consulting Services, Arnold, MD; 6. Oberdorster, Eva, Ph.D., Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX; 7. Piegorsch, Water, Ph.D., University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; 8. Popp, James, DVM, Ph.D., Stratoxon, Lancaster, PA; 9. Wilson, Elizabeth, Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; 10. Yager, James, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; 11. Welsch, Frank, DVM, Ph.D., DABT, Orbitox, Santa Fe, NM. IV. Nominees The following are the names, addresses, professional affiliations, and selected biographical data of nominees being considered for membership on the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. The Agency expects to select two of the nominees to fill vacancies occurring this year. 1. *Nominee* : Bruckner, James, Ph.D., Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. i. *Expertise* : Toxicology and Toxicokinetics; ii. *Education* : B.S., Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin, College of Pharmacy; M.S., Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D., Toxicology, University of Michigan; iii. *Professional Experience* : James V. Bruckner has a B.S. in pharmacy and a M.S. in Toxicology from the University of Texas, as well as a Ph.D. in Toxicology from the University of Michigan. He has held faculty positions at the University of Kansas, the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, and the University of Georgia (UGA). Dr. Bruckner served as a member of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center internal review (human subjects) board for some 8 years. He is currently Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the UGA College of Pharmacy. He was director of UGA's Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Toxicology for some 15 years. He is actively engaged in graduate education and in research. Dr. Bruckner has served on the editorial boards of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Toxicology, Chemosphere and the International Journal of Toxicology. Dr. Bruckner's research focus is on the toxicology and toxicokinetics of solvents, drug-solvent interactions at environmental exposure levels, and toxicokinetic bases for susceptibility of children to insecticides and other chemicals. The relevance of experimental designs to “real life” chemical exposures is of particular interest. One current project involves: characterization of presystemic elimination as a protective mechanism against ingestion of trace levels of trichloroethylene (TCE); and determination of the influence of metabolic interactions of alcohol and other drugs on cancer risks of trace amounts of TCE. Another project involves development of a physiological model to predict the toxicokinetics of pyrethroid insecticides in children and adults. Dr. Bruckner has published more than 200 journal articles, book chapters and abstracts. He has served on a variety of expert panels and committees for the USEPA, NIH, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Air Force, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Regitry/Center for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS appointments have included, among others, the Committees on Safe Drinking Water, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children; Health and Safety Consequences of Child Labor; Use of Third Party Toxicity Research with Human Participants; and Toxicology. 2. *Nominee* : Donnelly, Kirby, Ph.D., Professor and Head, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Health Science Center, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A and M University, College Station, TX. i. *Expertise* : Toxicology and Exposure Assessment; ii. *Education* : B.S., Microbiology, Texas A and M University; Ph.D., Toxicology, Texas A and M University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. K.C. Donnelly received a B.S. in Microbiology from Texas A and M University in 1974. After graduation, he worked as a technician for 10 years supervising a variety of field research projects at the Texas A and M farm in Burleson County. In 1984 he entered a doctoral program and earned a Ph.D. in Toxicology in 1988. Afterwards, he was employed as a Post-Doctoral Research Associate under the direction of Dr. Kirk Brown in the Soil & Crop Sciences Department at Texas A and M. He accepted a faculty position in 1991 and is currently a Professor and Head of the Environmental & Occupational Health Department in the School of Rural Public Health at the Texas A and M University System Health Science Center. Teaching responsibilities include an undergraduate course in Public Health Practices and two graduate courses, the first covering Basic Environmental Toxicology and a second lab course reviewing methods for Chemical Hazard Assessment. Dr. Donnelly also organizes workshops on Environmental Health for public health professionals, most recently in June, 2007 in Baku, Azerbaijan. He also provides continuing education courses for nurses and physicians in “Children's Environmental Health” and “Safe Drinking Water.” Dr. Donnelly currently serves as the Director of the Integrated Health Sciences Facility Core for the National Institute for Environmental Health and Safety (NIEHS) Center for Environmental & Rural Health; and, he is the Associate Director for the NIEHS funded Superfund Basic Research Program at Texas A and M. Responsibilities for the Environmental Health Center include analytical support and sample collection for human population studies; and, support for Community Outreach and Education activities. For the Superfund Basic Research Program, Dr. Donnelly is the principal investigator for Project 2, Genotoxicity of Complex Mixtures and supervises cell culture, whole animal and human population studies to obtain information regarding population exposures and toxicity of complex chemical mixtures. He is currently involved in exposure studies in Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Shanxi, China and numerous locations in the United States. Dr. Donnelly has conducted research on childhood exposure to pesticides for more than 10 years. Most recently, this has included a collaborative study with the Centers for Disease Control and EPA to conduct a longitudinal study on pesticide exposure in children from 90 households in four rural communities. He is currently in the second year of a 3 year Health Resources and Service Administration
(HRSA)project to investigate the utility of health education as an intervention to reduce childhood exposure to pesticides in Texas colonias. This project employs promotoras (community health workers) to deliver health education to individual families, and monitors behavioral changes through a household inventory of pesticide use and by monitoring urinary elimination of pesticides in children. Dr. Donnelly has more than 30 years experience in basic and applied research. More recent activities have incorporated health promotion activities into research protocols as a means of preventing disease by reducing exposures. Dr. Donnelly is also involved in collaboration with the Texas Department of State Health Services, the Webb County Health Department, and the Poison Control Center in San Antonio to develop a “Physicians Handbook for Pesticide Exposures.” 3. *Nominee* : Harwell, Mark, Ph.D., Ecosystems Ecologist and Partner, Harwell Gentile & Associates, LC, Hammock, FL. i. *Expertise* : Ecological risk assessment and ecosystem management; ii. *Education* : B.S., Biology, Emory University; M.S., Marine Ecology, University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science; Ph.D., Systems Ecology, Emory University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Harwell is an ecosystems ecologist with expertise in ecological risk assessments and ecosystem management. He (with colleague Dr. Jack Gentile) is currently a Partner in Harwell Gentile & Associates, LC, following a 25-year career in academia at Cornell University, the University of Miami Rosenstiel School, and Florida A and M University. Drs. Harwell and Gentile were leaders in the development of the USEPA ecological risk assessment framework, and have led several large risk assessments, including comparative ecological risk assessments of oil spills in Tampa Bay and the Bay of Fundy; an ecological risk assessment of the effects of climate change and the South Florida ecosystem restoration on the Everglades and Biscayne Bay; an ecotoxicological risk assessment of the Coeur d'Alene River watershed; and an assessment of the current ecological significance of effects from the Exxon Valdez oil spill on Prince William Sound. Dr. Harwell led a series of interdisciplinary studies on human interactions with the South Florida environment, including field, mesocosm, and modeling studies in Biscayne Bay and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. He coordinated interdisciplinary studies in five National Estuarine Research Reserves, developing conceptual models of coupled human-environment systems, and contributing to ecological assessments using remote sensing and hyperspectral imagery. Dr. Harwell served for more than a decade as a member of the USEPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), including two terms as Chair of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. He led the ecological risk component of the USEPA Unfinished Business Project, and was a member of the USEPA SAB Reducing Risk project. He chaired the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Human-Dominated Systems Directorate, and led its project on ecological sustainability, ecosystem management, and an ecosystem integrity report card framework. He led the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) 5-year international study to assess the global environmental consequences of nuclear war (ENUWAR), with emphasis on ecological responses to climate change. He directed the PAN-EARTH Project, a series of national-level case studies on the ecological and agricultural effects of climate variability on Venezuela, India, Japan, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa; he was a member of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's National Assessment working group on coastal resources effects; and he serves as an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He served on the National Academy of Sciences panel on ecological risks in the United States and Poland, and was a member of the NAS panel on risk communications. Dr. Harwell also served as a member of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 4. *Nominee* : Haschek-Hock, Wanda, Ph.D., DVM, DACVP, DABT, Veterinary Pathologist and Professor of Comparative Pathology, Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. i. *Expertise* : Veterinary and Toxicologic Pathology; ii. *Education* : BVSc (DVM equivalent), University of Sidney; Ph.D., Veterinary Pathology, Cornell University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Wanda M. Haschek-Hock, a veterinary pathologist and Professor of Comparative Pathology at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, has over 30 years of experience in veterinary and toxicologic pathology including teaching, research and service. Dr. Haschek-Hock received her BVSc (DVM equivalent) from the University of Sydney and her Ph.D. from Cornell University. She is a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists
(ACVP)and the American Board of Toxicology (ABT). Her research has been in the pathophysiology of chemicals and natural toxins found in the environment with the current focus on mycotoxins and food safety. She has over 100 scientific peer reviewed publications in the fields of pathology and toxicology, and is senior editor of the Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology (1991, 2002) and Fundamentals of Toxicologic Pathology
(1998)published by Academic Press. She developed and directs the Graduate Training Program in Toxicologic Pathology and the biannual international continuing education course in Industrial Toxicology and Pathology. She served as head of the department for 6 years. In regard to professional service, she has served as President of the Society of Toxicology's Comparative and Veterinary Specialty Section, on the Board of Directors of the American Board of Toxicology; as Associate Editor for Toxicological Sciences and currently for Toxicologic Pathology; as Editorial Board member for Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Veterinary Pathology and Toxicologic Pathology. She has also served as Councilor of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and as Executive Committee member and Secretary Treasurer of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology. She has served on the USFDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee for the Center for Veterinary Medicine and as an ad hoc member for the EPA's FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. She was awarded the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's Achievement Award in 2007. 5. *Nominee* : Kelly, Elizabeth J., Ph.D., Statistician, Statistical Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. i. *Expertise* : Environmental Statistics and Risk Analysis; ii. *Education* : B.S., M.A., Mathematics, University of Southern California; Ph.D., Biostatistics, University of California at Los Angeles; iii. *Professional Experience* : Elizabeth J. Kelly has a Ph.D. in Biostatistics from the University of California at Los Angeles and a M.A. and a B.S. in Mathematics from the University of Southern California. Dr. Kelly has worked in the areas of risk assessment, statistics and operations research, using these disciplines to solve problems in the fields of environmental risk, defense and medicine. Dr. Kelly is a staff member in the Statistical Sciences Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The mission of the Statistical Sciences Group is to bring statistical reasoning and rigor to multi-disciplinary scientific investigations through development, application, and communication of cutting-edge statistical sciences research. Dr. Kelly's research has focused on environmental risk assessments and environmental statistics. She led the Risk Assessment Team for the Environmental Restoration Program at Los Alamos, developing, documenting, and communicating a cost-effective, defensible technical approach for data collection, data evaluation, and human health and ecological risk assessments in support of environmental decision-making. Dr. Kelly has served on numerous NSF and EPA grant panels. She served on the NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (2000-2004) and was a contributor to the NSF report, Complex Environmental Systems, Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century. Dr. Kelly also chaired the Committee of Visitors
(COV)for the NSF Biocomplexity Program, co-authoring the “COV Report for Biocomplexity in the Environment.” In addition Dr. Kelly served on the NSF Advisory Committee for Government Performance and Results Act, which evaluates all of the NSF funded programs and reports to congress. 6. *Nominee* : Klaassen, Curtis, Ph.D., DABT, Distinguished Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics; University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. i. *Expertise* : Toxicology; ii. *Education* : B.A., Biology, Wartburg College; M.S., Pharmacology, University of Iowa; Ph.D., Pharmacology, University of Iowa; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Klaassen is University Distinguished Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas. He received his B.S. from Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa in 1964, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the University of Iowa in 1966 and 1968, respectively. He has been on the faculty at the University of Kansas Medical Center since 1968. Dr. Klaassen is certified in toxicology by the American Board of Toxicology
(1980)and the Academy of Toxicological Sciences (1991). Dr. Klaassen's research interests have centered on how we adapt to chemicals in the environment. Studies have included the hepatobiliary disposition of xenobiotics, the toxicity of cadmium, the hepatotoxicity of chemicals, and mechanisms of chemical-induced thyroid tumors. He has published over 400 peer-reviewed articles, and more than 75 review articles and chapters for books. He received the Achievement Award from the Society of Toxicology in 1978 for his research accomplishments. He was cited by Eugen Garfield in *Current Contents* (January 18, 1993) as the scientist that had the fourth highest scientific impact in the United States in the study of xenobiotics (drugs and other chemicals), and in 2002 was named a “Highly Cited Researcher” in Pharmacology (top 0.5%) by the Institute for Scientific Information. Dr. Klaassen has been an associate editor of a number of journals including the *Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics* for 24 years and *Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology* for 10 years. He was the first Editor-in-Chief of *Toxicological Sciences* , the new journal of the Society of Toxicology. He has served on numerous national and international committees including those with the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Library of Medicine, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Science, the National Toxicology Program, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and the Health, International Life Science Institute, United States Air Force, World Health Organization, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, American Dental Association, and International Agency for Research on Cancer. Dr. Klaassen has been elected by his peers to many national and international offices in toxicology, including President of the Society of Toxicology
(USA)in 1990-1991, as well as President of the International Union of Toxicology (1992-1995). He was also President of the Seventh International Congress of Toxicology
(1995)and the Fourth International Metallothionein Meeting (1997). Dr. Klaasen is a leader in toxicology education. He has trained over 80 Ph.D. and Postdoctoral students. He is Founder
(1980)and Course Director of the Mid-America Toxicology Course, an annual postgraduate course in toxicology. He is author of the toxicology section of Goodman and Gilman's *Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics* and Editor of Casarett and Doull's *Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons* . He has presented over 400 lectures on toxicology around the world. He received the “Education Award” from the Society of Toxicology in 1993. 7. *Nominee* : Klaine, Stephen J., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. i. *Expertise* : Environmental Toxicology; ii. *Education* : B.S., Biology, University of Cincinnati, M.S., Environmental Science, Rice University; Ph.D., Environmental Science, Rice University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Stephen J. Klaine is a Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and the Graduate Program of Environmental Toxicology at Clemson University. His research interest involves quantifying the impact of land use on aquatic ecosystems and developing strategies by which economically viable land-use can coexist with good environmental quality. He received his doctorate from the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Rice University in 1982 and has spent the last 25 years conducting environmental research and educating graduate students. He joined the Department of Biology, University of Memphis, in 1982 where he developed an undergraduate concentration in toxicology, an extramurally-funded research program in environmental toxicology, and a graduate program. In 1991, he moved his laboratory to Clemson University to help found the graduate program in environmental toxicology. Current research in his laboratory focuses on characterizing the bioavailability of metals and pesticides in aquatic systems; the comparative phytotoxicity of pesticides; the response of aquatic organisms to episodic contaminant exposures; the water quality consequences of land use; the effects of pharmaceuticals on fish behavior; the bioavailability of single-walled carbon nanotubes in aquatic systems; and the bioavailability of PCBs in aquatic systems and the movement of PCBs through the aquatic and terrestrial food chain. Dr. Klaine has published over 100 scientific publications and has served as principal investigator or co-principal investigator on over $8 million in research funding. He has previously served on the board of directors for the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and is currently an aquatic toxicology editor for the journal *Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry* . He also sits on the board of the SETAC foundation and is a member of SETAC World Council finance committee. In the last decade, he has served on several USEPA Scientific Advisory Panels and workshops involving pesticide and metal fate, effects and risk. Most recently, he received the Outstanding Researcher award from the Sigma Xi chapter at Clemson University. 8. *Nominee* : Krieger, Robert I., Ph.D., Cooperative Extension Specialist (Toxicology), Department of Entomology, Personal Chemical Exposure Program, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA. i. *Expertise* : Toxicology and Exposure Assessment; ii. *Education* : B.S., Chemistry, Pacific Lutheran University; Ph.D., Toxicology, Cornell University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Krieger is a Cooperative Extension Toxicologist in the Department of Entomology, University of California at Riverside and a member of the Graduate Program in Environmental Toxicology. He holds a B.S. cum laude in Chemistry from Pacific Lutheran University
(1967)and a Ph.D. from Cornell University
(1970)where he was a student in the Department of Entomology and NIEHS Trainee in Environmental Toxicology. Graduate study fields included toxicology, physiology and biochemistry. He has held tenured academic appointments at the University of California at Davis (1971-1980) and in the Washington-Oregon-Idaho Regional Veterinary Medical Education Program (1981-1986) where he was Professor of Veterinary and Comparative Toxicology. In 1986 he became staff toxicologist and later Branch Chief, Worker Health and Safety, California Department of Food and Agriculture (now California EPA). Dr. Krieger worked with two major Washington D.C. consulting firms (1991-1994) in exposure and risk assessment before returning to the University of California as an Extension Toxicologist (1994-present) specializing in pesticide exposure assessment and worker health and safety. He has taught toxicology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and received several teaching awards including the Society of Toxicology's Education Award in 1986. His research concerns the fate and effects of pesticides in humans, risk assessment, and risk communication. Current studies concern methods and techniques for determining the availability of chemical residues on surfaces, exposure biomonitoring of urban and agricultural populations that are exposed to pesticides and other chemicals. At the Universty of California at Riverside, Dr. Krieger heads the Personal Chemical Exposure Program that includes research and extension activities in urban and agricultural settings. He also headed the distinguished editorial team that produced the Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (2001). 9. *Nominee* : La Point, Thomas, Ph.D., Director of the Institute of Applied Sciences and Professor and Senior Scientist in the Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX. i. *Expertise* : Ecosystem Toxicology; ii. *Education* : B.S., Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming; M.S., Population Biology, University of Houston; Ph.D., Aquatic Biology, Idaho State University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. La Point directs the Institute of Applied Sciences at the University of North Texas and is a Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences. He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Biological Sciences at Idaho State University in Aquatic Biology. His primary research and teaching interests include contaminant effects on freshwater aquatic communities, specifically in how metals and organic contaminants affect benthic population dynamics and freshwater fisheries. He has published on ecosystem measures, contaminant bioaccumulation, and sub-lethal effects on aquatic populations. Dr. La Point has served on several USEPA Scientific Advisory Panels concerned with pesticides and ecological risk and has worked as a consultant on Superfund issues at large sites. Dr. La Point also served on a National Academy of Science NRC Committee on Superfund Site Assessment and Remediation in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin. He is serving as Chair of a Water Environment Research Foundation subcommittee on whole-effluent testing as an indicator of aquatic health. He has served on several NSF, USEPA and United States Geological Survey panels to review proposals submitted for funding. He is on the editorial board for Chemosphere and Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology and has served as Editor of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Special Publication Series. Dr. La Point's current research is funded by the USEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Denton, TX. 10. *Nominee* : Law, Jerry, DVM, Ph.D., ACVP, Associate Professor of Pathology and Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. i. *Expertise* : Pathology; ii. *Education* : D.V.M. , Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA; Ph.D., Veterinary Pathology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Law received his D.V.M in Veterinary Medicine from Louisiana State University in 1985 and his Ph.D. in Veterinary Pathology from Louisiana State University in 1995. He is a certified Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and serves as an Education Committee Member of the Americal College of Veterinary Pathologists, as an Advisory Board Member of the Genetics and Environmental Mutagenesis Society and as a Council Member of the North Carolina Society of Toxicology. Dr. Law's research focuses on mechanisms of carcinogenesis and comparative pathology of aquatic animals. The approach is twofold: a. Mechanistic investigations using histopathology, molecular biology, and analytical techniques such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and high performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection to further establish small fish species as viable alternative animal models in toxicologic testing. Fish models such as the medaka, *Oryzias latipes* , and the zebrafish, *Danio rerio* , are used in these studies. b. Laboratory, mesocosm, and field investigations designed to establish reliable biological markers in aquatic organisms as sentinels of environmental degradation. These biomarkers incorporate histopathology, clinical pathology, and immunologic techniques to determine the health of aquatic animals and ecosystems. Expected benefits of Dr. Law's research include increased knowledge of basic mechanisms of carcinogenesis, more rapid and economical testing of potential carcinogens, sensitive monitoring of aquatic pollutants, and better assessment of seafood safety. 11. *Nominee* : Pope, Carey, Ph.D., Professor, Head and Sitlington Chair in Toxicology, Department of Physiological Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. i. *Expertise* : Toxicology; ii. *Education* : B.S., Biology, Austin State University; M.S., Biology, Austin State University; Ph.D., Pharmacology/Toxicology, University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Carey Pope is Professor, Head and Sitlington Chair in Toxicology in the Department of Physiological Sciences at the Oklahoma State University Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Stillwater, Oklahoma. He received a Ph.D. degree from the University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences in Houston, Texas in 1985, and completed postdoctoral training in the Neurology Department at Baylor College of Medicine
(1985)and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (1986-1989). He previously served on the faculty of the College of Pharmacy, University of Louisiana at Monroe (1989-1999). Dr. Pope's research primarily involves the evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that modify neurotoxicity from exposure to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. He has previously served as a consultant for the U.S. Army's external research programs, was a member of the NAS/National Research Council Subcommittee on Toxicologic Assessment of Low-Level Exposures to Chemical Warfare Agents and is currently a member of the NIEHS Neurotoxicology and Alcohol study section. Dr. Pope has been a member of the Food Quality Protection Act Science Review Board since 1996. 12. *Nominee* : Spitsbergen, Jan, Ph.D., DVM, ACVP, Research Assistant Professor, Center for Fish Disease Research, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. i. *Expertise* : Veterinary Pathology and Toxicology; ii. *Education* : B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University; D.V.M., Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine; Ph.D., Immunology and Pathology, Cornell University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Dr. Spitsbergen is one of a few board-certified veterinary pathologists in the world who has strong expertise in fish diseases, fish pathology, and toxicologic pathology. She taught finfish histology, histopathology and tumor biology for 7 years in the Aquavet Program, an educational program based in Woods Hole, MA, to train veterinarians, veterinary students, and fish health scientists about aquatic animal health, husbandry, and diseases. She has conducted field epidemiology and experimental laboratory research studies in fish toxicology and pathology for over 25 years. Her research includes studies in early life stage toxicity of environmental contaminants; effects of toxicants on sex determination, fertility and fecundity; effects of halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons on disease resistance and immune responses; naturally occurring thiamine deficiency as the cause of early life stage mortality in salmonids in natural waters; field and laboratory studies of the complex causes of epizootics of neoplasia in skin and liver of fish. She has focused her research on spontaneous and carcinogen-induced tumors in zebrafish for the past 12 years. She has collaborated with scientists from the University of Oregon, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Children's Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Research Institute at Harvard University, the National University of Singapore, and biotechnology companies in the United States and Hungary. Recently her collaborations involve development of zebrafish models for the study of Fanconi anemia, an inherited disease of humans that results in aplastic anemia or leukemia by young adulthood. Survivors of the current treatment of choice, a bone marrow transplant, are at high risk for developing solid tumors such as squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. Fanconi anemia results from genomic instability and increased susceptibility to oxidant damage when homozygous mutation occurs in one of 12 genes in the Fanconi anemia signaling network. Dr. Spitsbergen also studies myelodysplastic syndrome and leukemia which occur spontaneously in certain mutant lines of zebrafish. One remarkable finding in Dr. Spitsbergen's recent zebrafish tumor research is the fact that diet and husbandry systems can profoundly influence tumor incidences in tanks of zebrafish. These findings are important because zebrafish husbandry practices are much less standardized currently than the protocols for most other laboratory animals like mice. 13. *Nominee* : Timchalk, Charles, Ph.D., DABT, Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Center for Biological Monitoring and Modeling, Richland, WA. i. *Expertise* : Toxicology; ii. *Education* : B.S., Biology, State University of New York at Oneonta; Ph.D., Toxicology/Pharmacology, The Albany Medical College of Union University; iii. *Professional Experience* : Charles Timchalk received a B.S. in Biology in 1978 from the State University of New York, and a Ph.D. in 1986 from the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, The Albany Medical College. He is currently certified as a Diplomat of the American Board of Toxicology. In 1986 he joined the Dow Chemical Company as a post-doctoral fellow within the Biotransformation and Molecular Toxicology Group of the Toxicology Research Laboratory. At Dow he was a research and technical leader within the Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism group prior to accepting his current position. In 1997 he joined the Center for Biological Monitoring and Modeling within Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory as a Staff Scientist. In this position he is continuing to pursue his interest in the application of pharmacokinetics for evaluation of human health risk. His research is currently focused around three themes: a. The development of new technologies and approaches for non-invasive biological monitoring; b. Advancing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling to focus on the assessment of risk to potentially sensitive populations, such as children, and to evaluate the health risk implications of exposure to low dose chemical mixtures; and c. The utilization of advanced imaging and 3-dimensional modeling approaches to develop new dosimetry and biological response models. Dr. Timchalk is currently the principal investigator or co-investigator on seven Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health (DHHS/NIH) grants and has four recently completed projects for DHHS and EPA. He has also provided technical leadership in support of several Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL)initiatives including: The Environmental Health and Environmental Biomarkers Initiative. He has likewise provided support on technical review and advisory committees including: NIH/NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Grant Review; NIH/National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Review; Dichloromethane Peer Review Panel; Austrian Science Fund Grant Review; International Life Sciences Institute, Health and Environmental Science Institute, Agricultural Chemical Safety Assessment Steering Committee; CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heatlh Safety and Occupational Health Study Section and the EPA-STAR Grant Review Panel. He has served as President of the Society of Toxicology, Biological Modeling Specialty Section. Over the course of his career Dr. Timchalk has been acknowledged both for his professional accomplishments and for his ongoing interest in supporting the development of young scientist. His research has been recognized by awards from the Environmental Business Journal (Technical Merit award, 2001), and R & D 100 Nomination (2004). In addition, he received the Department of Energy, Office of Science Outstanding Mentor Award (2002); and the PNNL, Chester I. Cooper Mentor of the Year Award (2003). List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 13, 2008. Mary Belefski, Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5556 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0202; FRL-8355-9] Lavandulyl Senecioate; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to use the pesticide lavandulyl senecioate (CAS No 23960-07-8) to treat up to 80,000 acres of raisin and wine grapes to control the vine mealybug (VMB). The applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by the EPA. EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0202, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0202. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-9367; fax number:
(703)605-0781; e-mail address: *ertman.andrew@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has requested the Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of lavandulyl senecioate on raisin and wine grapes to control the vine mealybug. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request. As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that the rapid spread of the vine mealybug in California vineyards and the damage caused by their feeding and excretion of honeydew has resulted in increasing crop losses in raisin, wine, and table grapes. Depending on the type of grape, these losses can reach 5 to 30% of the crop. Conventional control programs and cultural practices are either ineffective or too expensive to be considered practical. The Applicant proposes to securely fasten the pheromone dispensers by hand in thumb-sized canes in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, and Tulare Counties in California. Two hundred fifty dispensers will be applied per acre (approximately one dispenser per 2 to 4 vines, depending on plant density). This is equivalent to 25 grams of active ingredient per acre. One to two applications will be made on a maximum of 80,000 acres of grapes per season. This translates to a maximum of 40 million dispensers (8,800 pounds of active ingredient). The use season begins on April 1, 2008 and concludes on September 30, 2008. This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) which has not been registered by the EPA. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 11, 2008. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-5560 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8544-4] Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of a Meeting of the Integrated Nitrogen Committee AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office announces a public meeting of its Integrated Nitrogen Committee. DATES: The meeting dates are Wednesday, April 9, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. through Friday, April 11, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern Time). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Latham Hotel Georgetown, 3000 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007; telephone
(202)625-1881. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to obtain further information about this meeting may contact Ms. Kathleen White, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by mail at EPA SAB Staff Office, (1400F), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at:
(202)343-9878; by fax at
(202)233-0643; or by e-mail at: *white.kathleen@epa.gov.* General information about the SAB, as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice, may be found on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. *Background:* The SAB Integrated Nitrogen Committee is studying the need for integrated research and strategies to reduce reactive nitrogen in the environment. At the global scale, reactive nitrogen from human activities now exceeds that produced by natural terrestrial ecosystems. Reactive nitrogen both benefits and impacts the health and welfare of people and ecosystems. Scientific information suggests that reactive nitrogen is accumulating in the environment and that nitrogen cycling through biogeochemical pathways has a variety of consequences. Research suggests that the management of reactive nitrogen should be viewed from a systems perspective and integrated across environmental media. Accordingly, linkages between reactive nitrogen induced environmental and human health effects need to be understood to optimize reactive nitrogen research and risk management strategies. Information on the Committee's previous meetings was published on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 1989), March 22, 2007 (72 FR 3492), August 14, 2007 (72 FR 4542) and November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65340) and is also available on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* At the upcoming public meeting, the SAB Integrated Nitrogen Committee will:
(1)Hear briefings on programs that affect how reactive nitrogen is managed;
(2)develop materials needed to create a draft report;
(3)plan additional work and writing, and
(4)other committee business. *Availability of Meeting Materials:* As they become available, the agenda and materials for this meeting will be posted on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB to consider on the topics included in this advisory activity and/or the group conducting the activity. *Oral Statements:* In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker, with no more than one hour for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Ms. White, DFO, at the contact information provided above, by April 2, 2008, to be placed on the public speaker list for the April 9-11, 2008 meeting. *Written Statements:* Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by April 2, 2008, so that the information may be made available to the SAB for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in electronic format via e-mail at the contact information provided above (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). *Accessibility:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Ms. Kathleen White at
(202)343-9878, or via e-mail at: *white.kathleen@epa.gov.* To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Ms. White, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: March 13, 2008. Anthony Maciorowski, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E8-5605 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0162; FRL-8354-3] Napropamide; Notice of Receipt of Request to Voluntarily Amend to Terminate Uses of Napropamide Pesticide Registrations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of a request by two registrants to voluntarily amend their napropamide registrations to terminate certain uses. The request would terminate napropamide use in or on apple, apricot, artichoke, avocado, cherry, fig, grapefruit, lemons, nectarine, olive, orange, peach, pear, pistaschio, plum, pomegranate, prunes, tangerine, tangelo and walnut crops. The request would not terminate the last napropamide product registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws its request within this period. Upon acceptance of this request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0162, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0162. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although, listed in 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Parker, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)306-0469; fax number:
(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *parker.james@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Cancel and/or Amend Registrations to Delete Uses This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from registrants Gharda Chemicals Limited and Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. (Gharda) to delete several uses from their napropamide product registrations. Napropamide is an herbicide used to control broad leaf weeds and grasses on various fruit and vegetable crops. In an e-mail dated February 1, 2008, Gharda requested EPA to terminate use on the following commodities: Apple, apricot, artichoke, avocado, cherry (fruit), fig, grapefruit, lemons, nectarine, olive, orange, peach, pear, pistachio, plum, pomegranate, prunes, tangerine, tangelo and walnut crops. The specific products for which Gharda is requesting these use deletions are identified in Table 1 of this notice. These product registration amendments will not terminate the last napropamide product registered for use in the United States. III. What Action is the Agency Taking? This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from Gharda to amend its napropamide product registrations to terminate the following uses: Apple, apricot, artichoke, avocado, cherry (fruit), fig, grapefruit, lemons, nectarine, olive, orange, peach, pear, pistachio, plum, pomegranate, prunes, tangerine, tangelo and walnut crops. The affected products and the registrants making the request are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit. Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless: 1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or 2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. The napropamide registrants have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed request. Unless this request is withdrawn by one of the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, or unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued amending the affected registrations. **Table 1.—Napropamide Product Registrations with Pending Requests for Cancellation** Registration Number Product Name Company 33658-22 Gharda Napropamide Technical Gharda Chemicals LTD 83223-1 Napropamide 80 MUP Gharda Polymers USA Inc. 83223-4 Regatta 75WG Agricultural Herbicide Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. 83223-5 Regatta 75WG Ornamental Herbicide Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. 83223-6 Regatta 2G Ornamental Herbicide Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. 83223-7 Regatta Ornamental Herbicide Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. 83223-8 Regatta 10G Herbicide Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. **Table 2.—Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation and/or Amendments** EPA Company Number Company Name and Address 33658 Gharda Chemicals LTD 660 Newtown - Yardley Road, STE 105 Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940 83223 Gharda Polymers USA, Inc. 660 Newtown - Yardley Road, STE 105 Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940 IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the **Federal Register** . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request. V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for Reregistration of Napropamide Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before April 18, 2008. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. If the request for voluntary use termination is granted as discussed in this unit, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is not consistent with such previously approved labeling. If, as the Agency currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency will publish the cancellation order in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 6, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-5294 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0172; FRL-8355-2] Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0172, and the pesticide petition number (PP *8F7317* ), by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0172. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-7224; e-mail address: *peterson.todd@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is printing notice of the filing of a pesticide petition received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this notice contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this pesticide petition. Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* . New Exemption from Tolerance PP *8F7317* . Stratacor Inc., 1315 South 46th Street, Bldg. 154, Richmond, CA 94804, proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the insect repellent, [C8-C10 n-carboxylic acids (octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, and decanoic acid)], in or on food commodity beef and dairy cattle, and horses. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 7, 2008. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-5555 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179; FRL-8543-7] Proposed Determination To Prohibit, Restrict, or Deny the Specification, or the Use for Specification, of an Area as a Disposal Site; Yazoo River Basin, Issaquena County, MS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)to prohibit, restrict, or deny the discharge of dredged or fill material at defined sites in waters of the United States (including wetlands) whenever it determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, that use of such sites for disposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on various resources, including fisheries, wildlife, municipal water supplies, and recreational areas. Pursuant to section 404(c), EPA Region 4 is today requesting public comments on its proposal to prohibit or restrict the use of certain waters in the Yazoo River Basin in Issaquena County, Mississippi as disposal sites for dredged or fill material in connection with the construction of the proposed Yazoo Backwater Area Project (the project). As the primary component of this project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District (the Corps) and the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners (project sponsor) propose to construct a 14,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs)pumping station at Steele Bayou with a pump-on operation elevation of 87.0 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The construction and operation of the proposed pumps would degrade the critical functions and values of approximately 67,000 acres of wetland resources in the Yazoo River Basin. Of this total, approximately 26,300 acres would be hydrologically modified to the extent that they would no longer be defined as wetlands and would lose CWA regulatory protection. The natural timing, frequency, and duration of water reaching the remaining approximately 40,700 acres of wetlands would be impacted by the proposed pumping, altering the wetlands' ecological characteristics and significantly reducing their functions. EPA Region 4 believes that these extensive hydrological modifications of wetlands in the Yazoo River Basin could have an unacceptable adverse effect on fisheries and wildlife resources. EPA seeks comment on this proposed 404(c) determination to prohibit or restrict the discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands and other waters in the Yazoo River Basin in connection with the construction of the project or any pumping proposal in the Yazoo Backwater Area that would involve significant adverse impacts on waters of the United States. See Solicitation of Comments, at the end of the public notice, for further details. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal (recommended method of comment submission): http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov.* Include the docket number, EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179 in the subject line of the message. 3. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179, Yazoo Pumps,” Wetlands, Coastal and Nonpoint Source Branch; Water Management Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Wetlands Regulatory Section; Wetlands, Coastal and Nonpoint Source Branch; Water Management Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, which are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 5. *Submit at Public Hearing:* see PUBLIC HEARING section below. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Wetlands Regulatory Section; Wetlands, Coastal and Nonpoint Source Branch; Water Management Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. *Public Hearing:* In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 231.4, the Regional Administrator may decide that a public hearing on a proposed 404(c) determination would be in the public interest. Mr. Lawrence E. Starfield, Deputy Regional Administrator for EPA Region 6, has been appointed by the Administrator as the Regional Decision Officer for purposes of any EPA Regional action on the Yazoo Backwater Area Project pursuant to section 404(c); since Mr. Starfield has been designated to exercise all such authority for the Regional Administrator for the Yazoo Backwater Area Project, any reference to authority of the Regional Administrator in this notice are the responsibility of Mr. Starfield for the purposes of this action. In that capacity, Mr. Starfield has decided that a public hearing on this proposed 404(c) determination would be in the public interest. EPA will hold a public hearing on April 17, 2008, at 7 p.m. at the Vicksburg Convention Center and Auditorium (Exhibit Hall A), located at 1600 Mulberry Street, Vicksburg, MS 39180, seeking comments on its Proposed Determination. See Solicitation of Comments, at the end of this public notice for further details. The Regional Administrator will designate the official who will preside at the public hearing. Any person may appear at the hearing and submit oral and/or written statements or data and may be represented by counsel or other authorized representatives. The Presiding Officer will establish reasonable limits on the nature and length of time for oral presentation. There will be no cross examination of any hearing participant, although the Presiding Officer may make appropriate inquiries of any such participant. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this notice of proposed 404(c) determination contact Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Wetlands Regulatory Section; Wetlands, Coastal and Nonpoint Source Branch; Water Management Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street; SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is 404-562-9233. Mr. Mikulak can also be reached via electronic mail at *mikulak.ronald@epa.gov* or Mr. William Ainslie, Wetlands Regulatory Section, at the same address above. The telephone number is
(404)562-9400. Mr. Ainslie can also be reached via electronic mail at *ainslie.william@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to “EPA,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” are intended to mean the Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is arranged as follows: I. Section 404(c) Procedure II. Project Description and Background III. Characteristics and Functions of the Site IV. Basis of the Proposed Determination A. Section 404(c) Standards B. Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Project 1. Significant Degradation and Adverse Effects 2. Underestimation of Adverse Effects a. Underestimation of the Spatial Extent of Adverse Effects. b. Underestimation of the Degree and Nature of Adverse Effects 3. Overestimation of Environmental Benefits C. Mitigation D. Uncertainty of the Proposed Reforestation E. Project Alternatives F. Recreation V. Proposed Determination VI. Other Considerations VII. Solicitation of Comments I. Section 404(c) Procedure The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* , prohibits the discharge of pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into waters of the United States (including wetlands) except in compliance with, among other provisions, section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1344. Section 404 authorizes the Secretary of the Army (Secretary), acting through the Chief of Engineers, to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material at specified disposal sites. This authorization is conducted, in part, through the application of environmental guidelines developed by EPA, in conjunction with the Secretary, under section 404(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1344(b). Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes EPA to prohibit the specification (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a disposal site and it is authorized to restrict or deny the use of any defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site, whenever it determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, that the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. The procedures for implementation of section 404(c) are set forth in 40 CFR part 231. Under those procedures, if the Regional Administrator has reason to believe that use of a site for the discharge of dredged or fill material may have an unacceptable adverse effect on one or more of the aforementioned resources, he may initiate the section 404(c) process by notifying the Corps and the applicant (and/or project proponent) that he intends to issue a proposed determination. Each of those parties then has 15 days to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator that no unacceptable adverse effects will occur, or that corrective action to prevent an unacceptable adverse effect will be taken. If no such information is provided to the Regional Administrator, or if the Regional Administrator is not satisfied that no unacceptable adverse effect will occur, the Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** of his proposed determination, soliciting public comment and offering an opportunity for a public hearing. Today's notice represents this step in the process. Following the public hearing and the close of the comment period, the Regional Administrator will decide whether to withdraw his proposed determination or prepare a recommended determination. A decision to withdraw may be reviewed at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA Headquarters. If the Regional Administrator prepares a recommended determination, he then forwards it and the complete administrative record compiled in the Regional Office to the Assistant Administrator for Water. The Assistant Administrator makes the final determination affirming, modifying, or rescinding the recommended determination. II. Project Description and Background The Yazoo River Basin's backwater area (Yazoo Backwater Area) is located in west-central Mississippi, just north of Vicksburg, Mississippi. The portion of this area relevant to the Yazoo Backwater Area Project is located between the east bank mainline Mississippi River levee and the west bank levees of the Will M. Whittington Auxiliary Channel, and comprises about 926,000 acres. Of particular focus are the approximately 630,000 acres inundated by the 100-year flood event which lie in parts of Humphreys, Issaquena, Sharkey, Warren, Washington, and Yazoo Counties in Mississippi and part of Madison Parish in Louisiana. The Big Sunflower River, Little Sunflower River, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou flow through this area. The high ground along Deer Creek forms a natural divide between Steele Bayou and the Sunflower River Basins. The Yazoo Backwater Area has historically been subject to extensive backwater flooding from the Mississippi and Yazoo Rivers. When the Mississippi River reached a certain stage, water would back up into the Yazoo River Basin, causing flooding, while preventing the Yazoo River Basin from draining. With the implementation of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, which began in 1928, the Steele Bayou flood gate was installed to prevent Mississippi River water from flowing into the Yazoo Backwater Area. The gate feature, combined with other levees, has greatly decreased backwater flooding in the Yazoo River Basin. However, when the Steele Bayou flood gate is closed, precipitation in the Yazoo River Basin becomes trapped and backs up behind the gate causing flooding. The primary purpose of the Yazoo Backwater Area Project is to reduce the flood damages in the Yazoo Backwater Area caused by this internal flooding. As stated in the FSEIS, a principal objective of the project is to reduce flood damages “to urban and rural structures, as well as agricultural properties.” To achieve this objective, the Corps and the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners (project sponsor) have proposed a flood damage reduction project with “structural” and “nonstructural” components. The structural component entails the construction of a 14,000 cfs pumping station at Steele Bayou with a pump-on operation elevation of 87.0 feet, NGVD. When floodwaters at the Steele Bayou structure reach (or are anticipated to reach) an elevation of 87.0 feet, NGVD, the pumps will be turned on and will move water from behind the gate into the Mississippi River. The effects of the pumping will be to reduce the amount of land within the Yazoo Backwater Area that floods, as well as to remove water faster from those areas that still experience flooding. The nonstructural component includes reforestation of up to 40,571 acres of agricultural lands through the purchase of perpetual conservation easements from willing sellers and operation of the Steele Bayou control gates to maintain water elevations between 70.0 and 73.0 feet, NGVD, in the Yazoo Backwater Area waterways during low-water periods when practical. Construction of the proposed pumps involves the discharge of dredged or fill material into approximately 52.6 acres of forested wetlands and other waters of the United States in Issaquena County, Mississippi. The estimated Federal cost of the proposed action is $220.1 million, with an annual operational cost of $15.1 million. This project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941, which envisioned a plan to reduce backwater flooding in the Yazoo River Basin through a combination of levees, drainage structures, and pumping plants fully funded by the Federal government. This act also designated Yazoo Backwater Area lands located below 90 feet in elevation to serve as a sump area for floodwater storage. Over the next 37 years, the Corps planned and executed key flood control projects in the Yazoo Backwater Area, including: construction of the Will Whittington Auxiliary Channel and Levees in 1962; construction of the Steele Bayou and Little Sunflower flood control gates, which were completed in 1969 and 1975, respectively; construction of the Yazoo Backwater Levee completed in 1978; and construction of the Sunflower River to Steele Bayou Connecting Channel also completed in 1978. In April 1982, EPA provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for the 1982 version of the proposed project. In our comments on the DEIS we highlighted our concerns regarding the proposed project's potentially extensive impacts on wetlands and associated fish and wildlife habitat and our belief that a less environmentally damaging design would meet the project's objectives. We stressed the importance of the flood water storage and water quality enhancement functions provided by area wetlands and expressed our concerns that the proposed project would degrade these critical functions. We also expressed concerns that the project would stimulate agricultural intensification in flood-prone areas, potentially increasing suspended solids, pesticides, and fertilizers in the water column, and exacerbate existing water quality problems. Additionally, we expressed concerns that the proposed mitigation would not adequately minimize and offset the extensive adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. In our May 1983 comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), we expressed similar concerns. Our review of the FEIS concluded that the project would likely “decrease water quality in the area through increases in suspended solids, pesticides and fertilizers; reduce natural overbank flooding and decrease nutrients assimilation by wetland vegetation; transfer flood peaks downstream; serve as a precedent to similarly convert other bottomland hardwood remnants in the lower Mississippi River Valley; and greatly diminish a fish and wildlife resource, which, due to previous clearing elsewhere, has become nationally valuable.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)also raised similar concerns regarding the proposed project. According to FWS, its first report on the Yazoo Backwater Area Project and related flood control projects in the Yazoo River Basin was issued in 1956. This report concluded that losses of fish and wildlife resources as a result of the construction of the Yazoo Headwater Project and Yazoo Backwater Project would be large, and that the proposed pumps would promote large scale clearing of forests and intensification of agriculture in wetlands. In February 1978, FWS provided a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report to the Corps which concluded that the pumping plant was environmentally unsound, and that the Service was opposed to the project as planned. A subsequent Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report submitted in June 1982 noted continued concerns with the proposed project and indicated that it may consider the project a candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA)of 1986 modified the funding for the project by requiring a local-cost share. Under this new provision, the local project sponsor would provide the lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas for the project, or 25 percent of the construction cost, whichever was greater. Work on the project effectively halted. The reauthorization of WRDA ten years later in 1996 reversed the cost-sharing provisions established in 1986 and restored the project to full Federal funding and work on the project began once again. In 1997, EPA initiated an ecosystem restoration prioritization analysis with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This work evolved into ecological and economic model development for nonstructural floodplain management alternatives in the Yazoo Backwater Area. Between 1998 and 2000, EPA participated in a series of interagency and stakeholder meetings with the Corps, USGS, FWS, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and representatives of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners to discuss concerns regarding the proposed project and potentially less environmentally damaging alternatives. In 2000, EPA also participated in multiple meetings with a group composed of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, the Corps, FWS, Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners and Yazoo Backwater Area landowners in which we discussed our concerns with the proposed project. EPA also voiced its concerns with the proposed project in meetings with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), CEQ and representatives from Corps Headquarters in February and March of 2000. In September 2000, the Corps released the project's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). One of the purposes of this reformulation of the project's 1982 FEIS was to respond to a 1991 directive from OMB to evaluate a broader suite of alternatives to the proposed project that would provide:
(1)Greater levels of flood protection for urban areas;
(2)reduced levels of agricultural intensification; and
(3)reduced adverse impacts to the environment. The OMB directive also stated that the revised evaluation should include “full consideration of predominantly nonstructural and nontraditional measures” to address flooding issues. In a November 3, 2000, letter to the Corps on the DSEIS, EPA raised significant concerns regarding the proposed project's extensive impacts to wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources, its potential to exacerbate existing water quality problems in the Yazoo Backwater Area, the inadequacy of the proposed compensatory mitigation, and the uncertainty associated with the proposed reforestation. We also identified, for further consideration, a number of potentially less environmentally damaging alternatives that emphasized nonstructural and nontraditional measures to address flooding issues. We concluded that the project was environmentally unsatisfactory and noted that it was a candidate for referral to CEQ under section 309(b) of the Clean Air Act and the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR part 1504 and for further action under CWA section 404(c). Between 2002 and 2005, EPA worked with the Corps to improve its evaluation of the extent of wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area, the extent of wetlands potentially impacted by the project, and the nature and degree of these impacts. This work involved extensive site visits and data collection in the Yazoo Backwater Area, meetings, and conference calls. In December 2005, EPA provided detailed technical comments on the revised draft Wetland and Mitigation appendices for the DSEIS outlining a number of concerns regarding the evaluation approaches used in these appendices. We noted that flaws in these evaluation approaches result in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts to wetlands and fish and wildlife resources associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pumps and an overestimation of the potential environmental benefits associated with the proposed reforestation. In November 2007, the Corps released the Yazoo Backwater Area Reformulation Main Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). 1 Although the Corps responded to many of our November 2000 comments on the DSEIS, no substantive modifications had been made to the structural component of the proposed project since November 2000. In our January 22, 2008, letter to the Corps on the FSEIS, we concluded that the nature and extent of anticipated adverse environmental impacts continue to be significant and that we continue to have significant concerns with the proposed project including:
(1)Magnitude of anticipated impacts to wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources;
(2)compliance with the CWA's substantive environmental criteria ( *i.e.* , the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines);
(3)uncertainties with the proposed reforestation plan;
(4)changes in land use;
(5)environmental justice
(EJ)considerations;
(6)uncertainty with the economic analysis; and
(7)the evaluation of potential project alternatives. We again identified the project as a candidate for referral to CEQ and for further action pursuant to our authorities under the CWA. 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Yazoo Backwater Area Project Reformulation Main Report and FSEIS: *http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/projects/YBR_Report/index.html* . In its January 18, 2008, comment letter to the Corps regarding the FSEIS, the FWS shared similar concerns, particularly those associated with the proposed project's potentially unacceptable adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The FWS also reiterated its determination that the project is a candidate for referral to CEQ. On February 1, 2008, EPA's Regional Administrator informed the Corps and the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners of his intention to begin a section 404(c) action, based on his belief that the project may have an unacceptable adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources. During the 15-day response period following the 404(c) initiation letter (which was extended to March 3, 2008) EPA met with representatives from the Corps and Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners. In addition, EPA had a number of conference calls with the Corps during this consultation period to discuss specific technical concerns we had with the Corps' analysis (many of which are discussed in this notice). However, the Regional Administrator was not satisfied that no unacceptable adverse effect would occur, or that adequate corrective action would be taken to prevent an unacceptable adverse effect, and has published this Proposed Determination in order to solicit public comment. III. Characteristics and Functions of the Site The Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV) was a 25-million acre area of forested wetlands that extended along both sides of the Mississippi River from Illinois south to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. The extent and duration of seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River fluctuated annually, recharging the LMRAV systems and creating a diversity of dynamic habitats that once supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources. Over the past 100 years, the greatest changes to the landscape have been land clearing for both agriculture and flood control projects. These habitat alterations have had an adverse effect on biological diversity and integrity. For example, breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species richness and population numbers. In addition to the loss of approximately 80 percent of the bottomland forested wetlands within the LMRAV, 2 there have been significant alterations in the region's hydrology due to river channel modification, construction of flood control levees and reservoirs, and deforestation. The cumulative effect of these hydrological alterations has reduced both the extent and duration of the annual seasonal flooding, adversely affecting the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. 2 Department of the Interior, The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume I: The Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain and the Prairie Pothole Region, A Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, October 1988 at 60. These significant cumulative aquatic resource losses across the broader LMRAV are mirrored in the Mississippi Delta region of the LMRAV, in which the Yazoo Backwater Area is situated. Mississippi's 2005 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 3 reports that only fifteen percent of the Mississippi Delta remains forested and the largest segment remaining is the complex of bottomland hardwood forests approximately 100,000 acres in size within and surrounding the Delta National Forest. Much of this important complex of remaining forests and forested wetlands is located in the Yazoo Backwater Area. 3 Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MCWCS) 2005-2015, October 2005: *http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/ms_action_plan.pdf* . Extensive studies of the Yazoo Backwater Area demonstrate that it includes some of the richest wetland and aquatic resources in the Nation. These include a highly productive floodplain fishery, a highly productive but increasingly rare bottomland hardwood forest ecosystem that once dominated the LMRAV, hemispherically important migratory bird foraging grounds and one of only four remaining backwater ecosystems with a hydrologic connection to the Mississippi River. These wetlands provide critical habitat for a variety of wetland-dependent animal and plant species, including the federally protected Louisiana black bear and pondberry. In addition to serving as critical fish and wildlife habitat, project area wetlands also provide a suite of other important ecological functions. These wetlands protect and improve water quality by removing and retaining pollutants, reduce flood damage by storing floodwaters, recharge groundwater and maintain stream flows, and sequester significant amounts of elemental carbon. Wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area have been described by the Corps as belonging to the hydrogeomorphic
(HGM)riverine backwater subclass. This classification indicates that these wetlands flood as a result of impeded drainage of small streams, channels, and drainage ditches due to high water in larger downstream reaches. As a result of this impeded drainage, low lying areas associated with these small streams fill with relatively still “backwater.” As stated in the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook, the characteristics of the riverine backwater wetlands in this area are: A direct connection to a channel during flood stages equivalent to at least the 5-year frequency return period; the primary source of hydrology to the wetland is backwater; and floodwaters largely drain from the site back to the channel as flood stages fall (as opposed to being retained on the site in depressions). 4 4 Smith, R. D., and Klimas, C. V. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of selected regional wetland subclasses, Yazoo Basin, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. ERDC/EL TR-02-04. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. See: *http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/trel02-4.pdf.* The wetlands of the riverine backwater subclass occur on various substrates which developed as a result of Mississippi River meandering. This subclass typically contains vegetative communities dominated by green ash ( *Fraxinus pennsylvanica* ), and Nuttall oak ( *Quercus nuttallii* ) as well as overcup oak ( *Q. lyrata* ) and water hickory ( *Carya aquatica* ) in more low lying areas. However, in addition to these dominant canopy species, willow oak ( *Q. phellos* ), Sugarberry ( *Celtis laviegata* ), American elm ( *Ulmus americana* ), cedar elm ( *U. crassifolia* ), Red maple ( *Acer rubrum* ), Cypress ( *Taxodium distichum* ), water elm ( *Planera aquatica* ), and Black willow ( *Salix nigra* ) were also found dominating many of the field sampled plots in the area. 5 The combination of the hydrologic, soil, and vegetative characteristics of this wetland subclass contribute to the wetland processes, or functions, which support the area's diverse and abundant flora and fauna. However, hydrology is considered by most to be the critical determinant of the establishment and maintenance of specific types of wetlands and wetland processes. 6 As thoroughly discussed in the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook and outlined below, maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime ( *i.e.* , natural timing, frequency, and duration of water reaching area wetlands) is the most important factor in ensuring that riverine backwater wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area perform important functions such as floodwater detention, nutrient cycling, organic carbon export, pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. 5 EPA, 2008. Yazoo Backwater Area Plant Species List. Wetlands Regulatory Section, Water Management Division, EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA. 6 Mitsch, W.J., and Gosselink, J.G. 2000. Wetlands (3rd edition). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. When riverine backwater wetlands are allowed to temporarily detain and moderate floodwater they provide a number of important benefits. Floodwater interaction with wetlands tends to dampen and broaden the flood wave, which reduces peak discharge downstream. Wetlands can reduce the velocity of water currents and, as a result, reduce erosion. Some portion of the floodwater volume detained within riverine backwater wetlands is likely to be evaporated or transpired, thereby reducing the overall volume of water moving downstream. The portion of the detained flow that infiltrates into the alluvial aquifer, or which returns to the channel very slowly via low-gradient surface routes, may be sufficiently delayed that it contributes significantly to the maintenance of baseflow in some streams long after flooding has ceased. Retention of particulates is also an important component of the flood detention function because sediment deposition directly alters the physical characteristics of the wetland (including hydrologic attributes) and positively influences downstream water quality. In riverine backwater wetlands, nutrients are stored within, and cycled among, four major compartments:
(a)The soil;
(b)primary producers such as vascular and nonvascular plants;
(c)consumers such as animals, fungi, and bacteria; and
(d)dead organic matter, such as leaf litter or woody debris, referred to as detritus. The transformation of nutrients within each compartment and the flow of nutrients between compartments are mediated by a complex variety of biogeochemical processes associated with primary production and decomposition. These biogeochemical processes and their ability to support the rich array of flora and fauna found in the Yazoo Backwater Area are directly linked to maintenance of the natural timing, frequency, and duration of flooding in the area's riverine backwater wetlands systems. The high productivity and close proximity of riverine backwater wetlands to streams make them important sources of dissolved and particulate organic carbon for aquatic food webs and biogeochemical processes in downstream aquatic habitats. Dissolved and particulate organic carbon is a significant source of energy for the microbes that form the base of the detrital food web in aquatic ecosystems. The ability of riverine backwater wetlands to perform this critical function is directly linked to factors associated with their natural hydrologic cycle of backwater flooding, including:
(a)The large amount of organic matter in the litter and soil layers that comes into contact with surface water during flooding;
(b)relatively long periods of inundation and, consequently, contact between surface water and organic matter, thus allowing for significant leaching;
(c)the ability of the labile carbon fraction to be rapidly leached from organic matter when exposed to water; and
(d)the ability of floodwater to transport dissolved and particulate organic carbon from the floodplain to the stream channel. The area's riverine backwater wetlands permanently remove or temporarily immobilize elements and compounds that are imported to the wetland from various sources, but primarily via the natural cycle of flooding. Elements include macronutrients essential to plant growth e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) as well as heavy metals (zinc, chromium, etc.) that can be toxic at high concentrations. Compounds include pesticides and other imported materials. The primary benefit of this function is that the removal and sequestration of elements and compounds by wetlands reduces the load of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, and other pollutants in rivers and streams. This often translates into improved water quality and aquatic habitat in adjacent or down gradient rivers and streams. Once nutrients and compounds arrive in riverine backwater wetlands, they may be removed and sequestered through a variety of biogeochemical processes including complexation, chemical precipitation, adsorption, denitrification, decomposition to inactive forms, hydrolysis, uptake by plants, and other processes. The effective performance of many of the most critical biogeochemical processes depends on maintenance of the natural hydrologic cycle of flooding in riverine backwater wetlands and the anoxic/reducing environment created by periodic cycles of inundation and saturation. For example, denitrification will not occur unless the soil is anoxic and the redox potential falls below a certain level. Flooding for approximately 14 days causes soils to become anoxic. When this occurs and other soil conditions are favorable (i.e., availability of soil carbon) the nitrogen in nitrate (NO <sup>2</sup> ) is removed by denitrification and released as nitrogen gas to the atmosphere. In addition, sulfate is reduced to sulfide, which then reacts with metal cations to form insoluble metal sulfides such as copper sulfide (CuS), iron sulfide (FeS), lead sulfide (PbS), and others which then fall out of the water column and are retained by the wetland sediments. The ability of riverine backwater wetlands to maintain a characteristic plant community is important because of the intrinsic value of the plant community and the many attributes and processes of wetlands that are influenced by the plant community. For example, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, and the ability to provide a variety of habitats necessary to maintain local and regional diversity of animals are directly influenced by the plant community. Due to the inundation by nutrient rich floodwaters, a diverse assemblage of plants grow in riverine backwater wetlands and contribute to the primary production of these ecosystems. The growth of different plant communities as a result of variable hydrologic regimes and topography contributes to the uptake and release of nutrients and provides many layers of potential habitat (i.e., litter layer to canopy) for the hundreds of wildlife species which utilize these wetlands. In addition, the plant community of river connected wetlands such as riverine backwater wetlands in the Yazoo River Basin influences the quality of the physical habitat, nutrient status, and biological diversity of downstream systems. As noted in the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook, maintaining the natural hydrologic regime of these wetlands is consistently cited as the principal factor controlling plant community attributes. A broad array of fish and wildlife species utilize the riverine backwater wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area during some part of their life cycles. Terrestrial, semi-aquatic, and aquatic animals use these wetlands extensively. These wetlands provide important habitat for a diversity of organisms, are sites of high levels of secondary production, and are essential in the maintenance of complex trophic interactions. Habitat functions span a range of temporal and spatial scales. For example, invertebrate communities utilize the organic matter generated in these wetlands as a food source and the vertical structure of the plant community as refugia from flooding. Amphibian and reptile species use the wetlands for breeding and foraging habitats and fish utilize floodplains for spawning, rearing, and foraging. Birds and mammals utilize the wetlands for food, cover, and nesting. Most wildlife and fish species found in riverine backwater wetlands of the Yazoo River Basin depend on certain aspects of wetland structure and dynamics such as specific vegetation composition and proximity to other habitats, but of particular importance to the life cycles of these species is the periodic flooding or ponding of water associated with the natural hydrologic regime of riverine backwater wetlands. The topographic and commensurate hydrologic complexity of these riverine backwater wetlands contribute to the biodiversity for which they are well known. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that there are 372 wildlife species occurring in the Mississippi Lowland Forest ecoregion, which encompasses the Yazoo River Basin and Yazoo Backwater Area. 7 Of these species 35 are amphibian, 52 are reptiles, 223 are birds, and 62 are mammals. According to the Mississippi Museum of Natural History, 40 percent of the amphibians, 60 percent of the reptiles, 82 percent of the birds, and 71 percent of the mammals from the World Wildlife Fund's Mississippi Lowland Forest list occur in the Yazoo River Basin. 8 In addition, 2 amphibian, 4 reptile, 74 bird, and 5 mammalian species were catalogued by the State beyond what World Wildlife Fund reported. Further, the FWS has listed 258 species of birds which use its complex of refuges located in the Yazoo Backwater Area 9 and over 90 species of fish have been documented as utilizing the Yazoo River. 10 7 World Wildlife Fund Mississippi Lowland Forest species list: *http://worldwildlife.org/wildfinder/searchByPlace.cfm?ecoregion=NA0409.* 8 Personal Communication between William Ainslie, EPA Region 4, and Scott Peyton, Mississippi Museum of Natural History, February 5, 2008. 9 FWS list of bird species utilizing wildlife refuges in the Yazoo Backwater Area: *http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r4/yazoo.htm.* 10 Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. Publication #1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological Survey. 877 pgs. According to the State's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, bottomland hardwood wetlands such as those in the Yazoo Backwater Area provide habitat for 33 *species of greatest conservation need* 11 including 20 birds, 12 mammals, and 1 reptile. Also, all of the standing and running water systems of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, including the Yazoo Backwater Area, have been classified as critically imperiled because of their high conservation priority rank and the widespread degradation of stream habitats in this region. These waterbodies provide important habitat for 23 *species of greatest conservation need,* including 4 fish, 18 mussels, and 1 reptile. Finally, the stream habitat that remains in the Upper Coastal Plain Yazoo Drainage area, which receives significant hydrologic inputs from the Yazoo Backwater Area, is considered to be vulnerable because of extensive alteration caused by channelization, agricultural use of surrounding lands and impoundments. This portion of the Yazoo River Basin provides critical habitat for 17 *species of greatest conservation need* including 1 amphibian, 12 fish, and 1 reptile. 12 11 Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(SGCN)are those animals, both aquatic and terrestrial, that are at risk or are declining in a State. They include threatened and endangered species, as well as other species of concern. The SGCN for Mississippi was developed through a rigorous analysis of the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program's list of “Animals of Special Concern” (ASC). An Expert Team of scientists evaluated the approximately 1,500 species from the ASC and narrowed this list down to only the species most at risk—resulting in approximately 300 Species of Greatest Conservation Need statewide (MCWCS, 2005). 12 MCWCS, 2005. In its comments in the FSEIS, the FWS reports that the Lower Yazoo Delta is part of a major continental migration corridor for birds funneling through the midcontinent from as far north as the Arctic Circle and as far south as South America. The Yazoo Backwater Project Area comprises approximately 926,000 acres located in LMRAV, through which 60 percent of all bird species in the U.S., over 40 percent of the Nation's waterfowl population, and 500,000 to 1,000,000 shorebirds migrate on a biannual basis. FWS also notes that natural springtime flooding in the area's riverine backwater wetlands coincides with two major events in the LMRAV:
(1)Native bird and waterfowl migration that requires suitable and productive stopover and foraging habitats to meet migratory energy needs; and
(2)breeding bird and waterfowl nesting that requires adequate nesting and foraging habitats to meet reproductive and rearing needs. IV. Basis of the Proposed Determination A. Section 404(c) Standards The CWA requires that exercise of the final section 404(c) authority be based on a determination of “unacceptable adverse effect” to municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fisheries, wildlife, or recreational areas. In making this determination EPA takes into account all information available to it, including any written determination of compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 231.2(e) define “unacceptable adverse effect” as: *Impact on an aquatic or wetland ecosystem which is likely to result in significant degradation of municipal water supplies or significant loss of or damage to fisheries, shellfishing, or wildlife habitat or recreation areas. In evaluating the unacceptability of such impacts, consideration should be given to the relevant portions of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR part 230)* . Those portions of the Guidelines relating to less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives, significant degradation of waters of the United States, water quality impacts, and impact minimization are particularly important to evaluating the unacceptability of environmental impacts in this case. The Guidelines prohibit any discharge of dredged or fill material where:
(1)There is a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative to meet the project purpose;
(2)the proposed project would violate other environmental standards, including applicable water quality standards;
(3)the proposed project would cause or contribute to significant degradation of the Nation's waters; or
(4)the proposed project fails to adequately minimize and compensate for wetland and other aquatic resource losses (see 40 CFR 230.10(a)-(d)). B. Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Project EPA believes the proposed project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts to extensive areas of ecologically significant and important forested wetlands and their associated fisheries and wildlife resources. At a minimum, the construction and operation of the proposed pumps would degrade the critical functions and values of approximately 67,000 acres of nationally significant wetland resources in the Yazoo River Basin. Of this total, approximately 26,300 acres would be hydrologically modified (i.e., reduced flood duration) to the extent that they would no longer be defined as wetlands and would lose CWA regulatory protection. The natural timing, frequency, and duration of water reaching the remaining approximately 40,700 acres of wetlands would be impacted by the proposed pumping, altering the wetlands' ecological characteristics and reducing their functions. As a point of reference, the impacts estimated by the Corps for this single project are more extensive than the total impacts (on an annual average basis) associated with the 86,000 projects authorized by the Corps permit program nationwide each year. 13 We do not believe that impacts of this magnitude are consistent with the requirements of the CWA. Our concerns regarding this project are amplified because we believe the potential adverse impacts to wetlands and associated fish and wildlife resources may be much greater than the Corps has estimated. 13 Based on data from Fiscal Years 1999 to 2003. Source: Corps Regulatory Program, Headquarters, 2008. See: *http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/2003webcharts.pdf.* 1. Significant Degradation and Adverse Effects The annual hydrologic cycle of water moving into and out of the project area defines the ecological attributes of the project area's wetland and aquatic resources and fuels the fundamental processes essential to fish and wildlife productivity. This annual water cycle not only makes the project area's diverse habitats accessible to fish and wildlife but also provides the primary linkages that transfer energy and organisms between the project area wetlands and the rest of the lower Mississippi River ecosystem. The basic objective of the project is to limit the spatial extent, frequency, and length of time the Yazoo Backwater Area floods. The ecological effect of this project will be to dampen the natural variability in flood regime (the flood pulse) which currently contributes to the biodiversity of the project area's wetlands. Operation of the proposed pumps will dramatically alter the hydrologic cycle of this area, and would therefore eliminate or significantly degrade many of the critical ecological functions provided by wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area, including floodwater detention, nutrient cycling, organic carbon export, pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. The reduction or elimination of the floodwater detention function of wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area as a result of the proposed project could increase peak discharges and water currents in the Mississippi River, and exacerbate flooding problems downstream at a time when communities in the lower Mississippi River Valley are still struggling to recover from the effects of recent catastrophic flooding. By maintaining water levels of regular flood events at approximately 87.0 feet, NGVD, at the Steele Bayou gauge, water would not be allowed to collect for significant periods of time in the backwater wetlands. Instead, water that would otherwise remain in the wetlands would be drawn off by the pump and discharged to the Mississippi River. Reducing or eliminating the floodwater detention function of project area wetlands will also decrease the amount of water delivered to plants and allowed to infiltrate into the alluvial aquifer in the Yazoo Backwater Area. The effect of the project is to increase the overall volume of water moving downstream. Not allowing adequate time for floodwater infiltration in the Yazoo Backwater Area will also reduce the amount of water that returns to area streams as baseflow. This is particularly critical in the Yazoo Backwater Area as dewatering of the alluvial plain has already resulted in extremely low seasonal flows in area streams. For example, the Sunflower River flow rate often drops below the minimum low flow rate established by the USGS (i.e., the 7Q10 low flow rate). 14 14 MCWCS, 2005. Reducing the spatial extent, frequency, and duration of time project area wetlands flood will significantly reduce the amount of dissolved and particulate organic carbon available for wetland and aquatic food webs as well as biogeochemical processes in downstream aquatic habitats. The microbial and invertebrate communities, which are critical to the breakdown and recycling of organic matter in these wetlands, are adapted to the periodic pulsing of floodwaters which currently occurs. Without these periodic flood pulses, microbial and invertebrate communities will diminish, and this will affect the capacity of the wetland to maintain the base of the food chain. The cycling and export of dissolved and particulate carbon requires prolonged contact between soil organic matter, flood waters, and the invertebrate community and subsequent floodwater transport downstream—circumstances that would be dramatically altered by the proposed project. Reducing the spatial extent, frequency, and duration of time project area wetlands flood will reduce the capacity of area wetlands to remove water pollutants, thus exacerbating existing water quality problems in the Yazoo Backwater Area. Many water pollutants are imported to wetlands via flood water. Hydrologic alterations associated with the proposed project (i.e., prevention of floodwater from accessing wetlands) will reduce the level of sediment deposition as well as the levels of permanent removal and temporary immobilization of nutrients, metals, and other elements and compounds in project area wetlands. Loss or reduction of this important water quality enhancement function is of particular concern in light of existing water quality concerns in the Yazoo Backwater Area. The State reports that overall water quality is lower in this area than anywhere else in the State, as evidenced by a region-wide advisory regarding fish consumption, and numerous consumption bans in some area waters because of high pesticide levels. 15 15 MCWCS, 2005. Although the FSEIS concludes otherwise, we believe there is potential for conversion of those 26,300 acres that, as a result of the project, would no longer be defined as wetlands and would lose CWA regulatory protection. These conversions of wetlands to other uses could result in additional adverse environmental effects. For example, agricultural conversion could change a forested wetland habitat to an agriculture use, destroying or significantly degrading all wetland functions. Agricultural intensification could have water quality implications by promoting faster and increased surface water runoff from agricultural fields. Given that the Yazoo Backwater Area already contains CWA section 303(d)-listed impaired waterbodies, additional runoff impacts would likely exacerbate the elevated concentrations of the pollutants of concern, potentially causing or contributing to violations of applicable state water quality standards (40 CFR 230.10(b)). Reducing the spatial extent, frequency, and duration of time project area wetlands flood will dramatically alter the structure and species composition of the plant community in the Yazoo Backwater Area. Wetland plant communities will shift over time to communities composed of species adapted to drier environments. For example, large areas currently dominated by Nuttall oak and green ash or overcup oak and water hickory will eventually become drier and be replaced by less flood tolerant species such as sweetgum, which produces mast that has a lower biological value to wildlife. This shift will result in a commensurate reduction in the habitat for other wetland dependent plant species found in the Yazoo Backwater Area such as pondberry, which is listed as Federally *endangered* under the Endangered Species Act. As discussed below, this large shift in plant communities will also have adverse effects on area fish and wildlife which depend on these wetland plant species, and the hydrologic regimes they represent, to meet specific life history requirements. Reducing the spatial extent, frequency, and duration of time project area wetlands flood will significantly degrade their capacity to provide habitat for an extensive list of fish and wildlife species. Insect larvae, midges, oligocheates (worms), scuds (microcrustaceans), crayfish, worms, snails and spiders make up a critical component of the macroinvertebrate communities that thrive in the area's riverine backwater wetlands due to the presence of saturated soils, organic material and periphyton (a layer of microbial organisms which colonize detrital material). These invertebrates not only contribute to the breakdown of organic material (shredders and grazers) but they are also critical sources of prey for fish, waterfowl, rodents, bats, and birds. The draining and drying of area wetlands associated with the proposed project would significantly reduce the species diversity, as well as the richness and productivity of the area's macroinvertebrate community, thus adversely impacting an extensive list of vertebrate species which depend upon the wetlands' rich macroinvertebrate community for nourishment. Reducing the spatial extent, frequency, and duration of time project area wetlands flood will also adversely impact amphibian and reptile species in the Yazoo River Basin that depend upon wetlands for breeding and foraging habitat. The life cycles of amphibians and reptiles in alluvial floodplain ecosystems are linked to hydrology as well as soil conditions and climate. 16 Abiotic factors that influence habitat conditions within floodplains include hydrologic regime, flood pulse intensity and duration, topography, wetland permanence (hydroperiod), water quality, and connectivity to rivers or streams. For many amphibians, the hydrology associated with floodplain wetlands is necessary for breeding and egg laying. The proposed project would desiccate these floodplain habitats making it difficult for portions of the amphibian population to survive. The proposed project would also adversely affect reptile and amphibian species by modifying river-wetland connectivity, reducing flood pulses and wetland water recharge, and increasing habitat fragmentation. 16 Jones, J.C. and J.D. Taylor. 2005. Herptofauna communities in temperate river floodplain ecosystems of the southeastern United States. pages 235-257. *in* L.H. Frederickson, S.A. King, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of our Understanding. University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No.10, Puxico. The proposed project will reduce extensive areas of flooded wetlands which provide critical habitat for fish spawning, rearing, foraging, and cover. As the FWS noted in its review of the FSEIS, the backwater floodplain in the project area supports a diverse fishery, and relative fish abundance is highly dependent upon seasonal overbank or backwater flooding. It also noted that reproduction by 55 of the 140 (39 percent) resident fish species in the Mississippi River is dependent on backwater flooded areas. According to the FWS, the proposed action would reduce the areal extent of wetlands subject to flooding in the Yazoo Backwater Area that are critical to fishery reproduction by approximately 46 percent, or 112,600 acres, during the critical spawning and rearing months. Spring flooding is the major factor responsible for fishery productivity within the Yazoo River Basin. It provides access to protective spawning and nursery habitat outside the stream channels where larger predatory fish species live. These shallowly flooded areas remain inundated for a duration that allows water temperatures to rise quickly, providing suitable spawning habitat, and allowing for optimum larval fish growth. Once the larval fish hatch and their yolk sack is absorbed (7 to 10 days), these seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood areas provide protective shallow water areas with an abundance of cover for protection from predators, as well as the organic matter, nutrients, and invertebrates needed for larval and juvenile fish growth. Backwater riverine wetlands such as the ones that would be impacted by the proposed project are used by more bird species than most other ecosystems in North America. 17 Project area wetlands provide migratory bird habitat of hemispheric significance, particularly for waterfowl, shorebirds, over-water nesting waterbirds and wading birds, as well as numerous migratory songbirds. The loss of the productive shallowly flooded wetlands, especially in the spring months when the proposed pumps will be in operation, will impact migratory birds such as shorebirds and waterfowl as they stop over and forage in preparation for their seasonal migration. Fewer shallowly flooded wetlands will reduce foraging habitat, which will equate to reduced nutritional uptake and could result in higher mortality or reduced reproductive fitness as the birds travel the great distances between their wintering and breeding areas in the northern U.S., Canada, and the Arctic. Breeding for many species could be adversely affected during the spring-time nesting season because foraging areas would be reduced. As a result of the reduction in flooding, adult birds will have to travel longer distances to find food, which equates to longer times away from the nest and their chicks and may ultimately lead to higher nest mortality and lower recruitment. 17 Heitmeyer, M.E., R.J. Cooper, J.G. Dickson, and B.D. Leopold. 2005. Ecological relationships of warmblooded vertebrates in bottomland hardwood ecosystems. Pages 281-306. *in* L.H. Frederickson, S.A. King, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems: The State of our Understanding. University of Missouri—Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory Special Publication No.10, Puxico. The hydrologic regime of backwater riverine wetlands creates seasonal pulses of nutrient flow and food resources. The timing of these seasonal pulses of energy is important to many wetland dependent birds and mammals inhabiting the Yazoo Backwater Area. The consequences of even modest changes in the timing of events can adversely affect these species. For example, delayed or reduced flood hydrology caused by the proposed project in late fall or early winter could delay and decrease detrital invertebrate populations in late winter and spring, which would affect, among other factors and other species, the foraging resources for mallards, egg-laying of night herons and hooded mergansers, embryo development in raccoons and storage of nutrient reserves needed by hibernating black bears. 18 18 Heitmeyer et al., 2005. The proposed project would significantly degrade critical habitat for many of the 258 species of birds (e.g., little blue herons, yellow-crowned night herons, wood storks and prothonotary warblers), many species of waterfowl (e.g., wood ducks, mallards, blue and green-winged teal) 19 and over 90 species of fish (e.g., catfish, sunfish and crappies) 20 which have been documented as utilizing wetlands and other waterbodies in the Yazoo Backwater Area and Yazoo River. The proposed project would also degrade critical habitat for 33 *species of greatest conservation need* which depend on bottomland hardwood wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area, including the Louisiana black bear which is listed as Federally *threatened* under the Endangered Species Act and the American black bear, 23 *species of greatest conservation need* which depend on standing and running waterbodies in the Yazoo Backwater Area, and 17 *species of greatest conservation need* which depend on the Yazoo River and its major tributaries. 21 19 FWS list of bird species utilizing wildlife refuges in the Yazoo Backwater Area: *http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r4/yazoo.htm.* 20 Lee et al., 1980. 21 MCWCS, 2005. The proposed project would degrade critical ecological functions provided by wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area including floodwater detention, nutrient cycling, organic carbon export, pollutant filtering/removal, and maintenance of biologically diverse plant and animal habitat. We believe that impacts to these functions at the scale associated with this project will result in significant degradation (40 CFR 230.10(c)) of the Nation's waters, particularly in light of the extensive historic wetland losses in the lower Mississippi Valley and specifically the Yazoo Backwater Area. 2. Underestimation of Adverse Effects *a. Underestimation of the Spatial Extent of Adverse Effects.* EPA believes the spatial extent of wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project is much greater than that estimated in the FSEIS. EPA's analysis identified 81,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands located outside of the wetland impact assessment area established in the FSEIS. EPA believes a significant portion of these wetlands are connected to backwater flooding and will be adversely impacted by the project. However, the FSEIS did not evaluate impacts to these wetlands. In our November 2000, comment letter on the DSEIS, we recommended that the Corps expand its scope of wetland impact assessment to include jurisdictional wetlands in the 2-year floodplain (i.e., 91.0 foot, NGVD elevation). While the FSEIS implies that there are more jurisdictional wetlands in the 100-year floodplain than previously estimated in the DSEIS, the FSEIS concludes that only those wetlands flooded for 5 percent of the growing season and which occur at or below the 88.6 foot, NGVD elevation (i.e., the wetland impact assessment area established in the FSEIS using the Flood Event Assessment Tool (FEAT)/Flood Event Simulation Model (FESM)) will be affected by this project. The FSEIS also concludes that any wetlands occurring outside the FEAT/FESM modeled boundary are not connected to the backwater ecosystem and thus would not be impacted by the pumping project. We disagree and, as discussed further below, note that data included in the FSEIS supports our position that a significant amount of jurisdictional wetlands outside the FEAT/FESM modeled boundary is indeed connected to the backwater ecosystem, and thus will likely be adversely impacted by the proposed project. During the course of this project several attempts have been made to estimate the spatial extent of wetlands based upon remote sources of data (i.e., Geographic Information Systems (GIS), satellite images, hydrologic models). These remote based estimates of jurisdictional wetland extent ranged from approximately 60,000 to over 200,000 acres. Since these landscape level estimates were based on remote data with un-estimated error, EPA determined a field based, statistical survey would provide a more precise and scientifically defensible basis for establishing the extent and spatial distribution of wetlands in the study area. Therefore, in 2003, EPA in cooperation with the Corps, the FWS and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)implemented a field sampling survey designed by EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP survey designs and methods have been developed and tested within EPA's Office of Research and Development over the past decade with published results. Discussion of the methods and results of the EMAP survey were incorporated into Appendix 10 of the FSEIS. The spatial extent and distribution of wetlands in the Yazoo Backwater Area was determined with known confidence using EPA's EMAP survey design and analysis. Based on this design, the total wetland extent for the 100-year floodplain is approximately 212,000 acres. Most of the wetlands were found in the FEAT/FESM predicted area. However, EMAP also found approximately 81,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands occurring outside the wetland boundary predicted by the Corps' FEAT/FESM model. It is the potential impacts to these wetlands that EPA believes were not analyzed in the FSEIS. The stated effect of the Yazoo Backwater Area Project is the reduction of the areal extent and duration of floods greater than the 1-year flood (FSEIS, paragraph 31). Paragraphs 194-195 in the Main Report state that the timing, frequency and duration of flooding will be affected by the project. Therefore, areas typically covered/inundated by 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year flood events will be reduced with the proposed project (i.e., less area will be flooded). These areas contain a substantial acreage of wetlands. Data included in the FSEIS indicates that hydrologic connections exist amongst wetlands beyond those depicted by FEAT/FESM. Table 10-7, in the Wetlands Appendix of the FSEIS indicates that the March 10, 1989; March 21, 1987; and the January 9 and 13, 1983 satellite scenes show between 18,000 and 71,000 acres flooded in the area between 91.0 feet and 100 feet, NGVD (i.e., 2-100 year band). Hence, it is likely that the jurisdictional wetlands between the 2-year and 100-year flood elevations currently experience flooding. This conclusion is further supported by the statement that the FESM model overestimates flooding close to the channels utilized by the model, but does “less well” when flooded areas are away from the channels (FSEIS, paragraph 43). EPA interprets this to mean that areas away from the FESM channels could flood, but the model is unable to depict those flooded areas. FSEIS Tables 10-10 (Areal extent of wetlands by composite wetland cell value) and 10-11 (Wetland losses by duration interval and duration zone) in the Wetlands Appendix (Appendix 10) and Plate 10-25 indicate there are wetland areas beyond the FEAT boundary that flood and would be affected by the proposed pump by virtue of having decreased flood durations after the project. These items in Appendix 10 indicate impacts to be approximately 60,000 acres. The Wetland Appendix also indicates that approximately 41,000 acres outside the Corps' assessment area (i.e., “Tier 2” wetlands in Table 10-16) flood during the 2-year return period flood. Corps' hydrologic data also indicate that flooded wetlands exist in the 2-year floodplain and will be impacted through a change in flood duration as well as a change in flood frequency. In 2004, the Corps provided EPA with a copy of the Period of Record gage data for the years 1943 to 1997. These data contained daily gage records, presumably as outputs from the Period of Record Routing model, for the with- and with-out project scenarios at Steele Bayou and Little Sunflower gages. A frequency analysis of this data indicates the 2-year flood elevation (stage) is 91.0 feet, NGVD in the Lower Ponding area and 91.6 feet, NGVD in the Upper Ponding area (FSEIS, Appendix 6—Engineering Summary and Appendix 10). A stage duration analysis of these data indicates that, over the entire period of record, flooding sufficient for wetland hydrology occurs in areas between 89.0 feet and 92.0 feet, NGVD at Steele Bayou under base conditions. 22 As a result of the proposed project, durations would be decreased, on an average annual basis, by 4.5 percent or 15 days. Flood frequency would be changed, at this 2-year return interval elevation, approximately 45 percent. This corresponds to the Corps' calculated stage reductions of approximately 4.5 feet (92.9 feet, NGVD reduced to 88.5 feet, NGVD) at Steele Bayou. Corps' stage-frequency data indicates flooding will become much less frequent in the 2- and 5-year floodplains, increasing from a 2-year return interval to a 10-year return interval and a 5-year return interval to a 50-year return interval (FSEIS, Appendix 6, Table 6-14 and 6-15). This would result in significant impacts to, among other functions, the hydrologic functions of wetlands in the 2-year floodplain. However, by restricting the impact assessment area to only the FEAT/FESM modeled areas, the Corps is ignoring changes in flood duration and frequency that will result in major impacts to wetlands outside the FSEIS's assessment area. Existing information regarding the extensive hydrologic network in the Yazoo Backwater Area offers further support that wetlands outside the Corp's assessment area would be affected by the proposed project. The National Hydrography Dataset
(NHD)is a comprehensive set of digital spatial data that encodes information about naturally occurring and constructed bodies of water and paths through which water flows. The NHD is mapped at a 1:100,000 scale. When the NHD for the Yazoo River Basin is overlain with the wetland points surveyed in EMAP, the density of stream channels at this scale strongly indicates that backwater has a great many conduits and that many wetlands on the 2-year floodplain represented by EMAP data points are connected or adjacent to channels. This finding is consistent with the detailed characterization of the Yazoo Backwater Area's hydrology found in the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook, which states that during periods of backwater flooding the area's extensive drainage networks “function in reverse and deliver water to low areas far from the source stream.” For these reasons, EPA believes that a significant portion of the 81,000 acres of jurisdictional wetlands identified in the EMAP analysis that exist outside of the Corps' wetland assessment area are connected to backwater flooding and will likely be adversely affected by the project. These wetlands were not evaluated in the FSEIS's impact assessment. *b. Underestimation of the Degree and Nature of Adverse Effects.* In addition to significantly underestimating the spatial extent of wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project, wetland, fish, and wildlife functional assessments in the FSEIS also understate the degree and nature of adverse impacts to the wetlands that were evaluated. EPA encouraged the use of the HGM assessment method and the Habitat Evaluation Procedure
(HEP)as tools to help evaluate wetland functions, and we still support the use of those tools; however, we believe that certain factors used in the application of these assessment tools are flawed, leading to a significant underestimation of the proposed pumping station's adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. Our primary concerns include: • The summation of assessment units (i.e., Functional Capacity Units and Habitat Units) in the FSEIS obscures significant wetland, fish, and wildlife impacts. For example, the HGM assessment evaluated eight functions performed by affected wetlands and estimated how these functions would decrease at wetlands adversely impacted by the proposed pumping and increase at reforestation/mitigation sites. These functions are: *detain floodwater, detain precipitation, cycle nutrients, export organic carbon, physical removal of elements and compounds, biological removal of elements and compounds, maintain plant communities, and provide wildlife habitat.* In drawing its conclusion that the proposed project would result in an overall 19.5 percent increase in wetland functions, not only does the FSEIS factor in unsubstantiated and improbable benefits associated with the proposed restoration as discussed below, it also adds the losses and gains for each of the eight functions. This kind of comparison is of concern because it allows large predicted gains in functions such as maintaining plant communities to obscure losses in other critical water quality related functions. • Impacts to key functions are omitted. In the HGM assessment, no effect is shown in the *detain floodwater* function as a result of this project despite the fact that this is one of the functions which the proposed pumping project is designed to most dramatically impact. In its discussion of the *detain floodwater* function, the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook clearly states the importance of duration of flooding on the performance of this function. However, despite this recognition, the duration information which was incorporated into several other functions in the FSEIS's HGM assessment (which did indicate project related impacts) was not incorporated into the *detain floodwater* function. • The flood frequency variable shows no change in HGM assessment. Despite information in the FSEIS Engineering Appendix (Table 10-6) which indicates that the proposed project will result in less frequent flooding in areas above the 1-year floodplain, the frequency of flooding variable in the HGM assessment models reflects no change, for any function. This seems incongruous, since the entire stated objective of the project is to modify the timing, frequency and duration of flooding (FSEIS, paragraph 194). • Despite the pumping project, the HGM assessment assumes that vegetative species composition remains approximately static over time. Over the course of the 50-year project and beyond, the vegetation structure of the Yazoo Backwater Area would change as significant areas at higher elevations shift to drier species composition. The FSEIS's HGM assessment assumes that vegetative species composition remains static through time or that the species shift would still be within the range of reference standards. However, if the hydrologic regime of the area is significantly changed, as proposed, there would be much larger changes in the plant and animal community than was accounted for in the FSEIS's HGM assessment. • The HEP and HGM assessments assume that land use will not change over the 50-year life of the project. For example, the assessment assumes that mature wetland forest that is hydrologically modified to the extent that it is no longer defined as a wetland would stay mature forest despite no longer being provided CWA regulatory protection. We believe this assumption is not supported by a more careful evaluation of land-use trends. For example, given the rise in prices for agricultural products in the Mississippi Delta, and the strong increase in domestic production of corn nationwide, agricultural intensification is a serious possibility. • The HEP assessment underestimates the amount of aquatic spawning habitat adversely affected. According to the HEP model used, fish spawning habitat requires 8 days of continuous inundation at least 1 foot in depth, from March to May. Based on these requirements and hydrologic data provided by the Corps, 3300 acres of habitat would be lost as a result of the project. However, this amount of lost habitat is inconsistent with values reported in the Wetland Appendix (Table 10-10). The Wetland Appendix indicates that approximately 39,000 acres which currently flood for 14 days or less (but greater than 7 days) would, as a result of the proposed project, only flood for less than 7 days (i.e., shift to the <2.5 percent duration band). EPA's interpretation of Table 10-10 is that there is currently at least 39,000 acres of potentially suitable fish spawning habitat that will become unsuitable after project implementation. These impacts appear far greater than the 3300 acres of lost spawning habitat discussed in the FSEIS's Aquatics Appendix and would require far more compensation than what is proposed in the FSEIS. • Inappropriate selection of fish species for the HEP assessment results in an underestimation of the proposed project's adverse effects on fisheries. The nine fish species selected for the FSEIS's HEP assessment do not represent fish species whose life cycles would be affected by the proposed project's hydrological modifications within riverine backwater wetlands. All nine of the fish species evaluated in the HEP are commonly found in larger open water systems and do not require floodplain habitats for their spawning or rearing. Thus, the HEP assessment underestimates how the proposed project would impact the large number of fish species which do require floodplain connections and periodic flooding events for key aspects of their life cycles such as spawning and rearing. • HEP does not evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on amphibians and reptiles. The FSEIS's HEP assessments exclude entirely any assessment of the proposed project's adverse impacts on amphibians and reptiles. Species in both of these classes of animals depend upon wetland habitat to meet numerous life history requirements and would experience extensive adverse effects from the proposed project. The FSEIS's exclusion from analysis of wetlands above the 2-year, 5 percent flood duration elevation, and in particular wetlands above the 2-year, 5 percent duration flood elevation and within the 5-year flood elevation, does not acknowledge the influence and importance of shorter duration and less frequent flooding on establishing and maintaining the diversity of wetlands and the functions they provide. Nor does it recognize the impacts of the reduction in flooding resulting from the project on the maintenance of that diversity of wetlands and the biodiversity they support. The importance of wetland functions within and above the 2-year, 5 percent flood elevation is noted in the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook which states “one of the primary criteria used to identify wetland subclasses in the Yazoo Basin is flood return interval. A 5-year or less flood return interval is regarded as sufficient to support major functions that involve periodic connection to stream systems.” Shorter duration and less frequent flooding will significantly and adversely affect the vegetation and aquatic animal communities within these wetlands, nutrient and sediment cycling, and other functions that establish and maintain the diversity of habitats critical for fish and wildlife dependent upon them, including waterfowl, shorebird, and wading bird foraging habitats, fish spawning and rearing habitats, and amphibian, reptile, and mammal habitats. Reducing the spatial extent, frequency, and duration of time project area wetlands flood will result in the reduction and loss of important wetland functions, according to the criteria outlined in the Yazoo Basin HGM Guidebook. These reductions and losses in wetland functions were not adequately factored into the FSEIS's HGM and HEP assessments. 3. Overestimation of Environmental Benefits Both the HGM and HEP analyses assume extensive yet unsubstantiated and improbable environmental benefits from the project's proposed reforestation. These analyses assume that the entire proposed 55,600 acres of reforestation and mitigation will be obtained and that every acre will be ideally situated in the target area (i.e., areas currently in agricultural production within the two-year floodplain that will flood for a sufficient period to yield equivalent wetland functions) to produce maximum environmental benefits for all affected resources. However, EPA's EMAP assessment and the Corps' land use assessment (FSEIS, Table 10-9) indicate that there are not enough acres of cleared wetlands with the proper hydrology and soils in the target area to satisfy this goal. Aside from the project's compensatory mitigation (discussed below), there are no commitments to initiate any of the reforestation prior to initiating operation of the pumps. Further, no reforestation (or mitigation) sites have been identified or secured and the FSEIS indicates that these sites may not be located in the target area or even the greater Yazoo—Mississippi Delta (Main Report, paragraph 316). If sites are found, the reliance on willing sellers would likely result in a noncontiguous patchwork of fragmented sites that cannot deliver the kinds of ecological benefits predicted by the HGM and HEP assessments. Based on our review of available information, EPA believes the proposed project would result in extensive adverse impacts to wetland functions and fish and wildlife resources; impacts which would be inconsistent with the CWA. As discussed below, we do not believe the proposed compensatory mitigation would reduce these adverse impacts to an acceptable level. C. Mitigation To offset the project's extensive adverse environmental impacts, the Corps proposes 10,662 acres of compensatory mitigation. Compensation would consist of reforestation and conservation of areas located in previously cleared wetlands to restore those areas to bottomland hardwood forests. However, compensation sites have not been specifically identified for the proposed mitigation. Rather, the FSEIS states that conservation easements will be purchased only from “willing sellers” to conduct the proposed compensatory mitigation. EPA has significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed compensatory mitigation. Based on our preliminary review of the HGM and HEP analyses, we believe that compensation requirements for impacts of this type and on this scale would be much greater than that estimated in the FSEIS. In addition, there do not appear to be enough acres of cleared wetlands with the proper hydrology and soils in the target area to satisfy more accurate projections of the mitigation needs of the proposed project. Even if sufficient compensation acreage were available, we do not believe that impacts of this scale and concentration could be effectively compensated for to avoid causing or contributing to significant degradation (40 CFR 230.10(c)), given that reliance on willing sellers would likely result in a noncontiguous patchwork of fragmented compensation sites that cannot deliver the ecological benefits predicted by the FSEIS. We also believe that the project fails to include all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize and compensate for the project's adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem as required by 40 CFR 230.10(d). The section 404(b)(1) guidelines prohibit discharges that would cause or contribute to significant degradation. As previously discussed, we believe this project would cause or contribute to significant degradation. If the project is going to rely on compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts to an acceptable level, there must be a very robust and detailed mitigation plan which would inform whether in fact the impacts could reliably be reduced to avoid significantly degrading the Nation's waters. These plans should include a number of critical details regarding the mitigation project(s) including: clearly articulated project goals and objectives; project site selection criteria; site protection instruments (e.g., conservation easements); detailed quantitative and qualitative baseline information describing both the impact and compensation sites; a detailed discussion of the mitigation project's credit determination methodology and results; a maintenance plan; ecological performance standards used to evaluate the degree to which the compensation projects are replacing lost functions and area; detailed monitoring requirements; a long-term management plan describing necessary long-term stewardship of the compensation sites and who is responsible for performing this stewardship; an adaptive management plan; and financial assurances to ensure project construction, implementation, and long-term management. Another critical element of these plans is the site specific mitigation work plans. These plans include detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory mitigation project, including, but not limited to: geographic boundaries of the project; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures. Despite the extensive anticipated environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, no specific compensation project sites have been identified or secured. Thus, the mitigation plan included in the FSEIS lacks most of the aforementioned details. In particular, it lacks accurate information regarding baseline conditions at compensation sites, as well as substantiated information regarding potential environmental benefits likely to accrue at these sites if reforestation activities are successfully implemented. Without these details it is not possible to determine that the potential adverse environmental impacts of a project would be successfully minimized and compensated for to avoid significantly degrading the Nation's waters. What information is included in the FSEIS describing compensatory mitigation raises more concerns. The Corps only promises that 10,662 acres of compensatory mitigation will take place prior to initiating operation of the pumps and notes that this minimum may not be located in the target area or even the greater Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, raising significant concerns that important wetland functions will not be replaced in the watershed. The FSEIS indicates that no requirements will be included to implement hydrological modifications or to otherwise ensure that the compensation projects will result in fully functioning wetland systems. This is of particular concern since the Corps envisions mitigation projects being located in areas whose hydrology will be impacted by the proposed pumping station. The conservation easements used to provide long-term site protection described in the FSEIS (if such sites can be found) will not require landowners to ensure that sites are or will retain wetland characteristics and will allow potentially ecologically disruptive silvicultural practices in these areas. Additionally, the monitoring provisions described in the FSEIS entail only initial visual inspections in the early years of project implementation followed by remote sensing techniques in later years. These are inadequate and are one of many weaknesses in the mitigation plan that make it impossible to conclude that impacts will be reduced permanently below the threshold of significant degradation. D. Uncertainty of the Proposed Reforestation Consistent with our comments regarding the proposed compensatory mitigation, EPA believes the Corps does not provide effective assurances regarding the project's primary nonstructural component—the proposed reforestation of up to 40,571 acres of cleared wetlands (i.e., up to 55,600 acres less the 10,662 acres the Corps proposes to use as compensation for this project and the 4,367 acres it proposes to use as compensation for impacts associated with already implemented aspects of related projects) through the purchase of conservation easements from willing sellers. Reforestation sites have not been specifically identified in the FSEIS and, as with the compensatory mitigation, there do not appear to be enough acres of cleared wetlands with the appropriate hydrology and soils in the target area to meet this goal. Even if there were enough potential wetland reforestation acres, reliance on willing sellers does not provide effective assurance that the acreage proposed (up to 40,571 acres) will ultimately be made available for the reforestation effort. The reforestation component also suffers from the same technical problems associated with the compensatory mitigation plan in that it would likely result in a fragmented patchwork of reforestation sites with limited benefits. In addition to logistical and technical issues, the management of the reforestation lands (e.g., ensuring the implementation and success of planting efforts, providing long-term stewardship), the restoration of wetland hydrology, the replacement of temporal losses incurred before replanted trees become fully functional bottomland hardwood forested wetlands (hardwoods typically require a minimum of 60-70 years before they are mature), and the continuation of silvicultural practices in the reforestation areas are also major uncertainties. In light of these uncertainties, the environmental benefits suggested by the FSEIS to accrue from the proposed reforestation have not been substantiated. E. Project Alternatives EPA believes, based on the record to date, that the Corps has not sufficiently considered potential alternatives that would avoid and minimize the proposed project's significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(a). Specifically, we believe that an alternative may be available that would provide a less environmentally damaging and more sustainable approach to floodplain management in the Yazoo Backwater Area. Such an alternative might incorporate, among other actions: reforestation of farmlands in the floodplain, relocation or flood proofing of flood-prone structures, conservation easements, localized flood protection structures including pumps, and expansion of insurance programs to compensate for economic losses from flooding. While EPA believes that the nature and extent of the environmental impacts associated with the structural proposal are significant, further evaluation of nonstructural actions could produce a cost-effective solution with significantly fewer adverse environmental impacts than the proposed project, consistent with the Guidelines. We acknowledge that such a solution would likely require participation by multiple federal and state agencies, private industry, and non-governmental organizations, and may necessitate additional Congressional authorization. However, a primarily nonstructural approach could ultimately provide a better balance of Federal objectives for addressing the needs of the Yazoo Backwater Area community for flood reduction and wetlands protection. F. Recreation As previously noted, a 404(c) determination can be based on unacceptable adverse effects on recreational areas. Significant, seasonally-inundated public lands are located in the Yazoo Backwater Area including:
(a)The Delta National Forest (61,800 acres);
(b)the Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Complex (including the Yazoo (13,000 acres), Holt Collier (1,400 acres), Theodore Roosevelt (4,000 acres), and part of Panther Swamp (14,000 acres) refuges);
(c)Twin Oaks Mitigation Area (5,675 acres);
(d)Mahanna Mitigation Area (12,675 acres); and
(e)Lake George Wildlife Management Area (8,383 acres). The FSEIS acknowledges these lands as significant resources (FSEIS, page 90) however it does not evaluate how these resources and particularly their recreational values will be affected by the proposed project. In its January 18, 2008, detailed comments on the FSEIS, the FWS indicated that the proposed project will have unacceptable adverse effects on recreational areas in the Yazoo Backwater Area, including four National Wildlife Refuges mentioned above and other publicly-owned land in the project area. EPA is soliciting information about these and other recreational areas in the Yazoo Backwater Area, the use of these areas and how these areas would be impacted if the proposed pumping station is built. V. Proposed Determination The Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that the discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands and other waters in Issaquena County, Mississippi be prohibited for the purpose of constructing the Yazoo Backwater Area Project's pumping station or any other pumping proposal in the Yazoo Backwater Area that would involve significant adverse impacts on waters of the United States. Based on current information, the Regional Administrator has reason to believe the Yazoo Backwater Area Project could result in unacceptable adverse impacts. Moreover, these impacts may be partly or entirely avoidable. This proposed determination is based on unacceptable adverse impacts to wildlife and fisheries pursuant to section 404(c). EPA has reason to believe the project would cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States and violate the section 404(b)(1) guidelines. At a minimum, the construction and operation of the proposed pumps would degrade the critical functions and values of approximately 67,000 acres of nationally significant wetland resources in the Yazoo River Basin. Of this total, approximately 26,300 acres would be hydrologically modified to the extent that they would no longer be defined as wetlands and would lose CWA regulatory protection. The natural timing, frequency, and duration of water reaching the remaining approximately 40,700 acres of wetlands would be impacted by the proposed pumping, altering the wetlands' ecological characteristics and reducing their functions. EPA does not believe that impacts of this magnitude are consistent with the requirements of the CWA. Our concerns regarding this project are amplified because we believe the potential adverse impacts on wetlands (particularly those wetlands located within the 2-year floodplain) and associated fish and wildlife resources may be much greater than is estimated in the FSEIS. These impacts must also be viewed in the context of the significant cumulative losses across the LMRAV, which has already lost over 80 percent of its bottomland forested wetlands, and specifically in the Mississippi Delta where the proposed project would significantly degrade important remnant bottomland forested wetlands. EPA does not believe the potential impacts of the project, as currently proposed, can be adequately mitigated to reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Additionally, we do not believe that the environmental benefits suggested by the FSEIS to accrue from the project's nonstructural component (e.g., the reforestation of up to 40,571 acres) have been substantiated. EPA supports the goal of providing improved flood protection for the residents of the Mississippi Delta; however, we believe that accomplishment of this vital objective can be fully consistent with ensuring effective protection for the area's valuable natural resources. In light of existing information, EPA believes that there are likely to be less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives to building the proposed pumping station. VI. Other Considerations Like the Corps, EPA has met with local community residents and listened to their hope and belief that the Yazoo Backwater Area Project will protect their homes against major floods, like the one in 1973. The community residents we met expressed a strong belief that by making the area less prone to flooding, the project will bring economic development, jobs, and a return of residents to the area. EPA recognizes the importance of improved flood protection for the people living and working in the project area, which includes low-income and minority populations, and we appreciate that the Corps responded to DSEIS follow-up discussions on environmental justice
(EJ)by preparing an EJ analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12898. The Corps' EJ analysis generally discusses the potential flood protection and economic development that could accrue from the project within communities with potential EJ concerns. However, it has not demonstrated specifically which surrounding communities will be protected and which will remain subject to flooding after the project is completed, and whether they will be protected against 1-year, 2-year, or 100-year floods. The FSEIS does not provide flood risk maps that show the location of residences and habitable structures within the potentially affected communities. Furthermore, EPA does not believe the Corps has fully analyzed the impact of this project on potential economic development in the EJ community. Under Executive Order 12898, the Corps should have also considered the project's potential effects on subsistence fishers and hunters who could be disproportionately impacted by the operation of the pumps. The FSEIS does not address whether the project would adversely impact populations that depend on subsistence fishing or hunting. We are soliciting information about these and other potential impacts on local communities if the proposed pumping station is built. Although EPA's proposed section 404(c) determination would prohibit the construction of the pumps as proposed, as mentioned previously, EPA continues to believe there are alternatives that could provide flood protection and other benefits to all communities within the Yazoo Backwater Area. We support working with the residents of the Delta and our federal partners to propose and evaluate alternatives that are responsive to local conditions, needs, and preferences. VII. Solicitation of Comments EPA is today soliciting comments on all issues discussed in this notice. In particular, we request information on the likely adverse impacts to fish and wildlife values of all of the wetlands, streams, and other waters in all areas which would be affected by the construction and operation of the pumping station proposed in the Yazoo Backwater Area Project. We also seek information pertaining to flora, fauna, and hydrology of the Yazoo Backwater Area. All relevant data, studies, knowledge of studies, or informal observations are appropriate. Information on species or communities of regional or statewide importance would be especially useful. While the anticipated unacceptable adverse effects on fisheries and wildlife serves as EPA's main basis for this proposed 404(c) determination, EPA has additional concerns with the proposed project, including water quality impacts, alternatives, mitigation, and impacts on recreation. Therefore, EPA also solicits comments on the following aspects of the project and corrective actions that could be taken to reduce the adverse impact of the discharge:
(1)The potential for additional violations of State Water Quality Standards to occur in the Yazoo River Basin if the pumping station is built;
(2)Additional information about low-income and minority populations in the Yazoo Backwater Area and, in the context of Executive Order 12898, the disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects, if any, on these populations if EPA makes a final determination to prohibit or restrict the use of certain waters in the Yazoo River Basin as disposal sites for dredged or fill material in connection with the project;
(3)Additional information about fisheries in the Yazoo River Basin and the impacts to fisheries if the pumping station is built and operated;
(4)Additional information on the wildlife species which would be affected by changes in the aquatic ecosystem if the pumping station is built and operated;
(5)Additional information on municipal and other water supplies in the Yazoo River Basin and how the quantity and quality of those water supplies could be affected by the operation of the proposed pumping station;
(6)The potential for impacts to wetlands and their associated functions in the Yazoo River Basin if the pumping station is built and operated;
(7)Information about recreational uses of the area and how they would be impacted if the pumping station is built and operated;
(8)Additional information on the availability of less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives to satisfy flooding issues, taking into account cost, technology, and logistics and including other nonstructural alternatives;
(9)Information on the potential for mitigation to replace the functions and services provided by the 67,000 acres of wetlands that are, at a minimum, at risk in the Yazoo Backwater Area;
(10)Whether the discharge should be permanently prohibited, allowed as proposed by the Corps, or restricted in time, size or other manner; and
(11)Potential impacts and benefits of alternatives, both structural and nonstructural. The record will remain open for comments until May 5, 2008. All comments will be fully considered in reaching a decision to either withdraw the proposed determination or forward to EPA Headquarters a recommended determination to prohibit or restrict the discharge of dredged or fill material in wetlands and other waters in the Yazoo Backwater Area in connection with the construction of the Yazoo Backwater Area Project's pumping station or any other pumping proposal in the Yazoo Backwater Area that would involve significant adverse impacts on waters of the United States. Lawrence E. Starfield, Regional Decision Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5401 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 010982-042. *Title:* Florida-Bahamas Shipowners and Operators Association. *Parties:* Atlantic Caribbean Line, Inc.; Crowley Liner Services, Inc.; Nina (Bermuda) Ltd.; Pioneer Shipping Ltd.; Seaboard Marine, Ltd.; Seafreight Line, Ltd.; and Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., Ltd. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rhode, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would add Bermuth Lines, Ltd. as a party to the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 011953-003. *Title:* Florida Shipowners Group Agreement. *Parties:* The member lines of the Caribbean Shipowners Association and the Florida-Bahamas Shipowners and Operators Association. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rhode, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would add Bermuth Lines, Ltd. as a party to the agreement. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Dated: March 14, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5550 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder-Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants: Overseas Container Forwarding, Inc., 6804 Perry Ave., SE., Auburn, WA 98092. Officers: Ben M. Bain, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Peter W. Hilton, President. HADDAD, 1 Deavon Court, Monroe Township, NJ 08831, Nabeel A. Elhaddad, Sole Proprietor. Coreana Express (Sea-Tac) Inc., 930 South 336th Street, Federal Way, WA 98003. Officers: Sung-Hyun Yun, Manager (Qualifying Individual). Kang-Ho Lee, President. World International Logistics, Inc., 139 NW 45th Ave., Opa Locka, FL 33054. Officers: Bassam Mourad, President (Qualifying Individual). Maurice Mrad, Vice President. Prisa International, Inc., 516 SW 147 Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33027. Officers: Prinz Echevers, President (Qualifying Individual), Isabel C. Sierra, Vice President. FERM Holdings, Inc., 6510 NW 84 Avenue, Miami, FL 33166. Officers: Norman R. Jackson, President (Qualifying Individual). Fran D. Jackson, Vice President. Topp Cargo & Logistics, LLC, 2209 NW 79th Avenue, Doral, FL 33126. Officers: Carlos F. Aidunate, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Robert D. Rubin, President. Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants: Taino Express Cargo, Inc., 4406 NW 74th Avenue, Miami, FL 33168. Officers: Jose L. Montero (Qualifying Individual), Ivan Montero, President. J & V International Shipping Corp., 806 Arcadia Ave., Arcadia, CA 91007. Officer: Vivian W. Liu, President (Qualifying Individual). Dated: March 14, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5547 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 11, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York** (Anne MacEwen, Bank Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001: *1. The Westchester Bank Holding Corporation* ; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of The Westchester Bank, both of Yonkers, New York. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (David Tatum, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. ATB Holdings, LLC, and ATB Management, LLC* , both of Birmingham, Alabama; to acquire up to 51 percent of the voting shares of Guardian Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Alabama Trust Bank, N.A., both of Sylacauga, Alabama. **C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas** (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272: *1. Texas American Acquisition Group, Inc.* , Fort Worth, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Liberty Bank, North Richland Hills, Texas. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 13, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E8-5475 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration on Aging Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension of Certification on Maintenance of Effort for the Title III and Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Expenditures AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging
(AoA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements relating to the Certification on Maintenance of Effort for the Title III and Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Expenditures for all AoA Title III and Title VII Grantees. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: *Steve.Daniels@aoa.hhs.gov.* Submit written comments on the collection of information to Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Daniels, Director, Office of Grants Management, Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency request or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, AoA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, AoA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AoA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of AoA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. The Certification on Maintenance of Effort for the Title III and Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Expenditures provides statutorily required information regarding state's contribution to programs funded under the Older Americans Act and conformance with legislative requirements, pertinent Federal regulations and other applicable instructions and guidelines issued by Administration on Aging (AoA). This information will be used for Federal oversight of Title III Programs and Title VII Ombudsman Program. AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 56 State Agencies on Aging respond annually which should be an average burden of one half ( 1/2 ) hour per State agency per year or a total of twenty-eight hours for all state agencies annually. Dated: March 14, 2008. John Wren, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Center for Policy and Management, Assistant Secretary for Aging. [FR Doc. E8-5514 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BSC, NIOSH) 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 committee meeting: *Time and Date:* 9 a.m.-2:45 p.m., April 23, 2008. *Place:* Marriott Crystal City, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Via Teleconference—For toll-free access, please dial 888-791-1856. Participant Pass Code 49328. *Status:* Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people. *Purpose:* The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and by delegation the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under sections 301 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act to conduct directly or by grants or contracts, research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health and to mine health. The Board of Scientific Counselors shall provide guidance to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on research and prevention programs. Specifically, the Board shall provide guidance on the Institute's research activities related to developing and evaluating hypotheses, systematically documenting findings and disseminating results. The Board shall evaluate the degree to which the activities of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:
(1)Conform to appropriate scientific standards,
(2)address current, relevant needs, and
(3)produce intended results. *Matters to be Discussed:* Agenda items include a report from the Director of NIOSH; NIOSH Implementation of the National Academies of Science Program Recommendations; Occupational Safety and Health Training Recommendations; Update on Enhancing the Utility of NIOSH Information Products; Presentation on NIOSH Work-Related Stress Research and Future Meetings and Closing Remarks. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. *Contact Person for More Information:* Roger Rosa, Executive Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 395 E Street, SW., Suite 9200, Patriots Plaza Building, Washington, DC 20201, telephone
(202)245-0655, fax
(202)245-0664. 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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: March 13, 2008. Elaine Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [FR Doc. E8-5498 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control/ Initial Review Group, (NCIPC/IRG) 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 of the aforementioned review group: *Times and Date:* 1 p.m.-1:30 p.m., April 15, 2008 (Open). 1:30 p.m.-5 p.m., April 15, 2008 (closed). *Place:* Teleconference. *Status:* Portions of the meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5, U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463. *Purpose:* This group is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Director, CDC, concerning the scientific and technical merit of grant and cooperative agreement applications received from academic institutions and other public and private profit and nonprofit organizations, including State and local government agencies, to conduct specific injury research that focuses on prevention and control. *Matters to be Discussed:* The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of cooperative agreement applications submitted in response to Fiscal Year 2008 Requests for Applications related to the following individual research announcement: CE08-006, Feasibility of Acute Concussion Management in the Emergency Department. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. *Contact Person for More Information:* J. Felix Rogers, PhD, M.P.H., NCIPC/Extramural Research Program Office, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., M/S F62, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, Telephone
(770)488-4334. 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: March 11, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-5491 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 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 of the aforementioned committee: *Board Meeting Times and Dates:* 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., April 7, 2008. 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., April 8, 2008. 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m., April 9, 2008. *Public Comment Times and Dates:* 5 p.m.-6 p.m., April 7, 2008. 7:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., April 8, 2008. *Place:* Crowne Plaza Tampa East, 10221 Princess Palm Avenue, Tampa, FL 33610, Telephone
(813)623-6363, Fax
(813)246-7113. *Status:* Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting space accommodates approximately 75 to 100 people. *Background:* The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines which have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)as a final rule, advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program, and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2009. *Purpose:* This Advisory Board is charged with
(a)providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179;
(b)providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and
(c)upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. *Matters to be Discussed:* The topics for the Subcommittee meeting will include a Review of Individual Dose Reconstructions and future Subcommittee Plans and Actions. The agenda for the Advisory Board meeting includes: NIOSH Program Status Report Update; Special Exposure Class
(SEC)Petition Evaluation Reports for: Texas City Chemicals, Inc., SAM Laboratories, Kellex/Pierpont, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Horizons, Inc., and NUMEC Parks; Quality assurance and quality control processes by NIOSH; Ethics training for Board members; Procedures Work Group: summary report and full presentation on new matrix format; SEC Petition Status Updates: Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore, Chapman Valve, Hanford, Blockson, Bethlehem Steel; Department of Labor
(DOL)Update; Department of Energy
(DOE)Update; Work Group reports; Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Report; Board Future Plans and Schedules. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted according the policy provided below. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting. Policy on Redaction of Board Meeting Transcripts (Public Comment),
(1)If a person making a comment gives his or her name, no attempt will be made to redact that name.
(2)NIOSH will take reasonable steps to ensure that individuals making public comment are aware of the fact that their comments (including their name, if provided) will appear in a transcript of the meeting posted on a public Web site. Such reasonable steps include:
(a)A statement read at the start of each public comment period stating that transcripts will be posted and names of speakers will not be redacted;
(b)A printed copy of the statement mentioned in
(a)above will be displayed on the table where individuals sign up to make public comment;
(c)A statement such as outlined in
(a)above will also appear with the agenda for a Board Meeting when it is posted on the NIOSH Web site;
(d)A statement such as in
(a)above will appear in the **Federal Register** Notice that announces Board and Subcommittee meetings.
(3)If an individual in making a statement reveals personal information (e.g., medical information) about themselves that information will not usually be redacted. The NIOSH FOIA coordinator will, however, review such revelations in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act and if deemed appropriate, will redact such information.
(4)All disclosures of information concerning third parties will be redacted.
(5)If it comes to the attention of the DFO that an individual wishes to share information with the Board but objects to doing so in a public forum, the DFO will work with that individual, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to find a way that the Board can hear such comments. *Contact Person for More Information:* Christine Branche, PhD, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 395 E Street, SW., Suite 9200, Washington, DC 20201, Telephone
(513)533-6800, Toll Free 1-(800) 35-NIOSH, E-mail *ocas@cdc.gov* . 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: March 12, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-5496 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; Practice-Based Research Networks. *Date:* April 21, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Laurie Friedman Donze, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1030, *donzel@mail.nih.gov.* Dated: March 12, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5467 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Commission on Digestive Diseases. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. *Name of Committee:* National Commission on Digestive Diseases. *Date:* May 16, 2008. *Time:* 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. *Agenda:* Update on burden of disease report; overview of Commission and key elements of final report and general discussion. Pre-registration is required; instructions will be available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/AboutNIDDKlCommitteesAndWorkingGroups/NCDD/default.htm.* *Place:* Westin San Diego, 400 West Broadway, Topaz Room, San Diego, CA 92101. *Contact Person:* Stephen P. James, MD, Director, Division of Digestive Diseases & Nutrition, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 677, Bethesda, MD 20892-5450, 301-594-7680, *natlcommdd@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 12, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5463 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 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 contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Contract RFP NHLBI-DE-08-16. *Date:* April 22, 2008. *Time:* 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NIDCR, 45 Center Drive, 4AN-24E, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4859, *horsforj@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 12, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5464 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel Review R 13. *Date:* April 25, 2008. *Time:* 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Sooyoun (Sonia) Kim, MS, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCR/NIH, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 675, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878,
(301)594-4827, *kims@email.nidr.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 12, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5465 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting 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 meeting. The meeting 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 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 contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; A Systems Biology Approach to Infectious Diseases Research. *Date:* April 9-11, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate contract proposals. *Place:* Crowne Plaza, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. *Contact Person:* Eleazar Cohen, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Room 3129, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3564, *ec17w@nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 12, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5466 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; 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 the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Orthopaedic Clinical Trial. *Date:* April 1, 2008. *Time:* 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Michael L. Bloom, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review Administrator, EP Review Branch, NIH/NIAMS, One Democracy Plaza, Room 820, MSC 4872, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-4872, 301-594-4953, *MichaeL_Bloom@nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Bone Disease Clinical Trial. *Date:* April 10, 2008. *Time:* 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Michael L. Bloom, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review Administrator, EP Review Branch, NIH/NIAMS, One Democracy Plaza, Room 820, MSC 4872, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-4872, 301-594-4953, *MichaeL_Bloom@nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment Program. *Date:* April 30, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Charles H. Washabaugh, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, NIAMS/NIH, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 816, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4838, *washabac@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: March 12, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-5468 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on
(240)276-1243. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Proposed Project: National Suicide Prevention Lifeline—Call Log—NEW The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services funds a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Network, a system of toll-free telephone numbers that routes calls from anywhere in the United States to a network of more than 125 certified crisis centers that can link callers to local emergency, mental health, and social service resources. The technology permits calls to be directed immediately to a suicide prevention worker who is geographically closest to the caller. Through its grantee which is administering the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Network, SAMHSA developed a Call Log in an effort to monitor basic trends in calls received. The completed Call Logs will inform the Network's planning around enhancing services provided by networked crisis centers and training provided to crisis counselors; increasing Lifeline's accessibility to people at risk for suicidal behavior; and optimizing public health efforts to prevent suicide and suicidal behavior. All 125 networked crisis centers will be invited to complete the Call Logs. Crisis centers that are already collecting all or most of the information on the Call Log will have the option of extracting compatible data from their own software systems and reporting on a monthly basis. All other crisis centers will have the option of completing the Call Log in either a Web-based or hardcopy format. Trained crisis counselors will be able to complete the majority of Log items during the course of the call, without asking the caller specific questions. They may also choose to fill out the form at the conclusion of individual calls. Completing the form entails asking callers a few basic questions (e.g., age; race; ethnicity; whether they ever served in the U.S. military; how they heard about the Lifeline service). No identifiable information will be collected. The estimated annual response burden 1 to collect this information is as follows: Type of respondent Number of respondents Responses per respondent Total responses Hours per response Total hour burden per respondent Total hour burden, all respondents IT Worker (extract, reformat, upload; ACCs) 2 100 12 1,200 .5 6 600 Caller (question response; NCCs) 3 26,640 1 26,640 .05 .05 1,332 Volunteer Crisis Counselor (form completion; NCCs) 4 375 5 36 13,500 .08 2.9 1,088 Paid Staff Crisis Counselor (form completion; NCCs) 375 36 13,500 .08 2.9 1,088 Total 27,490 54,840 4,108 1 Estimates based on 444,000 calls annually. 2 100 (80%) of the networked crisis centers currently collect this data electronically (automated crisis centers or ACCs). An IT worker would need to extract, reformat, and upload those records monthly. 3 25 (20%) of the networked crisis centers do not currently collect this data (non-automated crisis centers or NCCs) and counselors would therefore need to ask Callers questions from the Call Log. A 30% response rate is anticipated. 444,000 total annual calls × (20% of the centers) = 88,800 annual calls answered by NCCs × (30% response rate) = 26,640 Call Logs completed by NCCs. 4 Estimate based on crisis centers' average staffing level of 30 counselors, 50%
(15)of whom are volunteer. 25 non-automated centers × 15 volunteer counselors = 375 volunteer counselors. 5 Estimate assumes that incoming calls will be equally divided among volunteer and paid counselors. 26,640 calls ÷ 750 total counselors = 36 calls per counselor. Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850. Written comments should be received by May 19, 2008. Dated: March 12, 2008. Elaine Parry, Acting Director, Office of Program Services. [FR Doc. E8-5493 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [USCG-2008-0188] National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will meet to discuss various issues relating to offshore safety and security. The meeting will be open to the public. DATES: NOSAC will meet on Friday, April 18, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before April 4, 2008. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before April 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: NOSAC will meet in room 2415 of the Coast Guard Headquarters Bldg., 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Commander J.M. Cushing, Commandant (CG-5222), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on our online docket, USCG-2008-0188, at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander J.M. Cushing, Executive Director of NOSAC, or Mr. Jim Magill, Assistant Executive Director, telephone 202-372-1414, fax 202-372-1926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of the meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). Agenda of Meeting The agenda for the April 18, 2008 committee meeting includes the following:
(1)Report on issues concerning the International Maritime Organization
(IMO)and the International Organization for Standardization.
(2)Revision of 46 CFR, Subchapter V, Subpart B—Commercial Diving Operations.
(3)MARPOL Annex II Implementation for Existing Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs).
(4)Revision of IMO Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
(MODU)Code.
(5)Sandblasting standard for OCS facilities.
(6)Evacuation of Injured Workers from remote Drilling and Production Facilities.
(7)Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC)impact on offshore facilities.
(8)Revision of 33 CFR, Subchapter N, Outer Continental Shelf Activities. Procedural The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the Executive Director no later than April 4, 2008. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than April 4, 2008. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than April 4, 2008. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Executive Director as soon as possible. Dated: March 12, 2008. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-5563 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1747-DR] Illinois; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1747-DR), dated March 7, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated March 7, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Illinois resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on January 7, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Illinois. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that program also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act. The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lawrence Sommers, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. The following areas of the State of Illinois have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster: Iroquois and Livingston Counties for Individual Assistance. All counties within the State of Illinois are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5510 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1746-DR] Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1746-DR), dated February 21, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 21, 2008. Bath, Harrison, Hopkins, Nicholas, Shelby, and Spencer Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5511 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1745-DR] Tennessee; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1745-DR), dated February 7, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 7, 2008. McNairy County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.) Tipton and Wayne Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-5512 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Aviation Security Advisory Committee
(ASAC)Re-Establishment and Request for Applicants AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Transportation Security Administration
(TSA)announces the re-establishment of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee
(ASAC)and requests applicants for appointment to ASAC. The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the re-establishment of ASAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties of TSA. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, who is responsible for monitoring and reporting executive branch compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Qualified individuals interested in serving on this committee are invited to apply to TSA for appointment. DATES: Submit comments on the re-establishment of this committee or applications for membership by April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on this action or applications for appointment to ASAC should be submitted via mail or e-mail to Cindy Mitchell, at the address listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Mitchell, ASAC Designated Federal Official, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, Transportation Sector Network Integration Division (TSA-28), Transportation Security Administration, 601 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone 571-227-1609, E-mail: *cindy.mitchell@dhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background TSA's Aviation Security Advisory Committee
(ASAC)is a “discretionary” advisory committee. A discretionary advisory committee is one that is established under the authority of an agency head or authorized, but not required, by statute. An advisory committee referenced in general (non-specific) authorizing language or Congressional committee report language is discretionary, and its establishment or termination is within the legal discretion of an agency head. ASAC is a standing committee composed of Federal and private sector organizations that was chartered in 1989 by the Federal Aviation Administration in the wake of the crash of Pan American World Airways Flight 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. On November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
(ATSA)was signed into law, which among other things established the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA)and transferred to it the responsibility for civil aviation security. Accordingly, sponsorship of ASAC was also transferred to TSA. Since taking on management of ASAC in August 2002, TSA has taken steps to focus the committee's efforts in directions that are relevant and useful to TSA's post-September 11 mission. The Aviation Security Advisory Committee Re-Establishment The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is being re-established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(5 U.S.C. App.). ASAC's mission is to examine areas of civil aviation security as tasked by TSA with the aim of addressing current issues and/or developing recommendations for improvements to civil aviation security methods, equipment, and processes. The committee will provide advice and recommendations for improving aviation security measures to the Assistant Secretary for TSA. *Name of Committee:* Aviation Security Advisory Committee. *Balanced Membership Plans:* ASAC is composed of no more than 27 members representing private sector organizations of key constituencies affected by aviation security requirements. These key constituencies shall include: Victims of Terrorist Acts Against Aviation; Law Enforcement and Security Experts; Aviation Consumer Advocates; Airport Tenants and General Aviation; Airport Operators; Airline Management; Airline Labor; Aircraft Manufacturers; and Air Cargo Representatives. Each membership category shall have at least one member, and there shall be a maximum of three members per membership category. Members are recommended for appointment by the TSA Assistant Secretary and appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Terms of office shall normally be two
(2)years, and members' terms of office shall be staggered within each membership category to assure adequate continuity of ASAC membership. Therefore, some members appointed under this announcement shall be appointed to a one-year
(1)term of office. *Duration:* The committee's charter shall terminate two
(2)years from the date it is filed with Congress and may be renewed at the end of this 2-year period in accordance with section 14 of FACA. *Responsible TSA Officials:* Cindy Mitchell, ASAC Designated Federal Official, Aviation Security Advisory Committee, Office of Transportation Sector Network Management, Transportation Sector Network Integration Division (TSA-28), Transportation Security Administration, 601 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone: 571-227-1609, E-mail: *cindy.mitchell@dhs.gov.* Applicants for Appointment to ASAC Qualified individuals interested in serving on this committee are invited to apply to TSA for appointment. Please submit your resume to the Responsible DHS Official noted above by April 18, 2008. Applicants should have background and experience that supports at least one of the nine constituency groups in the aforementioned Balanced Membership Plans section. The ASAC will meet approximately twice each year, usually in Washington, D.C., but may meet more often if the need arises. Members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government. TSA retains authority to review the participation of any ASAC member and to recommend changes for cause at any time. In support of the policy of the Department of Homeland Security on gender and ethnic diversity, qualified women and minorities are encouraged to apply for membership. Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on March 12, 2008 . John Sammon, Assistant Administrator, Transportation Sector Network Management. [FR Doc. E8-5469 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form N-644, Application for Posthumous Citizenship; OMB Control No. 1615-0059. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 19, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, and especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please add the OMB Control Number 1615-0059 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection *(1) Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved information collection. *(2) Title of the Form/Collection:* Application for Posthumous Citizenship. *(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form N-644, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. *(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individual or households. The information collected will be used to determine an applicant's eligibility to request posthumous citizenship status for a decedent and to determine the decedent's eligibility for such status. *(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 50 responses at 1 hour and 50 minutes (1.83 hours) per response. *(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 92 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, Telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: March 14, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-5489 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form N-426, Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service; OMB Control No. 1615-0053. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 19, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please add the OMB Control Number 1615-0053 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved information collection.
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service.
(3)* Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: * Form N-426. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals or Households. This form will be used by USCIS to request a verification of the military or naval service claim by an applicant filing for naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 45,000 responses at 45 minutes (.75) per response.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 33,750 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, Telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: March 14, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-5490 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5187-N-14] Housing Counseling Program—Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. National, regional, Multi-State intermediaries and Local public and private nonprofit agencies that provide housing counseling services directly or through their affiliates or branches regarding home buying, homeownership and rental housing programs submit an application for designation as a HUD-approved housing counseling agency. HUD uses the information to evaluate the agency and populate Agency profile data in the Housing Counseling System
(HCS)database. This data populates the HUD's Web site and automated 1-800 Hotline. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-NEW) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at *Lillian_L_Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone
(202)402-8048. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice Also Lists the Following Information *Title of Proposal:* Housing Counseling Program—Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency. *OMB Approval Number:* 2502-NEW. *Form Numbers:* HUD-9900. *Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use:* National, regional, Multi-State intermediaries and Local public and private nonprofit agencies that provide housing counseling services directly or through their affiliates or branches regarding home buying, homeownership and rental housing programs submit an application for designation as a HUD-approved housing counseling agency. HUD uses the information to evaluate the agency and populate Agency profile data in the Housing Counseling System
(HCS)database. This data populates the HUD's Web site and automated 1-800 Hotline. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting burden 200 1 8 1,600 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 1,600. *Status:* New Collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: March 13, 2008. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5458 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5100-FA-02] Announcement of Funding Awards for the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program; Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice of funding awards. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA)for the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program. This announcement contains the names of the awardees and the amounts of the awards made available by HUD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie L. Williams, PhD, Director, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7137, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone
(202)708-2290 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339. For general information on this and other HUD programs, call Community Connections at 1-800-998-9999 or visit the HUD Web site at *http://www.hud.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rural Housing and Economic Development program was authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999. The competition was announced in the NOFA published March 13, 2007 (72 RF 11600). Applications were rated and selected for funding on the basis of selection criteria contained in that notice. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.250. The Rural Housing and Economic Development Program is designed to build capacity at the state and local level for rural housing and economic development and to support innovative housing and economic development activities in rural areas. Eligible applicants are local rural non-profit organizations, community development corporations, federally recognized Indian tribes, state housing finance agencies, and state community and/or economic development agencies. The funds made available under this program were awarded competitively, through a selection process conducted by HUD. For the Fiscal Year 2007 competition, a total of $16,800,000 was awarded to 58 projects nationwide. In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document. Dated: February 29, 2008. Nelson R. Bregón, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Aleutian Housing Authority AK $300,000.00 AVCP Regional Housing Authority AK 300,000.00 Chilkoot Indian Association AK 185,851.00 Collaborative Solutions, Inc. AL 300,000.00 Hale Empowerment and Revitalization Organization AL 300,000.00 Community Resource Group, Inc. AR 300,000.00 Universal Housing Development Corporation AR 300,000.00 Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. AZ 300,000.00 Big Pine Paiute Tribe CA 300,000.00 Community Assistance Network CA 300,000.00 Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority CA 300,000.00 Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians CA 300,000.00 Walking Shield, Inc. CA 300,000.00 National Council on Agricultural Life & Labor Research Fund DE 300,000.00 Central Florida Community Development Corporation FL 300,000.00 JCVision and Associates, Inc. GA 300,000.00 Homeward, Inc. IA 300,000.00 Community Ventures Corporation KY 300,000.00 Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation KY 300,000.00 Purchase Area Housing Corporation KY 300,000.00 Young Adult Development in Action, Inc. KY 300,000.00 La. Tech. College Foundation Tallulah LA 300,000.00 Macon Ridge Community Development Corporation LA 243,800.00 Four Directions Development Corporation ME 299,992.00 Penobscot Indian Nation ME 300,000.00 Penquis CAP, Inc. ME 300,000.00 Huron Potawatomi, Inc. MI 299,825.00 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community MI 300,000.00 Little River Band of Ottawa Indians MI 300,000.00 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians MI 300,000.00 Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation MN 180,000.00 Tunica County Community Development Coalition, Inc. MS 235,520.00 Browning Community Development Corporation MT 300,000.00 Crow Tribal Housing Authority MT 300,000.00 Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe NC 289,793.00 The Affordable Housing Group of North Carolina, Inc. NC 300,000.00 Ho-Chunk Community Development Corporation NE 300,000.00 Community Area Resource Enterprise (CARE 66) NM 299,125.00 Dona Ana County Colonias Development Council NM 203,590.00 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority NM 300,000.00 Pueblo of Pojoaque NM 300,000.00 San Juan Pueblo Tribal Council NM 300,000.00 JobStart Chautauqua NY 300,000.00 WSOS Community Action Commission OH 300,000.00 Citizen Potawatomi Community Development Corporation OK 300,000.00 Corporation De Desarrollo Economico de Ceiba, Cd PR 300,000.00 Community Development Corporation of Marlboro County SC 285,000.00 Spartanburg Leased Housing Corporation SC 300,000.00 Four Bands Community Fund, Inc. SD 300,000.00 Mazaska Owecaso Otipi Financial, Inc. SD 266,000.00 Community Development Corporation of Brownsville TX 300,000.00 El Paso Collaborative for Community and Economic Development TX 300,000.00 La Gloria Development Corporation TX 300,000.00 Motivation Education & Training, Inc. TX 300,000.00 Community Action Center WA 294,242.00 Diocese of Yakima Housing Services WA 300,000.00 Skokomish Tribal Nation WA 300,000.00 Wind River Development Fund WY 219,983.00 $16,802,721.00 [FR Doc. E8-5456 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of an extension of an information collection (1028-0079). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we will submit to OMB an information collection request
(ICR)to renew approval of the paperwork requirements for “North American Breeding Bird Survey, (1 USGS form).” This notice provides the public an opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of this form. DATES: Submit written comments by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this information collection to the Department of the Interior, USGS, via: • E-mail: *atravnic@usgs.gov.* Use Information Collection Number 1028-0079 in the subject line. • FAX:
(703)648-7069. Use Information Collection Number 1028-0079 in the subject line. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; USGS Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, VA 20192. Please reference Information Collection 1028-8-0079 in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith L. Pardieck at
(301)497-5843. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* North American Breeding Bird Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 1028-0079. *Form Number:* 840. *Abstract:* Respondents supply the U.S. Geological Survey with avian population data for more than 600 North American bird species. The raw survey data, resulting population trend estimates, and relative abundance estimates will be made available via the Internet and through special publications, for use by Government agencies, industry, education programs, and the general public. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. *Frequency:* Annually. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* Approximately 1,500 individuals skilled in avian identification will participate. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 2500. *Annual burden hours:* 27,500. *Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* The currently approved “hour” burden for this form is 12,500 hours. We estimate the public reporting burden averages 11 hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the information. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* Mileage costs are on average $44.85 per response. This includes an approximate 100-mile round trip for data collection. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) requires each agency“ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:
(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. To comply with the public consultation process, we publish this **Federal Register** notice announcing that we will submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day public comment period. *USGS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Alfred Travnicek, 703-648-7231. Dated: March 12, 2008. Susan D. Haseltine, Associate Director of Biology. [FR Doc. E8-5447 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Steilacoom Tribe of Indians AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Final Determination. SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(2), notice is hereby given that the Department of the Interior (Department) declines to acknowledge the group known as the Steilacoom Tribe of Indians
(STI)of 1515 Lafayette Street, P.O. Box 88419, Steilacoom, Washington 98388, c/o Mr. Danny Marshall, as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner does not satisfy four of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment, specifically §§ 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e), as defined in 25 CFR part 83. Consequently, the STI does not meet the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the United States. DATES: This determination is final and will become effective on June 17, 2008, pursuant to § 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for reconsideration is filed pursuant to § 83.11. ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the Summary Evaluation under the Criteria should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., MS: 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment,
(202)513-7650. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 14, 2000, the Department issued a proposed finding
(PF)that the STI was not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law because the STI did not meet four of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe. The Department published a notice of the PF in the **Federal Register** on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5880). The **Federal Register** notice initiated a 180-day comment period during which any individual or organization wishing to comment on the proposed finding could submit factual or legal arguments or evidence to support or rebut the PF. The Department extended the comment period on several occasions. On March 27, 2007, the Department sent a letter to the STI outlining a plan to bring the regulatory comment and response periods to a close. The Department reopened and extended the comment period for 90 days to allow the STI and other parties to file comments. The Department also noted that this comment period could be extended further if the petitioner filed a detailed description of a work plan, a description of the work it had already completed, and established good cause for any further extension. To receive consideration for another extension of the comment period, the STI had to mail its request by June 14, 2007; otherwise, the comment period would close on July 6, 2007. On June 25, 2007, the Department received a letter from the STI requesting an extension of the comment period by an additional 180 to 300 days. The letter's June 20, 2007, postmark was six days later than the June 14, 2007, deadline, and the petitioner's letter contained neither a work plan nor a description of work completed. The Department declined to extend the comment period again. The final comment period closed without the Department having received any additional comments. After the comment period closed, the regulatory 60-day response period began. The STI submitted no response materials during this period, which ended on September 4, 2007. On November 2, 2007, the Department sent a consultation letter to the STI and several interested and third parties informing them that in mid-November the Department planned to begin evaluating the evidence for the FD on the STI petition. None of the parties raised an objection or responded in any other way to the Department's intention to begin preparation of the FD. However, due to workload considerations, the Department was not able to begin work in November. On January 7, 2008, the Department sent a letter to the STI and interested parties stating that it would begin the evaluation for the FD on January 15, 2008, and complete it by March 15, 2008. During the comment period and the extended comment periods the STI commented only on the PF's analysis for 83.7(b) for the period from after the 1950s. Overall, given the petition's significant deficiencies in meeting criteria 83.7(a), (b), (c), and (e), the STI's comments were limited and did not substantively address the PF. Two neighboring federally recognized Indian tribes—the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation and the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation—submitted third-party comments opposing acknowledgment of the STI. None of the material submitted changed the conclusions of the PF. The STI claims to descend as a group from the historical Steilacoom Indian tribe that occupied the territory north of the Nisqually River up to Point Defiance in the western part of the state of Washington. The Hudson's Bay Company founded Fort Nisqually in the 1830s, and the STI claims that its Steilacoom ancestors worked at the fort for over two decades. The STI claims its ancestors signed the Medicine Creek Treaty (10 Stat. 1132) in 1854 and that its ancestors resided briefly on the reservations created by the treaty. The STI further contends that some of these Indians left the reservations and settled in “community pockets” in their traditional homelands. These Indians, the STI claims, are the “ancestors of the modern-day Steilacoom tribe” who have formed “an unbroken line of leadership and a continuous existence of community pockets within their traditional territory.” The PF found that over 90 percent of the 612 STI members documented that they are Indian descendants, but only three of them documented descent from persons described in 19th and early 20th century documents as Steilacoom Indians. The PF found that STI members have Indian ancestry from other sources. One source of Indian ancestry is marriages between Indian women from various Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest and employees of the Hudson's Bay Company. Just under two-thirds of the members descend from Indian women who were not Steilacoom and who, between 1839 and 1870, married employees of the Hudson's Bay Company who had come to the Pacific Northwest. The descendants of these marriages could not be classified as a métis, or mixed-blood, group descended from the historical Steilacoom band because the Indian wives came from a wide variety of tribal origins, including the Nisqually, Puyallup, Cowlitz, S'Klallam, Chimacum, Quinault, Duwamish, Skokomish, Yakima, and Snohomish Indian tribes. Furthermore, most of these women, after marrying, resided with their non-Indian husbands in non-Indian neighborhoods. A second source of Indian ancestry is descent from Canadian Indian tribes through Red River métis families from Manitoba, Canada, who settled in Washington and Oregon between 1844 and 1855. The petition claimed that these immigrants were adopted, sometimes by intermarriage, into a continuously existing Steilacoom community during the second half of the 19th century. However, the evidence in the record shows that the Red River immigrants married into families of the non-Steilacoom Indians or married the Hudson's Bay Company people described above, and the evidence does not show social relationships connecting the STI's ancestral family lines with one another. The evidence in the record did not demonstrate that the STI maintained a community from historical times to the present, or that there was a group that maintained political influence or authority over its members. Even after the STI formally organized in 1974, there was not significant social interaction extending beyond individual family lines to members of the broader group, and STI political activities did not show a bilateral relationship between the leadership and the members. Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external observers identify the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. The PF found that for the period from 1900 to 1973, no external observers identified either the STI petitioner or a group of the petitioner's ancestors as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis. The PF found sufficient evidence that external observers identified the STI as an American Indian entity only since 1974. Therefore, the PF concluded that the STI did not meet criterion 83.7(a). The Department received no comments from the STI on the PF's conclusions that pertain to criterion 83.7(a). The Nisqually and Puyallup Indian tribes submitted comments regarding criterion 83.7(a). Their assertion that “[n]o other entity was proven to have existed” was not a conclusion that the PF reached under criterion 83.7(a). Criterion 83.7(a) only evaluates whether external observers had identified the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900, not whether any other entity was proven to have existed. None of the comments submitted during the comment period supplied new evidence that an external observer identified the petitioner or an antecedent group before 1974 as an American Indian entity. The FD concludes, as the PF did, that external observers identified the petitioner as an Indian entity only after 1974. Because available evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate substantially continuous identification of the petitioner as an American Indian entity from 1900 to the present, the petitioner does not satisfy criterion 83.7(a). Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present. The PF concluded that petitioner did not satisfy criterion 83.7(b) at any point in time, remarking that the “current STI membership did not, historically, constitute either a single tribe or group whose history could be traced through time and place or an amalgamated tribe or group whose history could be traced through time and place.” The STI commented on the PF's conclusions directed to criterion 83.7(b) with regard to only one issue—the claimed persistence of a named, collective Indian identity over a 50-year period as described in 83.7(b)(1)(viii). The STI requested that the Department revisit its evaluation of the STI under 83.7(b)(1)(viii) from 1951 to the present. The Department revisited this issue, and noted that the STI based this request on a misunderstanding of criterion 83.7(b). The Department clarified this point of misunderstanding to the STI on several occasions prior to beginning its analysis for the FD, but the STI did not respond to this clarification and did not submit any additional evidence or explanation that would have helped satisfy criterion 83.7(b) from 1951 to the present—or during any other point in time. The comments from the Puyallup and Nisqually Indian tribes support the PF's conclusion that the petitioner did not satisfy criterion 83.7(b). Following additional review of the evidence under 83.7(b)(1)(viii), this FD confirms the conclusion of the PF that the existence of a formal organization is not itself sufficient to show collective group identity under 83.7(b)(1)(viii). The record provides substantial evidence that the STI does not meet criterion 83.7(b) and does not provide sufficient evidence that it does. Therefore, the FD concludes that STI does not meet criterion 83.7(b). Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present. The PF concluded that evidence that could satisfy this criterion was either altogether absent or too limited in nature. Furthermore, some of the limited evidence of political leadership demonstrated that individuals exercised leadership only over a small number of members, not over significant portions of the group, as required by the regulations. Even after the STI incorporated in 1974, its functions and activities were not of a type to show a bilateral political relationship between the leadership and the members. The PF concluded that at no time from first sustained contact to the present did the evidence in the record show that the petitioner had maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity. Therefore, it did not satisfy criterion 83.7(c). The Department received no comments from the STI on the PF's conclusions that pertain to criterion 83.7(c). The comments from the Nisqually and Puyallup Indian tribes supported the PF's conclusions regarding criterion 83.7(c), stating that “the lack of a 19th century organization, and the limited claims purposes of the 20th century group fail to meet this standard.” The record provides substantial evidence that the STI does not meet criterion 83.7(c) and does not provide sufficient evidence that it does. Therefore, the FD concludes that the STI does not meet criterion 83.7(c). Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioning group submit a copy of the group's present governing document that includes its membership criteria. The PF found that the STI satisfied criterion 83.7(d). The Department received no comments on the PF's conclusions under criterion 83.7(d). Therefore, based on the available evidence, the FD concludes, as the PF did, that the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(d). Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the petitioner's membership consist of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. The PF concluded that the STI did not document that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. Over 90 percent of the 612 STI members documented that they are Indian descendants, but only three of them document descent from persons described in 19th and early 20th century documents as Steilacoom Indians. Most of the STI members descend from other Indians in the Pacific Northwest or from métis people from the Red River Valley in Manitoba, Canada. The Department received no comments from the STI on the PF's conclusions directed to criterion 83.7(e). The Nisqually and Puyallup Indian tribes stated that the “petitioner has completely failed to establish that its members descend from the historical Steilacoom tribe,” which supports the PF's conclusion. The Nisqually and Puyallup Indian tribes further stated that the “only legitimate successors to the historical Steilacoom Tribe are the present-day Puyallup and Nisqually Tribes.” This FD does not present any conclusions concerning successorship in interest to a particular treaty or other rights, nor any conclusions regarding any treaty rights belonging to the federally recognized Puyallup and Nisqually Indian tribes. Based on the available record, the FD affirms the PF's conclusions that only 3 of the petitioner's 612 members (0.5 percent) on its 1995 membership list have been documented as descendants of persons who were described in 19th and early 20th century documents as Steilacoom Indians. The record provides substantial evidence that the STI does not meet criterion 83.7(e) and does not provide sufficient evidence that it does. Therefore, the FD concludes that the STI does not meet criterion 83.7(e). Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the membership of the petitioning group be composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. The PF concluded that the STI met criterion 83.7(f). The Department received no comments, from the petitioner or any other party, on the PF's conclusions under criterion 83.7(f). During its preparation of the FD, the Department compared the STI membership list with rolls of federally recognized Indian tribes under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA)Northwest Region. They are, based on geographical proximity and the PF's genealogical findings, the Indian tribes most likely to include STI members. The review showed that the STI is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. Therefore, the FD affirms the PF and concludes that the STI meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f). Criterion 83.7(g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its members be the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. The Department received no comments on the PF's conclusions under criterion 83.7(g). The available documentation for the PF and the FD provided no evidence that the STI was the subject of congressional legislation to terminate or prohibit a Federal relationship as an Indian tribe. Therefore, the petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g). A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the bases for the FD will be provided to the STI and interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written request. After the publication of notice of the FD, the petitioner or any interested party may file a request for reconsideration with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals
(IBIA)under the procedures set forth in section 83.11 of the regulations. The IBIA must receive this request no later than the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The FD will become effective as provided in the regulations 90 days from the **Federal Register** publication, as listed in the DATES section of this notice, unless a request for reconsideration is received within that time. Dated: March 12, 2008. Carl J. Artman, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-5551 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Publication of the New U.S. World Heritage Tentative List: 15-Day Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Proposed Initial U.S. Nominations to the World Heritage List AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice constitutes the official publication of the new U.S. World Heritage Tentative List and provides a First Notice for the public to comment on proposed initial U.S. nominations from the new Tentative List to the UNESCO World Heritage List. This notice complies with Sec. 73.7(c) of the World Heritage Program regulations (36 CFR part 73). The new Tentative List (formerly referred to as the Indicative Inventory) appears at the end of this notice. The Tentative List consists of properties that appear to qualify for World Heritage status and which may be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. The new U.S. Tentative List was transmitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on January 24, 2008. The preparation of the Tentative List provided multiple opportunities for the public to comment on which sites to include, as part of a process that also included recommendations by the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, a Federal Advisory Commission to the U.S. Department of State. The United States is now considering whether to nominate any of the properties on the Tentative List to the World Heritage List. The U.S. is considering proposing two properties, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii, and Mount Vernon, Virginia, as the initial U.S. sites to be drawn from the new Tentative List for nomination to the World Heritage List. The Department will consider both public comments received during this comment period and the advice of the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage in making a final decision on the initial U.S. World Heritage nominations, if any. DATES: Comments upon whether to nominate any of the properties on the new Tentative List, including Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and Mount Vernon, will be accepted on or before fifteen days from the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . If selected, the owners of sites proposed for nomination will be responsible, in cooperation with the National Park Service, for preparing the draft nomination in the nomination *Format* required by the World Heritage Committee and for gathering documentation in support of it. Any such nominations must be received from the preparers by the National Park Service in substantially complete draft form by July 1, 2008. Such draft nominations will be reviewed, amended if necessary, and provided to the World Heritage Centre for initial review no later than September 30, 2008. The Centre is to provide comments by November 14, 2008, with final submittal to the World Heritage Centre by the Department of the Interior through the Department of State required by January 30, 2009. Protective measures must be in place before a property may be nominated. If a nomination cannot be completed in accordance with this timeline, work may continue into the following year for subsequent submission to UNESCO. ADDRESSES: Please provide all comments directly to Jonathan Putnam, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW.,
(0050)Washington, DC 20005 or by E-mail to: *jonathan_putnam@nps.gov* . Phone: 202-354-1809. Fax 202-371-1446. All comments will be a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. NPS specifically requests comments on whether to nominate any of the properties on the new Tentative List, and specifically whether to nominate Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and/or Mount Vernon. Comments should address the qualifications of the properties proposed for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. In formulating your comments, you may wish to take account of the evaluations in the final U.S. Tentative List report referenced below. The World Heritage nomination criteria can be found on the National Park Service Office of International Affairs Web site *http://www.nps.gov/oia.* All public comments are welcomed and will be summarized and provided to the Department of the Interior officials who will select the initial U.S. World Heritage nominations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Putnam, 202-354-1809 or April Brooks, 202-354-1808. General information about U.S. participation in the World Heritage Program and the process used to develop the Tentative List is posted on the Office of International Affairs Web site at: *http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/tentativelist.htm.* Only the 14 properties included in U.S. Tentative List are eligible to be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. Brief descriptions of them appear in a copy of the press release announcing the Tentative List, which is linked to the site just noted. The U.S. Tentative List report on the 14 sites in the form submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on January 24, 2008, appears in its entirety on the Internet at *http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/tentativelist/WHTentList.doc.* (For additional information, the earlier National Park Service staff report, including summaries of information on all 35 sites for which Applications were filed, is posted on the Internet at *http://www.nps.gov/oia/TLEssayFinal.pdf.* If you would like to review the full Applications submitted to the National Park Service for any candidate sites, please go to *http://www.nps.gov/oia/NewWebpages/ApplicantsTentativeList.html.* ) To request a paper copy of the new U.S. Tentative List report submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, please contact April Brooks, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW.,
(0050)Washington, DC 20005. E-mail: *april_brooks@nps.gov* . For the World Heritage nomination *Format* , see the World Heritage Centre Web site at *http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominationform.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The World Heritage List is an international list of cultural and natural properties nominated by the signatories to the World Heritage Convention (1972). The United States was the prime architect of the Convention, an international treaty for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage sites of global significance proposed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972, and the U.S. was the first nation to ratify it. In 2005, the United States was elected to a fourth term on the World Heritage Committee and will serve until 2009. There are 851 sites in 140 of the 184 signatory countries. Currently there are 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States already listed. U.S. participation and the roles of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service are authorized by Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 73—World Heritage Convention. The National Park Service serves as the principal technical agency for the U.S. Government to the Convention and manages all or parts of 17 of the 20 U.S. World Heritage Sites currently listed, including Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, and the Statue of Liberty. A Tentative List is a national list of natural and cultural properties appearing to meet the World Heritage Committee eligibility criteria for nomination to the World Heritage List. It is a list of candidate sites which a country intends to consider for nomination within a given time period. A country cannot nominate a property unless it has been on its Tentative List for a minimum of a year. Countries also are limited to nominating no more than two sites in any given year. Neither inclusion in the Tentative List nor inscription as a World Heritage Site imposes legal restrictions on owners or neighbors of sites, nor does it give the United Nations any management authority or ownership rights in U.S. World Heritage Sites, which continue to be fully subject to U.S. law. Inclusion in the Tentative List merely indicates that the property may be further examined for possible World Heritage nomination in the future. The World Heritage Committee's *Operational Guidelines* ask participating nations to provide Tentative Lists, which aid in evaluating properties for the World Heritage List on a comparative international basis and help the Committee to schedule its work over the long term. The *Guidelines* recommend that a nation review its Tentative List at least once every decade. The new Tentative List replaces the original U.S. Tentative List (formerly Indicative Inventory) that was published by NPS in the **Federal Register** on May 6, 1982 (FR 47, 88: 19648-19655) and amended with one additional site in 1983 and one other in 1990. In order to guide the U.S. World Heritage Program effectively and in a timely manner, NPS prepared and submitted (through the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State) to the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO on January 24, 2008, the previously referenced Tentative List of properties that appear to meet the criteria for nomination and are eligible for nomination during the next decade (2009-2019), starting on or after January 30, 2009. Submittal of nominations must be made no later than that date for the World Heritage Committee's consideration in 2010. In order to be included, a proposed site had to meet several U.S. prerequisites in addition to appearing to meet the stringent World Heritage criteria of international importance. The U.S. prerequisites included the written agreement of all property owners to the nomination of their property, general support from stakeholders, including elected officials, and a prior official determination that the property was nationally important (such as by designation as a National Historic or National Natural Landmark). Process for Developing the U.S. World Heritage Tentative List The Tentative List was developed using an Application approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on August 29, 2006 (OMB Control No. 1024-0250), pursuant to a 30-Day Notice of Request for Clearance of Collection of Information to the Office of Management and Budget published by NPS in the **Federal Register** on July 27, 2006 (FR 71, 144:42664-42665). The National Park Service Office of International Affairs provided the Application form in August 2006 for voluntary applications to a new U.S. World Heritage Tentative List by governmental and private property owners. It was intended that preparers use the Application to demonstrate that the property meets the criteria established by the World Heritage Committee for inclusion in the World Heritage List and other requirements, including those of U.S. domestic law (16 U.S.C. 470 a-1, a-2, d) and the program regulations (36 CFR 73-World Heritage Convention). Thirty-seven
(37)Applications were received by the April 1, 2007 deadline. Two were subsequently withdrawn. The National Park Service made recommendations based on staff review of the Applications by the Office of International Affairs, in consultation with National Park Service subject matter experts and external reviewers for cultural and natural resources who are knowledgeable about the World Heritage Committee's policies, practices and precedents. Additional correspondence and/or Addenda containing revised or expanded material was received from most applicants in response to written reviews that were provided to them; all of this material was carefully considered. Results of Review NPS staff recommendations were provided to the World Heritage Tentative List Subcommittee of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO for review. The Office of International Affairs recommended 19 sites for a new Tentative List. These included three natural properties, fifteen cultural properties (two of which are extensions to currently inscribed World Heritage Sites), and one mixed natural and cultural property. The staff review recommended four additional sites for future consideration. Review by U.S. National Commission for UNESCO The staff recommendations for the draft Tentative List were reviewed by a subcommittee of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO—which included Federal agency representatives drawn from the Federal Interagency Panel on World Heritage—on September 27, 2007. The subcommittee presented its recommendations to the full Commission in a conference call on October 4, 2007, in which the public participated. The recommendations by the National Commission, including those which differ from the NPS staff recommendations were published for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2007 (FR 72, 210: 61664-61666) and also posted on the National Commission's Web site where they may be consulted at: *http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco.* Nearly all the comments received from Federal, State, and local government executive and legislative officials, and other stakeholders supported the inclusion of sites in their States and communities. Final Approval and Transmittal to the World Heritage Centre With the benefit of the National Commission's advice and the additional public comments, the final Tentative List was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and transmitted to the World Heritage Centre by the Department of State on January 24, 2008. This submittal complied with the required timeline for Tentative List submittal at least one year prior to the final submittal of any nominations of sites from the Tentative List by January 30, 2009. Conclusion Because UNESCO asks countries to wait a year before submitting nominations from their tentative lists, the first time that any U.S. World Heritage nominations drawn from the new List can go forward will be at the beginning of 2009 with consideration by the World Heritage Committee no earlier than the summer of 2010. The Committee, composed of representatives of 21 nations elected as the governing body of the World Heritage Convention, makes the final decisions on which nominations to accept on the World Heritage List at its annual meeting each summer. U.S. World Heritage Tentative List 2008 Cultural Sites
(9)Civil Rights Movement Sites, Alabama Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, Montgomery. Bethel Baptist Church, Birmingham. 16th Street Baptist Church, Birmingham. Dayton Aviation Sites, Ohio Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, including: —Huffman Prairie. —Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. —Wright Cycle Company and Wright & Wright Printing, Dayton. —Wright Hall (including Wright Flyer III), Dayton. Hawthorn Hill, Dayton. Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, Ohio Fort Ancient State Memorial, Warren County. Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, near Chillicothe. Newark Earthworks State Historic Site, Newark and Heath, including: —Wright Earthworks. —The Octagon Earthworks. —Great Circle Earthworks. Jefferson (Thomas) Buildings, Virginia Poplar Forest, Bedford County. Virginia State Capitol, Richmond. (Proposed jointly as an extension to the World Heritage listing of Monticello and the University of Virginia Historic District.) Mount Vernon, Virginia Poverty Point National Monument and State Historic Site, Louisiana San Antonio Franciscan Missions, Texas Mission San Antonio de Valero (The Alamo). San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, including: —Mission Concepcion. —Mission San Jose. —Mission San Juan. —Mission Espada (including Rancho de las Cabras). Serpent Mound, Ohio Wright (Frank Lloyd) Buildings Taliesin West, Scottsdale, Arizona. Hollyhock House, Los Angeles, California. Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, California. Frederick C. Robie House, Chicago, Illinois. Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, New York. Price Tower, Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania. S. C. Johnson and Son, Inc., Administration Building and Research. Tower, Racine, Wisconsin. Taliesin, Spring Green, Wisconsin. Mixed Natural and Cultural Site
(1)Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii Natural Sites
(4)Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary, American Samoa Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona White Sands National Monument, New Mexico (Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470 a-1, a-2, d; 36 CFR 73) Dated: March 6, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-5499 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Notice of Proposed Information Collection for 1029-0054 AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM)is announcing its intention to request renewed authority for the collection of information relating to 30 CFR 872, Abandoned mine reclamation funds. DATES: Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by May 19, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW, Room 202-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to *jtrelease@osmre.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John A. Trelease at
(202)208-2783. You may also review the collection request at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies the information collection that OSM will be submitting to OMB for approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR 872, Abandoned mine reclamation funds. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity. *Comments are invited on:*
(1)The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM's submission of the information collection request to OMB. *The following information is provided for the information collection:*
(1)Title of the information collection;
(2)OMB control number;
(3)summary of the information collection activity; and
(4)frequency of collection, description of the respondents, estimated total annual responses, and the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information. *Title:* Abandoned mine reclamation funds, 30 CFR 872. *OMB Control Number:* 1029-0054. *Summary:* 30 CFR 872 establishes a procedure whereby States and Indian tribes submit written statements announcing the State/Tribe's decision not to submit reclamation plans, and therefore, will not be granted AML funds. *Bureau Form Number:* None. *Frequency of Collection:* Once. *Description of Respondents:* State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation agencies. *Total Annual Responses:* 1. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1. Dated: March 10, 2008. John R. Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. [FR Doc. E8-5389 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 15, 2008, Lipomed, Inc., One Broadway, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)for registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug Schedule Cathinone
(1235)I Methcathinone
(1237)I N-Ethylamphetamine
(1475)I Methaqualone
(2565)I Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid
(2010)I Lysergic acid diethylamide
(7315)I 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylthiophenethylamine
(7348)I Marihuana
(7360)I Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)I Mescaline
(7381)I 3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine
(7390)I 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine
(7391)I 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine
(7392)I 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine
(7395)I 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine
(7396)I 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine
(7399)I 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine
(7400)I 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine
(7404)I 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(7405)I 4-Methoxyamphetamine
(7411)I Dimethyltryptamine
(7435)I Psilocybin
(7437)I Psilocyn
(7438)I Acetyldihydrocodeine
(9051)I Dihydromorphine
(9145)I Heroin
(9200)I Normorphine
(9313)I Pholcodine
(9314)I Tilidine
(9750)I Amphetamine
(1100)II Methamphetamine
(1105)II Amobarbital
(2125)II Pentobarbital
(2270)II Secobarbital
(2315)II Phencyclidine
(7471)II Cocaine
(9041)II Codeine
(9050)II Dihydrocodeine
(9120)II Oxycodone
(9143)II Hydromorphone
(9150)II Benzoylecgonine
(9180)II Ethylmorphine
(9190)II Hydrocodone
(9193)II Levorphanol
(9220)II Meperidine
(9230)II Methadone
(9250)II Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)
(9273)II Morphine
(9300)II Thebaine
(9333)II Oxymorphone
(9652)II Alfentanil
(9737)II Fentanyl
(9801)II Sufentanil
(9740)II The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research purposes. Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I or II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later than April 18, 2008. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substances in schedule I or II are and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and
(f)are satisfied. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5523 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 14, 2008, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc., Attn: Regulatory Compliance, 9115 Hague Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I and II: Drug Schedule Lysergic acid diethylamide
(7315)I Alphamethadol
(9605)I Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)I Cocaine
(9041)II Ecgonine
(9180)II Methadone
(9250)II Morphine
(9300)II The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of diagnostic products for distribution to its customers. Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later than April 18, 2008. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substances in schedule I or II are and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and
(f)are satisfied. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5524 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 29, 2008, AllTech Associates Inc., 2051 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Cocaine
(9041)II Codeine
(9050)II Hydrocodone
(9193)II Meperidine
(9230)II Methadone
(9250)II Morphine
(9300)II The company plans to import these controlled substances for the manufacture of reference standards. Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later than April 18, 2008. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substances in schedule I or II are, and will continue to be, required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f)are satisfied. Dated: March 11, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5525 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II and prior to issuing a registration under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 3, 2007, Kenco VPI, Division of Kenco Group, Inc., 350 Corporate Place, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37419, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of Nabilone (7379), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers. Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later than April 18, 2008. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745-46), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substances in schedule I or II are and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f)are satisfied. Dated: March 11, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5529 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on November 30, 2007, Mallinckrodt Inc., 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug Schedule Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)I Codeine-N-oxide
(9053)I Dihydromorphine
(9145)I Difenoxin
(9168)I Morphine-N-oxide
(9307)I Normorphine
(9313)I Norlevorphanol
(9634)I Amphetamine
(1100)II Methamphetamine
(1105)II Methylphenidate
(1724)II Nabilone
(7379)II Codeine
(9050)II Diprenorphine
(9058)II Etorphine HCL
(9059)II Dihydrocodeine
(9120)II Oxycodone
(9143)II Hydromorphone
(9150)II Diphenoxylate
(9170)II Ecgonine
(9180)II Hydrocodone
(9193)II Levorphanol
(9220)II Meperidine
(9230)II Methadone
(9250)II Methadone intermediate
(9254)II Metopon
(9260)II Dextropropoxyphene, bulk
(9273)II Morphine
(9300)II Thebaine
(9333)II Opium extracts
(9610)II Opium fluid extract
(9620)II Opium tincture
(9630)II Opium, powdered
(9639)II Opium, granulated
(9640)II Levo-alphacetylmethadol
(9648)II Oxymorphone
(9652)II Noroxymorphone
(9668)II Phenazocine
(9715)II Alfentanil
(9737)II Remifentanil
(9739)II Sufentanil
(9740)II Fentanyl
(9801)II The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use and for sale to other companies. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA. 22152; and must be filed no later than May 19, 2008. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5528 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on October 26, 2007, Chemica Inc., 316 West 130th Street, Los Angeles, California 90061, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of methamphetamine (1105), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. The above listed controlled substance is an intermediate in the manufacture of Benzphetamine, a schedule III non-narcotic controlled substance. The methamphetamine will not be sold as a commercial product in the domestic market. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than May 19, 2008. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5530 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on February 29, 2008, Varian, Inc., Lake Forest, 25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-8810, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Phencyclidine
(7471)II 1-Piperidinocyclohexane- carbonitrile
(8603)II Benzoylecgonine
(9180)II The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for use in diagnostic products. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than May 19, 2008. Dated: March 11, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5532 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated December 17, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2007 (72 FR 73358), GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-1412, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. The company plans to import small quantities of ioflupane, in the form of three separate analogues of Cocaine, to validate production and QC systems; for a reference standard; and for producing material for future investigational new drug
(IND)submission. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of GE Healthcare to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated GE Healthcare to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5501 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated December 17, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2007,(72 FR 73360), Noramco Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Raw Opium
(9600)II Concentrate of Poppy Straw
(9670)II The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture other controlled substances. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Noramco Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 10, 2008 Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5502 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Registration By Notice dated November 6, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64682), National Center for Natural Products Research—NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Lab Complex, University, Mississippi 38677, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug Schedule Marihuana
(7360)II Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)II The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute on Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of National Center for Natural Products Research—NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated National Center for Natural Products Research—NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5503 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated October 31, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62871), Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug Schedule Marihuana
(7360)I Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)I The company plans to manufacture small quantities of marihuana derivatives for research purposes. In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol. In reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company will manufacture a synthetic THC. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for registration. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cayman Chemical Company to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cayman Chemical Company to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5505 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated November 6, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64677-64678), Cody Laboratories, 601 Yellowstone Avenue, Cody, Wyoming 82414, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Codeine
(9050)II Ecgonine
(9180)II Hydrocodone
(9193)II Morphine
(9300)II The company plans on manufacturing the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cody Laboratories to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cody Laboratories to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5506 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated November 6, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64677), Cambridge Isotope Lab, 50 Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Morphine (9300), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. The company plans to utilize small quantities of the listed controlled substance in the preparation of analytical standards. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cambridge Isotope Lab to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cambridge Isotope Lab to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5507 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated November 6, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64674), Archimica, Inc., 2460 W. Bennett Street, Springfield, Missouri 65807-1229, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug Schedule Methylphenidate
(1724)II Phenylacetone
(8501)II Methadone Intermediate
(9254)II The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for research purposes, and sale to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Archimica, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Archimica, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5508 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated November 20, 2007, and published in the **Federal Register** on November 30, 2007, (72 FR 67759-67760), Norac Inc., 405 S. Motor Avenue, P.O. Box 577, Azusa, California 91702-3232, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I. The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for formulation into the pharmaceutical controlled substance Marinol®. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Norac Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Norac Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 10, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5509 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1480] Meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Justice. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is announcing the Spring meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ), which will be held in Washington, DC, April 6 to 8, 2008. *Dates and Locations:* The meeting times and locations are as follows: 1. Sunday, April 6, 2008, 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 2. Monday, April 7, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Office of Justice Programs, 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. 3. Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., Office of Justice Programs, 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official, OJJDP, *Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov* , or 202-307-9963. [Note: This is not a toll-free number.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ), established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2), will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 223(f)(2)(C-E) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002. The FACJJ is composed of one representative from each state and territory. FACJJ duties include: Reviewing Federal policies regarding juvenile justice and delinquency prevention; advising the OJJDP Administrator with respect to particular functions and aspects of OJJDP; and advising the President and Congress with regard to State perspectives on the operation of OJJDP and Federal legislation pertaining to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. More information, including a member list, may be found at *http://www.facjj.org* . Meeting Agenda 1. Sunday, April 6, 2008 • 5 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Welcome, Call to Order, Preview of the Agenda; Discussion of State Best Practices; and Summary. (Open Session) 2. Monday, April 7, 2008 • 8:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Call to Order; Discussion on Compliance Monitoring; Remarks by the OJJDP Administrator; and Overview of 2008 Annual Report Final Drafts (Open Session) • 12:15 p.m.-1:45 p.m. Working Lunch/Sub Committee Meetings (Closed Session) • 1:45 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Sub Committee Report Outs; Review and Discussion of 2008 Annual Report Final Drafts. (Open Session) 3. Tuesday, April 8, 2008 • 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m. Call to Order; Completion of Discussion of Reports; Adoption of Final Drafts; Summary and Adjournment. (Open Session) For security purposes, members of the FACJJ and of the public who wish to attend, must pre-register online at *http://www.facjj.org* . Should problems arise with web registration, call Daryel Dunston at 240-221-4343. Members of the public must register by Monday, March 31, 2008. [Note: these are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. Space is limited. Please note: Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting. Written Comments Interested parties may submit written comments by Monday, March 31, 2008, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, OJJDP, at *Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov* . If e-mail is not available, please fax your comments to 202-354-4063 and call Patricia Philogene at 202-305-2704 to ensure that the fax was received. [Note: These are not toll-free numbers.] No oral presentations will be permitted at the meeting. However, written questions and comments from members of the public attending the meeting may be invited. J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-5531 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request March 12, 2008. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov* . Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for Departmental Management (DM), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not a toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management/Civil Right Center. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Compliance Information Report—29 CFR Part 37 Nondiscrimination-Workforce Investment Act of 1998. *OMB Number:* 1225-0077. *Affected Public:* State, Tribal, or Local Governments and Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,779. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 137,725. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The Department's Civil Rights Center within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the collection of the Compliance Information Report—29 CFR part 31 (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act), Nondiscrimination—Disability—29 CFR part 32 (section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act), and Nondiscrimination—Workforce Investment Act—29 CFR part 37 (section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act). These information collection requirements are designed to ensure that programs or activities funded in whole or in part by the Department of Labor operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5445 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary; Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request March 12, 2008. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov* . Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Revision of a previously approved collection. *Title:* Current Population Survey
(CPS)Basic Labor Force. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0100. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 55,000. *Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 81,583. *Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The labor force information gathered through the survey is of paramount importance in keeping track of the economic health of the Nation. The survey is the official source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment, with the monthly Employment Situation report designated a Primary Federal Economic Indicator. The CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the Nation. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5446 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, March 20, 2008. Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047 1775 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314-3428. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: 1. Proposed Rule: Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement
(IRPS)08-1, Guidance Regarding Prohibitions Imposed by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act. Recess: 10:30 a.m. Time and Date: 10:45 a.m., Thursday, March 20, 2008. Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047 1775 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314-3428. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: 1. Administrative Action under Section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii), and (B). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-5448 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-M NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Determination of the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts as to Certain Advisory Committees: Public Disclosure of Information and Activities The National Endowment for the Arts utilizes advice and recommendations of advisory committees in carrying out many of its functions and activities. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-463), governs the formation, use, conduct, management, and accessibility to the public of committees formed to advise and assist the Federal Government. Section 10 of the Act specifies that department and agency heads shall make adequate provisions for participation by the public in the activities of advisory committees, except to the extent a determination is made in writing by the department or agency head that a portion of an advisory committee meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection
(c)of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code (the Government in the Sunshine Act). It is the policy of the National Endowment for the Arts to make the fullest possible disclosure of records to the public, limited only by obligations of confidentiality and administrative necessity. Consistent with this policy, meetings of the following Endowment advisory committees will be open to the public except for portions dealing with the review, discussion, evaluation, and/or ranking of grant applications: Arts Advisory Panel and the Federal Advisory Committee on International Exhibitions. The portions of the meetings involving the review, discussion, evaluation and ranking of grant applications may be closed to the public for the following reasons: The Endowment advisory committees listed above review and discuss applications for financial assistance. While the majority of applications received by the agency are submitted by organizations, all of the applications contain the names of and personal information relating to individuals who will be working on the proposed project. In reviewing the applications, committee members discuss the abilities of the listed individuals in their fields, the reputations of the listed individuals among their colleagues, the ability of the listed individuals to carry through on projects they start, and their background and performance. Consideration of these matters is essential to the review of the artistic excellence and artistic merit of an application. Consequently, in the interest of meeting our obligation to consider artistic excellence and artistic merit when reviewing applications for financial assistance: It is hereby determined in accordance with the provisions of section 10(d) of the Act that the disclosure of information regarding the review, discussion, evaluation, and ranking of applications for financial assistance as outlined herein is likely to disclose information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Therefore, in light of the above, I have determined that the above referenced meetings or portions thereof, devoted to review, discussion, evaluation, and/or ranking of applications for financial assistance may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. The staff of each committee shall prepare a summary of any meeting or portion not open to the public within three
(3)business days following the conclusion of the meeting of the National Council on the Arts considering applications recommended by such committees. The summaries shall be consistent with the considerations that justified the closing of the meetings. All other portions of the meetings of these advisory committees shall be open to the public unless the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts or a designee determines otherwise in accordance with section 10(d) of the Act. The Panel Coordinator shall be responsible for publication in the **Federal Register** or, as appropriate, in local media, of a notice of all advisory committee meetings. Such notice shall be published in advance of the meetings and contain: 1. Name of the committee and its purposes; 2. Date and time of the meeting, and, if the meeting is open to the public, its location and agenda; and 3. A statement that the meeting is open to the public, or, if the meeting or any portion thereof is not to be open to the public, a statement to that effect. The Panel Coordinator is designated as the person from whom lists of committee members may be obtained and from whom minutes of open meetings or open portions thereof may be requested. Guidelines Any interested person may attend meetings of advisory committees that are open to the public. Members of the public attending a meeting will be permitted to participate in the committee's discussion at the discretion of the chairperson of the committee, if the chairperson is a full-time Federal employee; if the chairperson is not a full-time Federal employee then public participation will be permitted at the chairperson's discretion with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in attendance at the meeting in compliance with the order. Dated: February 28, 2008. Dana Gioia, Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts. Dated: March 14, 2008. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5526 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Determination of the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts Regarding Potential Closure of Portions of Meetings of the National Council on the Arts Section 6(f) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 951 *et. seq.* ) authorizes the National Council on the Arts to review applications for financial assistance to the National Endowment for the Arts and make recommendations to the Chairperson. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (Pub. L. 92-463) governs the formation, use, conduct, management, and accessibility to the public of committees formed to advise the Federal Government. Section 10 of that Act directs meetings of advisory committees to be open to the public, except where the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines in writing that a portion of a meeting may be closed to the public consistent with subsection
(c)of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code (the Government in the Sunshine Act.) It is the policy of the National Endowment for the Arts that meetings of the National Council on the Arts be conducted in open session including those parts during which applications are reviewed. However, in recognition that the Endowment is required to consider the artistic excellence and artistic merit of applications for financial assistance and that consideration of individual applications may require a discussion of matters such as an individual artist's abilities, reputation among colleagues, or professional background and performance, I have determined to reserve the right to close limited portions of Council meetings if such information is to be discussed. The purpose of the closure is to protect information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Closure for this purpose is authorized by subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. Additionally, the Council will consider prospective nominees for the National Medal of Arts award in order to advise the President of the United States in his final selection of National Medal of Arts recipients. During these sessions, similar information of a personal nature will be discussed. As with applications for financial assistance, disclosure of this information about individuals who are under consideration for the award would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Therefore, in light of the above, I have determined that those portions of Council meetings devoted to consideration of prospective nominees for the National Medal of Arts award may be closed to the public. Closure for these purposes is authorized by subsections (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. A record shall be maintained of any closed portion of the Council meeting. Further, in accordance with the FACA, a notice of any intent to close any portion of the Council meeting will be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: February 28, 2008. Dana Gioia, Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts. Dated: March 14, 2008. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5527 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of the Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of request for public comment on a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment
(PEA)for the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation
(NSF)gives notice of the request for public comment on a Draft PEA for the OOI. The Division of Ocean Sciences in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO/OCE) has prepared a Draft PEA for the OOI, a multi-million dollar Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction effort intended to put moored and cable infrastructure in discrete locations in the coastal and global ocean. The Draft PEA is available for public comment for a 30-day period. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft PEA are available upon request from: Dr. Shelby Walker, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone:
(703)292-8580. The Draft PEA is also available under Additional OCE Resources at the following website: *http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=OCE* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Shelby Walker, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone:
(703)292-8580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Oceanographic research has long relied on research vessel cruises (expeditions) as the predominate means to make direct measurements of the ocean. Remote sensing (use of satellites) has greatly advanced abilities to measure ocean surface characteristics over extended periods of time. A major advancement for oceanographic research methods is the ability to make sustained, long-term, and adaptive measurements from the surface to the ocean bottom. “Ocean Observatories” are now being developed to further this goal. Building upon recent technology advances and lessons learned from prototype ocean observatories, NSF's Ocean Sciences Division
(OCE)is proposing to fund the OOI, an interactive, globally distributed and integrated infrastructure that will be the backbone for the next generation of ocean sensors and resulting complex ocean studies presently unachievable. The OOI reflects a community-wide, national and international scientific planning effort and is a key NSF contribution to the broader effort to establish focused national ocean observatory capabilities through the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The OOI infrastructure would include cables, buoys, deployment platforms, moorings, junction boxes, electric power generation (solar, wind, fuel cell, and/or diesel), and two-way communications systems. This large-scale infrastructure would support sensors located at the sea surface, in the water column, and at or beneath the seafloor. The OOI would also support related elements, such as unified project management, data dissemination and archiving, modeling of oceanographic processes, and education and outreach activities essential to the long-term success of ocean science. It would include the first U.S. multi-node cabled observatory; fixed and relocatable coastal arrays coupled with mobile assets; and advanced buoys for interdisciplinary measurements, especially for data-limited areas of the Southern Ocean and other high-latitude locations. The OOI design is based upon three main technical elements across global, regional, and coastal scales. At the global and coastal scales, moorings would provide locally generated power to seafloor and platform instruments and sensors and use a satellite link to shore and the Internet. Up to four Global-Scale Nodes
(GSN)or buoy sites are proposed for ocean sensing in the Eastern Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The Regional-Scale Nodes
(RSN)off the coast of Washington and Oregon would consist of seafloor observatories with various chemical, biological, and geological sensors linked with submarine cables to shore that provide power and Internet connectivity. Coastal-Scale Nodes
(CSN)would be represented by the fixed Endurance Array, consisting of a combination of cabled nodes and stand-alone moorings, off the coast of Washington and Oregon, and the relocatable Pioneer Array off the coast of Massachusetts, consisting of a suite of stand-alone moorings. In addition, there would be an integration of mobile assets such as autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs)and/or gliders with the GSN, RSN, and CSN observatories. The NSF invites interested members of the public to provide written comments on this Draft PEA. Comments can be submitted to: Dr. Shelby Walker, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone:
(703)292-8580; or electronically at *PEA-comments@nsf.gov* . Shelby Walker, Associate Program Director, Ocean Technology and Interdisciplinary Coordination, Division of Ocean Sciences National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. E8-5474 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC previously published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on December 18, 2007. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Extension. 2. *The title of the information collection:* DOE/NRC Form 740M, “Concise Note” and NUREG/BR-0006, Revision 6, “Instructions for Completing Nuclear Material Transaction Reports, (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 740M).” 3. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0057. 4. *The form number if applicable:* DOE/NRC Form 740M. 5. *How often the collection is required:* DOE/NRC Form 740M is requested as necessary to inform the U.S. or the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)of any qualifying statement or exception to any of the data contained in other reporting forms required under the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement. On average, 15 licensees submit about 10 forms each per year, for a total of 150 forms annually. 6. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Persons licensed to possess specified quantities of special nuclear material or source material, and licensees of facilities on the U.S. eligible list who have been notified in writing by the NRC that they are subject to Part 75. 7. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 150. 8. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 15. 9. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 113 hours (an average of .75 hours per response). 10. *Abstract:* Licensees affected by Part 75 and related sections of Parts 40, 50, 70, and 150 are required to submit DOE/NRC Form 740M to inform the U.S. or the IAEA of any qualifying statement or exception to any of the data contained in any of the other reporting forms required under the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement. The use of Form 740M enables the NRC to collect, retrieve, and analyze, and submit the data to IAEA to fulfill its reporting responsibilities. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by April 18, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0057), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney,
(301)415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-5500 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters.” 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0013. 3. *How often the collection is required:* NRC Form 241 must be submitted each time an Agreement State licensee wants to engage in or revise its activities involving the use of radioactive byproduct material in a non-Agreement State, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters. The NRC may waive the requirements for filing additional copies of NRC Form 241 during the remainder of the calendar year following receipt of the initial form. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Any licensee who holds a specific license from an Agreement State and wants to conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters under the general license in 10 CFR 150.20. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 140 respondents. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 582 hours. 7. *Abstract:* Any Agreement State licensee who engages in the use of radioactive material in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters, under the general license in Section 150.20, is required to file, with the NRC regional administrator for the region in which the Agreement State that issues the license is located, a copy of NRC Form 241 (“Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters”), a copy of its Agreement State specific license, and the appropriate fee as prescribed in Section 170.31 at least 3 days before engaging in such activity. This mandatory notification permits NRC to schedule inspections of the activities to determine whether the activities are being conducted in accordance with requirements for protection of the public health and safety. Submit, by May 19, 2008, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by e-mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-5517 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on January 2, 2008. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 73—“Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.” 3. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0002. 4. *The form number if applicable:* Not applicable. 5. *How often the collection is required:* On occasion, with the exception of the initial submittal of revised Security Plans, Safeguards Contingency Plans, and Security Training and Qualification Plans. Required reports are submitted and evaluated as events occur. 6. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Nuclear power reactor licensees, licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 who possess, use, import, export, transport, or deliver to a carrier for transport, special nuclear material; Category I fuel facilities; Category II and III facilities; research and test reactors; and 262 other nuclear materials licensees. 7. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 86,264 (85,880 plus 384 recordkeepers). 8. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 384. 9. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 578,863 hours (85,441 reporting [approximately 1 hour per response] and 493,422 recordkeeping [1,285 hours per recordkeeper]). 10. *Abstract:* NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 73 prescribe requirements to establish and maintain a physical protection system and security organization with capabilities for protection of:
(1)Special nuclear material
(SNM)at fixed sites,
(2)SNM in transit, and
(3)plants in which SNM is used. The objective is to ensure that activities involving special nuclear material are consistent with interests of common defense and security and that these activities do not constitute an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. The information in the reports and records submitted by licensees is used by the NRC staff to ensure that the health and safety of the public and the environment are protected, and licensee possession and use of special nuclear material is in compliance with license and regulatory requirements. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by April 18, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0002), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney,
(301)415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-5518 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Entergy Operations, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for a Combined License On February 27, 2008, Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI), on behalf of itself and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and System Energy Resources, Inc., filed with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” an application for a combined license
(COL)for an economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR) nuclear power plant at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
(GGNS)site located in Claiborne County, Mississippi. The reactor is to be identified as GGNS Unit 3. An applicant may seek a COL in accordance with Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52. The information submitted by the applicant includes certain administrative information such as financial qualifications submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.77, as well as technical information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.79. Subsequent **Federal Register** notices will address the acceptability of the tendered COL application for docketing and provisions for participation of the public in the COL review process. A copy of the application is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and via the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, * http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. * The accession number for the application is ML080640433. Future publicly available documents related to the application will also be posted in ADAMS. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The application is also available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eric R. Oesterle, Senior Project Manager, ESBWR/ABWR Projects Branch 1, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-5522 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-443] Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards; Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 issued to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (the licensee) for operation of Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)Table 4.3-1, “Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements” to require the initial plateau curves to be measured within 24 hours after attaining 100 percent steady-state power. Currently, initial plateau curves are required to be taken within 24 hours of entry into Mode 2. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(1)Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] are unaffected by this proposed change. The duration for obtaining neutron detector plateau curves is not an initiator of any accident previously analyzed. There is no change to any equipment response or accident scenario, and this change results in no additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity. The proposed change does not alter the design, configuration, operation, or function of any plant system, structure, or component. The requested amendment modifies the frequency of the channel calibrations for the intermediate and power range detectors by permitting 24 hours to perform the SR [surveillance requirement] (measure and obtain neutron detector plateau curves) after achieving steady-state operation at rated thermal power. This change has no impact on the consequences or probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not impact the ability of the nuclear instrumentation, reactor protection system, or any other system, structure, or component to perform its intended function to mitigate the consequences of an accident within acceptable limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological assumptions used in analyzing the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change neither increases the type or amount of radioactivity released offsite nor increases public or occupational radiation exposures. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system. The proposed change neither installs nor removes any plant equipment, and it does not alter the design, physical configuration, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component. No physical changes are being made to the plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no affect on the operability or performance of the safety-related systems and components. The proposed change does not alter the design, configuration, operation, or function of any plant system, structure, or component. The ability of any operable structure, system, or component to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by this change. With this change, the TS will continue to require operable nuclear instrumentation. The proposed change does not create an initiating event, increase the likelihood of an initiating event, affect the ability to mitigate an event, affect containment performance, or affect operator actions in response to an event. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the TS is not reduced and the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license, and any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five
(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *hearingdocket@nrc.gov,* or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request:
(1)A digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.* Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.* Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.* A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800)397-4209 or locally,
(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory.html,* unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submissions. For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment dated February 16, 2007, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. G. Edward Miller, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch1-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-5521 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the Subcommittee on Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR); Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on ESBWR will hold a meeting on April 9, 2008, in the Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed to discuss General Electric—Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC.
(GEH)proprietary information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Wednesday, April 9, 2008—8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.* The Subcommittee will discuss the staff's approach to resolve the thermal-hydraulic issues previously identified by the Subcommittee during its review of Chapters 4, 6, 15, and 21 of the Safety Evaluation Report
(SER)with open items associated with the ESBWR design certification application. In addition, the Subcommittee will review SER Chapter 18, “Human Factors Engineering.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. David Bessette (telephone 301/415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: March 12, 2008. Cayetano Santos, Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E8-5515 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on April 9, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b ( c)
(2)and
(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, April 9, 2008, 12 p.m. until 1 p.m. The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy ( *telephone:* 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
(ET)five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: March 12, 2008. Cayetano Santos, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch. [FR Doc. E8-5516 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-395] South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1; Exemption 1.0 Background The South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the licensee) is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 which authorizes operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (VCSNS). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a pressurized-water reactor located in Fairfield County in South Carolina. 2.0 Request/Action Pursuant to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), Section 50.12, ``Specific Exemptions,'' SCE&G has, by letters dated May 31 and October 11, 2007, requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors,'' and Appendix K to 10 CFR 50, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' (Appendix K). The regulation in 10 CFR 50.46 contains acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling system
(ECCS)for reactors fueled with zircaloy or ZIRLO TM cladding. In addition, Appendix K requires that the Baker-Just equation be used to predict the rates of energy release, hydrogen concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water reaction. The exemption request relates solely to the specific types of cladding material specified in these regulations. As written, the regulations presume the use of zircaloy or ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding. Thus, an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K is needed to irradiate a lead test assembly
(LTA)comprised of different cladding alloys at VCSNS. The exemptions requested by the licensee would allow the use of one LTA containing either all Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding or a combination of Optimized ZIRLO TM and AXIOM TM fuel rod cladding to continue to be irradiated up to a burnup of 75 gigawatt days per metric ton uranium (GWd/MTU). Previously, by letter dated January 14, 2005, the NRC staff approved the irradiation of four LTAs containing fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLO TM and several different developmental clad (AXIOM TM ) alloys. That exemption was contingent on the fuel rod burnup remaining within the applicable licensed limits, which for burnup, was a value of 62 GWd/MTU. The licensee inserted those LTAs into VCSNS for irradiation in fuel cycles 16 and 17. In the licensee's letters of May 31 and October 11, 2007, the licensee requested an exemption to continue the irradiation of one of the four LTAs for a third operating cycle. This LTA would be irradiated in fuel cycle 18 in order to gain high burnup experience. The licensee requested to irradiate the LTA to a peak rod average of up to 75 GWd/MTU. The licensee also requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.44, “Combustible gas control for nuclear power reactors.” The requested exemption from 10 CFR 50.44 is not being considered further by the NRC staff because revisions were made to 10 CFR 50.44 (68 FR 54123; September 16, 2003), such that it does not refer to specific types of zirconium cladding, thus removing the need for such an exemption. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, when
(1)the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and
(2)when special circumstances are present. Under Section 50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR, special circumstances include, among other things, when application of the specific regulation in the particular circumstance would not serve, or is not necessary to achieve, the underlying purpose of the rule. Authorized by Law This exemption would allow the licensee to re-insert one LTA containing either all Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rod cladding or a combination of Optimized ZIRLO TM and AXIOM TM fuel rod cladding that does not meet the definition of Zircaloy or ZIRLO TM as specified by 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K, into the core of VCSNS during fuel cycle 18. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law. No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety In regard to the fuel mechanical design, the SCE&G exemption request relates solely to the specific types of cladding material specified in the regulations. No new or altered design limits for purposes of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 10, ``Reactor Design'', need to be applied or are required for this program. Following VCSNS Cycle 17, post-irradiation examinations
(PIE)will be completed on the LTAs to verify acceptable performance and to validate fuel performance model predictions. These models, tuned to the latest PIE data, will be used to ensure that all design criteria are satisfied up to the projected end of cycle 18 (EOC18) burnup. The licensee states that if either the PIE shows anomalous behavior or predicted performance is outside acceptable bounds, the LTA will not be inserted into Cycle 18. Based upon the limited number of advanced alloy fuel rods, the PIE (which would detect anomalous behavior), and the use of approved models (tuned to the latest PIE data) to ensure that all design criteria remain satisfied, the NRC staff finds the LTA mechanical design acceptable for VCSNS. In regard to the core reload and accident analysis, the NRC staff finds that, based on current LTA performance and testing to date, it is not anticipated that any of the advanced cladding fuel rods would fail during normal operation and anticipated operational events. In the event of unforeseen failures in this limited population, plant instrumentation is capable of detecting increased reactor coolant activity, and reasonable operator action would ensure TS limits would not be violated. Further, due to their limited number, failure of the advanced alloy fuel rods during an accident would neither challenge docketed dose consequences nor coolable geometry. The licensee will continue to use approved core physics and reload methodologies to model the LTA up to the projected EOC18 burnup. The NRC staff finds the use of these methods acceptable. The licensee stated in its May 31, 2007 letter that the assessment contained in Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power-12610-P-A, “VANTAGE + Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report,” dated April 1995, concluded that the fuel handling accident
(FHA)thyroid doses are not adversely affected by extended burnup. However, the amount of fission gas release (from the fuel pellet) is sensitive to burnup and power history. As such, the fission product gap inventory may be affected by the higher burnup and power history of the LTA. The NRC staff requested additional information
(RAI)regarding the limited empirical database of fission gas measurements at 75 GWd/MTU burnups, to be able to verify that the FHA dose analysis is not impacted. The licensee's October 11, 2007 response identified a number of conservatisms within the existing dose calculations which, if credited, could result in a significant reduction in the limiting FHA dose for the extended burnup LTA and thus compensate for the uncertainty in fission product gap inventory within the high burnup LTA rods. These included the pool decontamination factor, the relative power factor for this particular LTA in fuel cycle 18, the thyroid dose conversion factors, offloading time, reactor building purge isolation, and mechanical fuel damage due to impact. Consistent with Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.25, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors (Safety Guide 25),” an overall effective decontamination factor of 100 is used in the current analysis to determine the percentage of iodine activity within the fuel rod gap that is released to the reactor building atmosphere. As described in the UFSAR Section 15.4.5.1.2.2, this value is a factor of five or more below the expected value. The licensee stated that although not fully credited, this conservatism is recognized in Appendix B to RG 1.195, “Methods and Assumptions for Evaluating Radiological Consequences of Design Basis Accidents
(DBA)at Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors”, which outlines an acceptable methodology for evaluating the radiological consequences of a FHA. Provided the depth of the water above the damaged fuel is 23 feet or greater, the accepted decontamination factors for the elemental and organic species of iodine are 400 and 1, respectively, giving an overall effective decontamination factor of 200 (i.e., 99.5 percent of the total iodine release from the damaged rods is retained by the water). The NRC staff confirms that VCSNS Technical Specifications
(TSs)3.7.10 and 3.9.7 require the water level to be a minimum of 23 feet for the spent fuel pool and the reactor vessel during refueling, respectively. Because of these controls, the NRC staff is confident that the overall effective decontamination factor will not increase above 200. If the RG 1.195 overall effective decontamination factor is credited within the VCSNS FHA analysis, the calculated thyroid dose would decrease by 50 percent. The NRC staff finds that the licensee has appropriately applied RG 1.195, Appendix B, and that this conservatism exists in the current licensing basis FHA analysis. The licensee presented information showing that the relative assembly power factor for both the LTA and the assembly impacted by the LTA during an FHA will not approach the 1.7 peaking limit assumed in the VCSNS FSAR analysis. The assumptions in RG 1.195 are conservative to account for the fact that in a general analysis, it is unknown which assembly out of any assembly in the core may be dropped. Therefore, the highest peaking factor out of all the assemblies in the core and the highest burnup out of all the assemblies in the core are assumed to be applied in the same postulated dropped assembly. One assembly would be unlikely to have both the highest burnup and the highest peaking factor. Therefore, in this specific case, with more realistic and appropriate relative assembly powers credited for both the LTA and other potentially impacted assemblies, the licensee states the limiting dose would decrease by approximately 37 percent. Although relative assembly powers are not generally credited in DBA radiological consequences analyses, the NRC staff finds that the specific situation described above does show that conservatism exists in the current licensing basis FHA analysis when compared to the expected impact of dropping the extended burnup LTA. As regards the thyroid dose conversion factors, the current VCSNS dose analysis for the FHA is conservatively based on thyroid dose conversion factors from “Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites,” TID-14844, March 1962. If conversion factors from International Commission on Radiation Protection, ICRP-30, “Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers,” 1980, were used instead, the licensee states that this would result in approximately a 29 percent reduction in the limiting dose. Use of ICRP-30 thyroid dose conversion factors is acceptable to the staff as documented in RG 1.195. The NRC staff accepts that this conservatism exists in the current licensing basis FHA analysis. For LTA offloading time, the licensee discussed the additional decay time that would be expected for the movement of the extended burnup LTA as compared to the DBA dose analysis assumption. The VCSNS TSs allow a core offload to begin no sooner than 72 hours after shutdown. The licensee presented a basis for concluding that, in actual practice, core offload would begin no sooner than 144 hours, which would further reduce the radiological doses from a DBA. However, because the licensee did not provide how it would control the expected 144 hours to start core offload ( *i.e.* TS, procedural change, etc.), the NRC staff finds that this conservatism can not be credited. Following a postulated accident inside the reactor building, the radioactivity is assumed to be released to the environment through the reactor building purge system, and if the system isolates before release to the environment, it likely would significantly reduce the FHA dose. However, since the system is not fully safety grade, the staff finds that this conservatism can not be credited in this analysis. As regards the mechanical fuel damage due to an FHA, the VCSNS FSAR analysis assumes all rods of the dropped assembly and 50 rods on an impacted assembly fail. The licensee states that this is a very conservative assumption given the broad spectrum of loads ( *e.g.* , shipping, thermal, deadweight, loss-of-coolant accident, and seismic loads) considered and the resulting high structural strength of the fuel assembly and other core components. In its October 11, 2007, RAI response, the licensee stated that the irradiated fuel assembly drop events have also yielded no increase in local area dose rates. The NRC staff agrees with the licensee that the amount of assumed cladding failure per RG 1.195 guidance is intended to be generally conservative, based on industry experience, but it is not expected to be any more or less conservative for the extended burnup LTA than for any other type of fuel. Contingent on these conservatisms being applicable only to the one LTA, the NRC staff finds that the acceptable conservatisms identified do compensate for the uncertainties in the gap fractions. Therefore, the fission product gap inventory assumed in the current licensing basis FHA radiological assessment remains bounding for the extended burnup LTA. For accidents other than FHA, even though extended burnup to 75 GWD/MTU for the one LTA would cause a variation in the core inventory compared to the current fuel, there are no significant increases to isotopes that are major contributors to accident doses. Thus, the NRC staff finds that current licensing basis DBA results remain bounding for estimated offsite and control room operator doses and the radiation dose limitations of Part 100 and GDC-19 will not be exceeded. The NRC staff finds that the licensee used assumptions, inputs, and methods that are consistent with the conservative regulatory requirements and guidance identified above. Based on the VCSNS current licensing bases, and the acceptable conservatisms discussed above, the NRC staff finds with reasonable assurance, that the licensee's estimates of the exclusion area boundary, low-population zone, and control room doses will continue to comply with the applicable regulatory criteria. Therefore, the proposed extension of the fuel rod average burnup limit for one LTA is acceptable with regard to the radiological consequences of postulated design basis accidents. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance. The applicability of these ECCS acceptance criteria has been demonstrated by Westinghouse. Ring compression tests performed by Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO TM (documented in Appendix B of Addendum 1 to WCAP-12610-P-A) demonstrate an acceptable retention of Post-LOCA ductility up to 10 CFR 50.46 limits of 2200 degrees Farenheit and 17 percent equivalent cladding reacted (ECR). Based on an ongoing LOCA research program at Argonne National Laboratory, cladding corrosion has a more significant impact on post-quench ductility than fuel rod burnup. The oxidation measurements provided by the licensee illustrate that the oxide thickness (and associated hydrogen pickup) for an LTA up to 75 GWd/MTU would be below the measured oxide for both Zircaloy-4 and ZIRLO TM at current burnup limits. Hence, the effect of corrosion on the LTA fuel rods up to the higher burnup would not invalidate the applicability of the ECCS acceptance criteria for Optimized ZIRLO TM . Due to their limited number, any change in the Post-LOCA ductility characteristics of the advanced alloy fuel rods (relative to the 2200 degrees Farenheit peak cladding temperature and 17 percent ECR) would not challenge core coolable geometry. Utilizing currently approved LOCA models and methods, Westinghouse will perform cycle-specific reload evaluations to ensure that the LTA satisfies 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria. Therefore, the exemption to expand the application of 10 CFR 50.46 to include Optimized ZIRLO TM is acceptable. Paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K states that the rates of energy, hydrogen concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water reaction shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. Since the Baker-Just equation presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of the rule would not permit use of the equation for the LTA cladding for determining acceptable fuel performance. Metal-water reaction tests performed by Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLO TM (documented in Appendix B of Addendum 1 to WCAP-12610-P-A) demonstrate conservative reaction rates relative to the Baker-Just equation. As for the limited advanced alloy fuel rods, their similar material composition is expected to yield similar high temperature metal-water reaction rates. The reaction rate should not be impacted by the higher burnup. Thus, application of Appendix K, Paragraph I.A.5, is not necessary to achieve its underlying purpose in these circumstances. Based upon results of metal-water reaction tests and ring-compression tests which ensure the applicability of ECCS models and acceptance criteria, the limited number and anticipated performance of the advanced cladding fuel rods, and the use of approved LOCA models to ensure that the LTAs satisfy 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria, the staff finds it acceptable to grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 for the use of an LTA up to 75 GWd/MTU in the VCSNS. Consistent With Common Defense and Security The proposed exemption would allow the use of one LTA with advanced cladding materials. This change to the plant core configuration has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption. Special Circumstances Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.44 is to ensure that means are provided for the control of hydrogen gas that may be generated following a LOCA. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance. The wording of the regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K is not directly applicable to these advanced cladding alloys, even though the evaluations discussed above show that the intent of the regulations are met. Therefore, since the underlying purposes of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K are achieved with the use of these advanced cladding alloys, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) for granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K exist. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SCE&G exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, to allow one LTA containing either all Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel rods or a combination of Optimized ZIRLO TM and AXIOM TM fuel rods to continue to be irradiated up to a burnup of 75 GWd/MTU. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (73 FR 10069; February 25, 2008). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-5513 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Performance of Commercial Activities AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Update to civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor, federal pay raise assumptions, and inflation factors used in OMB Circular No. A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities.” SUMMARY: OMB is updating the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor used to compute the estimated cost of government performance in public-private competitions conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-76. The civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor is comprised of four separate elements:
(1)Insurance and health benefits,
(2)standard civilian retirement benefits,
(3)Medicare benefits, and
(4)miscellaneous fringe benefits. OMB is updating the insurance and health benefits and standard civilian retirement benefits cost elements based on actuarial analyses provided by the Office of Personnel Management. OMB is also updating the annual Federal pay raise assumptions and inflation cost factors used for computing the government's personnel and non-pay costs in Circular A-76 public-private competitions. These annual pay raise assumptions and inflation factors are based on the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2009. DATES: *Effective date:* These changes are effective immediately and shall apply to all public-private competitions performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-76, as revised in May 2003, where the performance decision has not been certified by the government before this date. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Daumit, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), NEOB, Room 9013, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Tel. No. 202-395-1052. *Availability:* Copies of OMB Circular A-76, as revised by this notice, may be obtained at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html* . Paper copies of the Circular may be obtained by calling OFPP (tel:
(202)395-7579). Jim Nussle, Director. Attachment Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies *From:* Jim Nussle, Director. *Subject:* Update to Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor, Federal Pay Raise Assumptions, and Inflation Factors used in OMB Circular No. A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities.” Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-76 requires agencies to use standard cost factors to estimate certain costs of government performance. These cost factors ensure that specific government costs are calculated in a standard and consistent manner to reasonably reflect the cost of performing commercial activities with government personnel. This memorandum updates the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor, the annual federal pay raise assumptions, and inflation cost factors. The update to the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor is based on actuarial analyses provided by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The revised pay raise assumptions and inflation cost factors are based on the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2009. Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor The Circular requires agencies to add the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor to the basic pay for each full-time and part-time permanent civilian position in the agency cost estimate. This factor is comprised of four separate elements:
(1)Insurance and health benefits,
(2)standard civilian retirement benefits,
(3)Medicare benefits, and
(4)miscellaneous fringe benefits. OMB has determined, based on information provided by OPM, that the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor needs to be adjusted downward, from 36.45 percent to 36.25 percent. This adjustment reflects a decrease in civilian retirement benefits that is slightly greater than an increase in insurance and health benefits. The Medicare benefits and miscellaneous fringe benefits elements remain unchanged at this time. The revised cost elements of the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor are summarized in the table below. Table.—Elements of the Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor Element Previous cost factor percent Updated cost factor percent Insurance and Health Benefit a 6.7 7.0 Standard Civilian Retirement Benefit b 26.6 26.1 Medicare Benefit 1.45 1.45 Miscellaneous Fringe Benefit 1.7 1.7 Total Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefits 36.45 36.25 a This factor is based on actuarial estimates for the costs of the government-paid portion of health insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
(FEHB)Program and the Federal Employees Government Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program and excludes the employee-paid portion of health insurance. This figure is multiplied by the average participation rates in these programs and divided by the average civilian employee's salary (as identified in the President's budget) to derive a factor as a percentage of basic pay. This factor is based only on costs borne by the government (not enrollee premiums) and only on behalf of active federal employees (not retirees). Increases in government costs for retirees are reflected in the standard civilian retirement benefit cost factor. b The standard civilian retirement benefit cost factor includes the government's accruing cost for pension benefits (Social Security, Thrift Savings Plan, Federal Employees or Civil Service Retirement Systems) and the accruing cost for post-retirement health benefits. It excludes the employee-paid portion of retirement. The master tables for COMPARE (the costing software that incorporates the costing procedures of the circular) have been updated to reflect these changes. The updates are available at *www.compareA76.com* . Agencies shall use the updated COMPARE master tables to calculate and document public and private sector costs in competitions where a performance decision has not been certified by the government by the effective date identified in the **Federal Register** notice accompanying the publication of this memorandum. Accordingly, the following changes are made to OMB Circular A-76. 1. Subparagraphs B.2.f.(1)(a) and
(b)of Attachment C are revised to read as follows:
(1)*Full-time and Part-time Permanent Civilian Positions.* Full-time and part-time permanent civilian positions receive the civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor of 36.25 percent of the position's basic pay. The 36.25 percent civilian position full fringe benefit cost factor is the sum of the standard civilian position retirement benefit cost factor (26.1 percent), insurance and health benefit cost factor (7.0 percent), Medicare benefit cost factor (1.45 percent), and miscellaneous fringe benefit cost factor (1.7 percent).
(a)*Retirement Benefit Cost Factors.* The standard civilian retirement benefit cost factor represents the cost of the weighted Civil Service Retirement System/Federal Employees Retirement System to the government, based upon the full dynamic normal cost of the retirement systems, the normal cost of accruing retiree health benefits based on average participation rates, social security, and Thrift Savings Plan contributions. The standard civilian retirement benefit cost factor for civilian positions is 26.1 percent of the position's basic pay (21.0 percent retirement pension plus 5.1 percent for retiree health). The retirement cost factors for special class civilian positions are: 38.5 percent of basic pay for air traffic controllers (33.4 percent retirement pension plus 5.1 percent for retiree health) and 40.4 percent of basic pay for law enforcement and fire protection (35.3 percent retirement pension plus 5.1 percent for retiree health).
(b)*Insurance and Health Benefit Cost Factor.* The insurance and health benefit cost factor for civilian positions, based on actual cost, is 7.0 percent of the position's basic pay (0.2 percent for life insurance benefits and 6.8 percent for health benefits). 2. The following standard cost factors and footnote no. 1 in Figure C.1 of Attachment C, “Table of Standard A-76 Costing Factors,” are revised as set forth below: Table of Standard A-76 Costing Factors Title Originating source Category of cost Factor 1 (percent) Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor OMB Transmittal Memoranda Pay 36.25 Insurance and Health Benefit Cost Factor OMB Transmittal Memoranda Pay 7.0 Special Class Retirement Cost Factor(Law Enforcement & Fire Protection) OMB Transmittal Memoranda Pay 40.4 Special Class Retirement Cost Factor (Air Traffic Control) OMB Transmittal Memoranda Pay 38.5 Standard Civilian Retirement Benefit Cost Factor OMB Transmittal Memoranda Pay 26.1 1 *The factors listed in this column are factors in effect on February 2008.* Agencies should refer to the COMPARE Web site at *www.compareA76.com.* for the updated COMPARE master tables and other updated information. Federal Pay Raise Assumptions The following federal pay raise assumptions (including geographic pay differentials) that are in effect for 2008 shall be used for the development of government personnel costs. The pay raise factors provided for 2009 and beyond shall be applied to all government personnel with no assumption being made as to how they will be distributed between possible locality and base pay increases. Federal Pay Raise Assumptions* Effective date Civilian (percent) Military (percent) January 2008 3.5 3.5 January 2009 2.9 3.4 * Pay raise assumptions have not been established for pay raises subsequent to January 2009. For January 2010, the projected percentage change in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), adjusted, 3.2 percent, should be used to estimate in-house personnel costs for A-76 competitions. For January 2011 through January 2018, the projected change in the ECI of 3.4 percent should be used. In future updates to A-76 guidance, as pay policy for years subsequent to 2009 is established, these pay raise assumptions will be revised. Inflation Factors The following non-pay inflation cost factors are provided for purposes of public-private competitions conducted pursuant to Circular A-76 only. They reflect the generic non-pay inflation assumptions used to develop the fiscal year 2009 budget baseline estimates required by law. The law requires that a specific inflation factor (GDP FY/FY chained price index) be used for this purpose. These inflation factors should not be viewed as estimates of expected inflation rates for major long-term procurement items or as an estimate of inflation for any particular agency's non-pay purchases mix. Non-Pay Categories [Supplies, Equipment, etc.] Percent FY 2009 2.0 FY 2010 2.0 FY 2012 2.0 FY 2013 2.0 FY 2014 2.0 FY 2015 2.0 FY 2016 2.0 FY 2017 2.0 FY 2018 * 2.0 * Any subsequent years included in the period of performance shall use a 2.0% figure, until otherwise revised by OMB. [FR Doc. E8-5549 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P OVERSEAS PRlVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION March 20, 2008 Public Hearing OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its Public Hearing in Conjunction with each Board meeting was published in the **Federal Register** (Volume 73, Number 43, Page 11682) on March 4, 2008. No requests were received to provide testimony or submit written statements for the record; therefore, OPIC's public hearing scheduled for 2 p.m., March 20, 2008 in conjunction with OPIC's March 21, 2008 Board of Directors meeting has been cancelled. *Contact Person for Information:* Information on the hearing cancellation may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at
(202)336-8438, via facsimile at
(202)2180136, or via e-mail at *Connie.Downs@opic.gov.* Dated: March 14, 2008. Connie M. Downs, OPIC Corporate Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5486 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3210-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57485; File No. SR-Amex-2008-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Dissemination of the Index Value for Index-Linked Securities March 12, 2008. I. Introduction On January 30, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change relating to the dissemination of the index value for Index-Linked Securities. 3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 2008 for a 15-day comment period. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes. *See* Amex Company Guide Sections 107D. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57325 (February 13, 2008), 73 FR 9375. II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange proposed to amend sections 107D(i) and section 107(d)(h)(3)(ii) of the Amex *Company Guide* (“Company Guide”) to conform the index dissemination requirements relating to Index-Linked Securities to that of Index Fund Shares and Portfolio Depository Receipts (collectively, exchange-traded funds or “ETFs”). 5 Section 107(D)(i)(iii) of the Company Guide provides that the current value of an index will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds. The proposed amendment provides that the current value of an index or composite value of more than one index will be widely disseminated at least:
(i)Every 15 seconds with respect to indexes containing only securities listed on a national securities exchange; or
(ii)every 60-seconds with respect to indexes containing foreign country securities. If the official index value does not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on the Exchange, then the last calculated official index value must remain available throughout Exchange trading hours. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the delisting requirements set forth in section 107D(h)(3)(ii) to distinguish between indexes consisting solely of securities listed on a national securities exchange and those including components that are foreign country securities. 5 *See* Commentary .02(b)(ii) to Rule 1000A—AEMI (Index Fund Shares) and Commentary .03(b)(ii) to Rule 1000—AEMI (Portfolio Depository Receipts). III. Discussion and Commission's Findings After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission notes that opportunities to invest in derivative securities products based not only on U.S. securities, but also on an international or global index of equity securities, provide additional choices to accommodate particular investment needs and objectives, to the benefit of investors. With respect to the dissemination of the value of an index that is comprised, at least in part, of non-U.S. components, the proposed 60-second standard reflects limitations, in some instances, on the frequency of intra-day trading information with respect to foreign country securities and the fact that in many cases, trading hours for overseas markets overly only in part, or not at all, with the Exchange's trading hours. In addition, if an index or portfolio value does not change during some or all of the period when the derivative securities product trades on the Exchange, the last official calculated index value will remain available throughout Exchange trading hours. The Commission believes that such 60-second standard relating to the dissemination of the value of an index composed, at least in part, of foreign securities should apply to Index-Linked Securities as well as ETFs and finds that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act on the same basis that it approved the other exchange's generic listing standards for ETFs based on international or global indexes. 8 In addition, the Commission notes that it has approved substantively identical dissemination requirements for Index-Linked Securities listed on another national securities exchange. 9 8 See, *e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-050); 55113 (January 17, 2007), 72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101); and 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993 (November 17, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-78). 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57389 (February 27, 2008), 73 FR 11973 (March 5, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-06). The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change before the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that the proposal is substantively identical to a proposed rule change that the Commission approved for another national securities exchange. 10 In addition, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of the proposed rule change, which clarifies the dissemination of the value of the index underlying an issue of Index-Linked Securities, should promote the continued listing and trading of Index-Linked Securities to the benefit of investors. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 10 *Id.* *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2008-04) is approved on an accelerated basis. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5429 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57494; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-21] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Cut-Off Time for the Submission of Strategy Orders During the Modified HOSS Opening Procedure March 13, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 11, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by CBOE. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to modify the cut-off time for the submission of index option orders for participation in the modified Hybrid Opening System (“HOSS”) opening related to a position in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility index options or futures. The text of the proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.org/legal.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The settlement date for volatility index options and futures contracts is on the Wednesday that is thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately following the month in which the applicable volatility index options or futures contract expires. 5 On these settlement days, CBOE Rule 6.2B.01 provides for a modified HOSS opening procedure only in those index option series
(i)that are Hybrid 3.0 classes, and
(ii)whose prices are used to calculate a volatility index on which an option or future is traded. 6 Currently, the only index options used to calculate a volatility index that trade on the Hybrid 3.0 platform are S&P 500 Index (“SPX”) options, which began trading on that platform on September 25, 2007. Specifically, SPX options are used to calculate the CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”). 5 If the third Friday of the month subsequent to expiration of the applicable volatility index options or futures contract is a CBOE holiday, the final settlement date for the respective contract shall be thirty days prior to the CBOE business day immediately preceding that Friday. 6 The normal HOSS opening procedure is used on all other days in those index options and on the volatility index options and futures settlement date in all contract months whose prices are not used to calculate the applicable volatility index. Under current Rule 6.2B.01, all index option orders for participation in the modified HOSS opening procedure that are related to positions in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility index options or futures (“Strategy Orders”) and any change to or cancellation of any such Strategy Order must be received prior to 8 a.m.
(CT)(subject to a limited exception for errors). The cut-off time for the entry of non-Strategy Orders on volatility index settlement days is established on a class-by-class basis, provided the cut-off time is no earlier than 8:25 a.m.
(CT)and no later than the opening of trading in the option series. 7 Any imbalance of contracts to buy over contracts to sell in the applicable index option series, or vice versa, as indicated on the electronic book, as well as expected opening prices and sizes are published in a snapshot form on the CBOE and CBOE Futures Exchange (“CFE”) Web sites as soon as practicable up through the opening bell on settlement days when the modified HOSS opening procedure is utilized. They are also currently continually disseminated on the Hybrid trading system. 7 *See* CBOE Rule 6.2B.01(c)(iv). An example of a Strategy Order includes a market participant who places SPX option orders on the book prior to the opening of trading on the settlement date for VIX futures to unwind hedge strategies involving SPX options. In particular, a commonly used hedge for VIX futures involves holding a portfolio of SPX options that will be used to calculate the settlement value of the VIX futures contract on the settlement date. The Exchange has observed that traders holding hedged VIX futures positions to settlement tend to trade out of their SPX options on VIX settlement days. 8 8 The Exchange originally proposed a cut-off time for the entry of Strategy Orders to provide market participants with time to review order imbalances and to place off-setting orders in the book, thereby encouraging additional market participation in the applicable index option opening which improves the settlement value calculation. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52367 (August 31, 2005), 70 FR 53401 (September 8, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-86). In order to strike the appropriate balance between maintaining a time period for market participants to respond to order imbalances and providing traders seeking convergence with additional time to enter Strategy Orders, the Exchange is currently proposing to modify the cut-off time for the entry of Strategy Orders as described more fully herein. Recently, the Exchange has received requests from market participants to extend the cut-off time for the entry of Strategy Orders on volatility index settlement days. Market participants have explained that because Strategy Orders cannot be modified or cancelled after 8 a.m.
(CT)(except for errors), they are exposed to risk associated with market movements between 8 a.m.
(CT)and the opening bell, which is after 8:30 a.m. (CT), and in the case of such market movements, may be unable to obtain convergence with the VIX futures final settlement value. Specifically, the final value to which VIX futures settle is calculated using the opening prices of constituent SPX options: Out-of-the-money puts and calls that have non-zero bid prices. The Exchange determines whether a particular option series is “out-of-the-money” by reference to an “at-the-money” index strike price (K <sup>0</sup> ); put series with strike prices below K <sup>0</sup> and call series with strike prices above K <sup>0</sup> are considered constituent SPX options, provided that these series have non-zero bid prices. Both the put and call series with strike price K <sup>0</sup> are also considered constituent options. As the market moves, and the K <sup>0</sup> strike price changes, the constituent SPX options will also change. For example, at 8 a.m. (CT), suppose K <sup>0</sup> is deemed to be 1350. Market participants would be expected to enter Strategy Orders for SPX put series with strike prices of 1350 and lower, and SPX call series with strike prices of 1350 and higher. Now suppose that the market moved after 8 a.m.
(CT)and the K <sup>0</sup> strike price changed to 1325. In order to obtain convergence with the SPX option hedge and the VIX futures final settlement value, market participants would need to change certain of their resting Strategy Orders to reflect the new set of constituent SPX options. Specifically, resting Strategy Orders for put series with strike prices between 1325 and 1350 would need to be cancelled and replaced by Strategy Orders for call series with strike prices between 1325 and 1350. In response, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to eliminate a specific cut-off time for Strategy Orders and instead provide that the cut-off time may be established by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, provided that the established cut-off time cannot be set earlier than 8 a.m.
(CT)or later than the opening of trading in the option series for which the modified HOSS opening procedure is utilized. The amended rule text also provides that pronouncements regarding changes to the established Strategy Order cut-off time would be announced to the membership via a Regulatory Circular that is issued at least one day prior to implementation. As proposed, the instant rule change builds flexibility into the rule to allow for future modifications to the applicable Strategy Order cut-off time, which may be appropriate in the future as technology improves and processes become more automated. In addition, the proposed rule provisions regarding the cut-off time for Strategy Orders are consistent with current rule provisions regarding the cut-off time for non-Strategy Orders in that both sets of provisions are structured to permit the Exchange to designate a cut-off time within a particular time range to permit the Exchange to adjust the cut-off time as circumstances evolve. 9 9 *See* Rule 6.2B.01(c)(iv); *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54275 (August 4, 2006), 71 FR 45866 (August 10, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-61). In support of this change, the Exchange notes that since the 8 a.m.
(CT)cut-off time for Strategy Orders was first established in 2005, the trading system for receiving, processing, and matching orders during the opening process has become much more automated. 10 Also, order imbalances are now published on the Hybrid trading system and are thus more widely disseminated. For example, before SPX options traded on the Hybrid 3.0 platform, order imbalances were only visible to market participants in the trading crowd and in snapshots on the CBOE and CFE Web sites. Now imbalances are also continually disseminated prior to the opening of trading through the Hybrid trading system. As a result of the enhanced trading system, it no longer takes as much time for information regarding order imbalances to reach market participants, and market participants can react to those order imbalances sooner by placing offsetting orders. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a need to have Strategy Orders submitted as early as is the case currently, and the Exchange expects to move the Strategy Order cut-off time to a later time. However, if the Exchange learns from experience that the cut-off time needs to be adjusted further to be earlier or later within the time range between 8 a.m.
(CT)and the opening of trading to provide for an optimal opening process, the proposed rule will provide the Exchange with the flexibility to do that. 10 *See supra* note 8. 2. Statutory Basis Because the proposed modification to the cut-off time for Strategy Orders on volatility index settlement days will permit the Exchange to provide market participants with additional time to enter Strategy Orders, is designed to better enable market participants to meet their trading objectives ( *e.g.* , obtain convergence with the VIX futures final settlement value), and provides the Exchange with the ability to continue to provide market participants with time to respond to order imbalances, the Exchange believes the rule proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act. 11 Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 12 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange notes that the proposal which established the current rule provision governing the cut-off time for non-Strategy Orders (which permits the Exchange to designate a cut-off time within a particular time range) was designated by the Commission to be effective and operative upon filing. 13 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 13 *See supra* note 9. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 15 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 16 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 17 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow market participants to receive the benefits of the proposed rule change prior to the next settlement date when the modified HOSS opening procedure will be utilized, which will be on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission. 18 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice requirement. 17 *Id.* 18 For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml)* ; or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-21 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-21. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-21 and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2008. 19 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 19 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5520 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57484; File No. SR-ISE-2008-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Cross Orders March 12, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 26, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the ISE. The ISE has designated the proposed rule change as “non-controversial” under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend its rules governing equities to adopt new order types, allowing for several different types of cross transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *www.ise.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this filing is to amend ISE Rules to adopt the following new order types, which are described in more detail below:
(1)Cross order;
(2)cross with size order;
(3)midpoint cross order; and
(4)ISO cross order. A *Cross Order* is an order to buy and sell the same security at a specific price better than the Exchange's displayed best bid and offer (“BBO”) and equal to or better than the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”). A *Cross with Size Order* is a cross order to buy and sell at least 5,000 shares of the same security with a market value of at least $100,000.00:
(1)At a price equal to or better than the Exchange's displayed BBO and the NBBO; and
(2)where the size of the order is larger than the largest order displayed on the Exchange at that price. A *Midpoint Cross Order* is a cross order with an instruction to execute it at the midpoint of the NBBO. If the NBBO is locked at the time the midpoint cross is received, it will execute at the locked NBBO. If the NBBO is crossed at the time the midpoint cross is received, the midpoint cross will be automatically canceled. Midpoint cross orders may be executed and reported in increments as small as one-half of the Minimum Price Variation. An *ISO Cross Order* is any type of cross order, other than a Midpoint Cross, 5 marked as required by Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS to be executed without taking any of the actions described in Rule 2107(d). These orders shall be executed because the Equity EAM routing the order to the Exchange has represented that the Equity EAM has satisfied the quotations of other markets as required by Rule 600(b)(30). 5 An ISO Cross order would never be used in conjunction with a Midpoint Cross order because by definition a Midpoint Cross order would never be trading through the NBBO. Cross, cross with size, midpoint cross and ISO cross will be automatically executed if they meet the requirements for such order types, and will be immediately and automatically canceled if they do not met these requirements. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5). 6 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, ISE believes that the proposed rule change will provide investors with more flexibility in entering orders and receiving executions of such orders. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested persons. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 7 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 8 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 9 the ISE provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 10 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 11 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The ISE requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period for “non-controversial” proposals under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 12 and make the proposed rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposed rule language is based on comparable language contained in the rules of the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. 13 Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing with the Commission. 14 10 *Id.* 11 *Id.* 12 *Id.* 13 *See* Boston Stock Exchange Rules, Chapter XXXVII—Boston Equities Exchange Trading System, Section 2—Eligible Orders (c)(ii) Subsections (A), (B),
(F)and (N). 14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-ISE-2008-11 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-11 and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-5428 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57488; File No. SR-ISE-2008-26] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes March 13, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 10, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees by adding to and subtracting from its list of Premium Products. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.ise.com.* 5 “Premium Products” is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the products enumerated therein. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ISE has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on the UltraShort Oil & Gas ProShares (“DUG”), 6 UltraShort Dow30 ProShares (“DXD”), 7 and PowerShares DB Agriculture Fund (“DBA”). 8 The Exchange represents that DUG, DXD and DBA are eligible for options trading because they constitute “Exchange-Traded Fund Shares,” as defined by ISE Rule 502(h). 6 “Dow Jones” and “Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas SM ” are service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”) and has been licensed for use for certain purposes by ProFunds Trust. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. DUG is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by Dow Jones. Dow Jones has not licensed or authorized ISE to:
(i)Engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DUG; or
(ii)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DUG or with making disclosures concerning options on DUG under any applicable federal or State laws, rules or regulations. Dow Jones does not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and is not affiliated in any manner with ISE. 7 “The Dow 30 SM ,” “Dow Jones Industrial Average,” and “DJIA,” are service marks of Dow Jones, and have been licensed for use for certain purposes by ProFunds Trust. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. DXD is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by Dow Jones. Dow Jones has not licensed or authorized ISE to:
(i)Engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DUG; or
(ii)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DUG or with making disclosures concerning options on DUG under any applicable federal or State laws, rules or regulations. Dow Jones does not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and is not affiliated in any manner with ISE. 8 DBA is based on the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index—Optimum Yield Agriculture Excess Return TM and managed by DB Commodity Services LLC. DBLCI TM and Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index TM are trademarks of Deutsche Bank AG, London (“DB AG”). PowerShares® is a registered service mark of PowerShares Capital Management LLC (“PowerShares”). DBA is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by DB AG, and DB AG makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in DBA. Neither DB AG nor PowerShares has licensed or authorized ISE to:
(i)Engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DBA; or
(ii)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DBA or with making disclosures concerning options on DBA under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. DB AG and PowerShares do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE. All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in options on DUG, DXD and DBA. 9 The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders 10 and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options. 11 Finally, the amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.37 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. 12 Further, since options on DUG, DXD and DBA are multiply-listed, the Exchange's Payment for Order Flow fee shall apply to all these products. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. 9 These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2008, these fees will also be charged to Linkage Principal Orders (“Linkage P Orders”) and Linkage Principal Acting as Agent Orders (“Linkage P/A Orders”). The amount of the execution fee charged by the Exchange for Linkage P Orders and Linkage P/A Orders is $0.24 per contract side and $0.15 per contract side, respectively. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56128 (July 24, 2007), 72 FR 42161 (August 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-55). 10 Public Customer Order is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(38) as a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. 11 The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side. 12 The amount of the execution and comparison fee for non-ISE Market Maker transactions executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms is $0.16 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. Further, as a matter of housekeeping, the Exchange proposes to remove from its Schedule of Fees options on Regional Bank HOLDRS
(RKH)and Enterra Energy Trust (ENT). 13 13 These Premium Products were recently delisted and no longer trade on the Exchange. The Exchange therefore proposes to remove them from its Schedule of Fees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 14 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 15 in particular, because it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 16 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 17 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal took effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2008-26 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-26. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-26 and should be submitted on or before April 9, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5519 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6138] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Romancing the Acropolis: Athenian Views From the Benaki Museum” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Romancing the Acropolis: Athenian Views From the Benaki Museum,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Parthenon Museum, Nashville, TN, from on or about April 29, 2008, until on or about July 26, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: March 12, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-5552 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending November 30, 2007 The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0083. *Date Filed:* November 28, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject* TC31 Between USA and Korea (Rep. of), Malaysia; Expedited Resolution 002aj (Memo PTC31 N&C 0420). Intended effective date: 15 December 2007. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0085. *Date Filed:* November 28, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject* TC31 North and Central Pacific TC3; (Except Japan)—North America, Carribean; (Except between Korea (Rep. of), Malaysia and USA; Expedited Resolution 002ah (Memo PTC31 N&C 0422). Intended effective date: 15 December 2007. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0087. *Date Filed:* November 28, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject* Mail Vote 555—Resolution 010bb; TC3, TC23, TC31 Malaysia—TC1, TC2, TC3; Special Cargo Amending Resolution from Malaysia to TC1, TC2, TC3. Intended effective date: 1 February 2008. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0089. *Date Filed:* November 28, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject* Mail Vote 549 TC23 Europe-South East Asia Expedited Composite Resolutions. Intended effective date: 1 December 2007. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0091. *Date Filed:* November 28, 2007. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject* Mail Vote 549—Flex Fares Package; TC23 Europe-South East Asia; Expedited Resolution 250n (PTC23 0268). Intended effective date: 1 December 2007. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E8-5540 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending November 30, 2007 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0086. *Date Filed:* November 27, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* December 18, 2007. *Description:* Application of Continental Airlines, Inc. requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in the Dominican Republic. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E8-5542 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [Docket No. OST-2007-27407] National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of meeting location and time. SUMMARY: This notice lists the location and time of the tenth and eleventh meetings of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John V. Wells, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Transportation,
(202)366-9224, *jack.wells@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By **Federal Register** Notice dated March 12, 2007, and in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (“SAFETEA-LU”) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144), the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “Department”) issued a notice of intent to form the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (the “Financing Commission”). Section 11142(a) of SAFETEA-LU established the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission and charged it with analyzing future highway and transit needs and the finances of the Highway Trust Fund and with making recommendations regarding alternative approaches to financing surface transportation infrastructure. Notice of Meeting Location and Time The Commissioners have agreed to hold their tenth meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 2008, and their eleventh meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. Each of the meetings will be open to the public and is scheduled to take place at the Department's headquarters building, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, in Conference Room W82-302. If you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information to attend this meeting, please contact John V. Wells, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Transportation,
(202)366-9224, *jack.wells@dot.gov* . Issued on this 13th day of March, 2008. John V. Wells, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Transportation, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. E8-5476 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2008-11] Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received. SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition. DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before April 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-0370 using any of the following methods: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, D.C. 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Thor (425-227-2127), Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, or Frances Shaver (202-267-9681), Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2008. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petition for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2007-0370. *Petitioner:* FedEx Express Corporation. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* § 121.312(e)(1). *Description of Relief Sought:* Operation of nine Boeing Model MD-11F airplanes, registration numbers N577FE, N574FE, N576FE, N575FE, N526FE, N527FE, N524FE, N523FE, and N521FE with two cockpit air supply ducts (BWT 10502-1 Silencer Duct and ABM 7668-1 Duct) that do not meet the flammability requirements of § 25.856(a). [FR Doc. E8-5482 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2008-10] Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received. SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before April 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-28324 using any of the following methods: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Thor (425-227-2127), Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, or Frances Shaver (202-267-9681), Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2008. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petition for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2007-28324. *Petitioner:* United Parcel Service Company. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* § 121.312(e)(1). *Description of Relief Sought:* Operation of four Boeing Model MD-11F airplanes, registration numbers N256UP, N281UP, N282UP and N283UP, with two cockpit air supply ducts (BWT 10502-1 Silencer Duct) and ABM 7668-1 Duct that do not meet the flammability requirements of § 25.856(a). [FR Doc. E8-5483 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0035] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Hours of Service
(HOS)of Drivers Regulations, Supporting Documents AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. On November 26, 2007, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. Thirty-eight comments were received, but none spoke to the paperwork burden or other aspects of the ICR. DATES: Please send your comments by April 18, 2008. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division. Telephone: 202-366-4325. E-mail: *MCPSD@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Hours of Service
(HOS)of Drivers Regulations, Supporting Documents (formerly Hours of Service of Drivers Regulations). *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0001. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently-approved information collection. *Respondents:* Motor Carriers, Drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). *Estimated Number of Respondents:* *Drivers:* approximately 4.6 million; *Active Motor Carriers:* approximately 700,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* The driver will take an average of 6.5 minutes to fill out a record of duty status (RODS), and 5 minutes to forward the completed RODS to the employing motor carrier. The motor carrier takes an average of 2 minutes to review a RODS, 1 minute per day to maintain a RODS, and 1 minute per day to maintain the supporting documents of one RODS. *Expiration Date:* 11/30/2008. *Frequency of Response:* Drivers: 240 days per year, on average. Motor Carriers: 240 days per year, on average. *Total Number of Annual Responses Expected* A. Driver
(1)Filling Out the RODS: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers × 240 days);
(2)Forwarding the RODS to the Motor Carrier: 115 million (4.6 million drivers × 25 times per year ) and
(3)Forwarding the Supporting Documents to the Motor Carrier: 0 (the activity is usual and customary). B. Motor Carrier (1). Reviewing the RODS: 552 million (2.3 million RODS reviewed daily × 240 days); (2). Maintaining the RODS: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers × 240 days); and (3). Maintaining the Supporting Documents: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers × 240 days). *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 184,380,000 hours [driver burden of 129,180,000 and motor carrier burden of 55,200,000 hours] . *Background:* The FMCSA regulates the amount of time a driver may drive and be on duty. A CMV driver must keep a record of duty status (RODS), commonly referred to as a logbook, that indicates his or her duty status (driving, on duty not driving, off duty, sleeper berth) for all periods of the duty day. The RODS must be maintained on the CMV for 7 days, and subsequently submitted to the motor carrier along with any “supporting documents,” such as fuel receipts and toll tickets, that could assist in verifying the accuracy of entries on the RODS. The motor carrier must retain the RODS and supporting documents for a minimum of 6 months from date of receipt. Statutory authority for regulating the hours of service
(HOS)of drivers operating CMVs in interstate commerce is derived from 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502. The penalty provisions are located at 49 U.S.C. 521, 522 and 526, as amended. On November 28, 1982, the Federal Highway Administration, the agency previously responsible for administration of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 350 *et seq.* ), promulgated a final rule that required a motor carrier to verify the accuracy of the HOS of each driver and to ensure that drivers record their duty status in a specified format (47 FR 53383). The HOS rules provide two methods of creating a RODS: A paper RODS that provides a grid for the driver to record his or her time and location throughout the duty day, and an Automatic On-Board Recording Device as defined by section 395.15. The HOS regulations exempt employers of certain “short haul” CMV drivers from the RODS requirement if they maintain the employee's U.S. Department of Labor “time card” at the place of business for a period of six months (Section 395.1(e)). The RODS is an important tool because it provides the information the carrier and enforcement personnel require to determine the compliance of a driver with the HOS rules. The adherence of drivers and motor carriers to the HOS requirements helps FMCSA protect the public by reducing the number of tired CMV drivers on the highways. Most States receive grants from FMCSA under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. As a condition of receiving these grants, States agree to adopt and enforce the FMCSRs, including the HOS rules, as State law. As a result, State enforcement inspectors use the RODS and supporting documents to determine whether CMV drivers, in interstate or intrastate commerce, are complying with the HOS rules. In addition, FMCSA uses the RODS during on-site compliance reviews
(CRs)of motor carriers. The CR determines the overall safety rating of a motor carrier, and a negative review can be damaging to a motor carrier's CMV operations because the results of CRs are public information. Many shippers of property use the results of these CRs, as well as other records of a motor carrier's crash and violation history, in selecting a motor carrier to transport their freight. Finally, the RODS have traditionally been the principal document accepted by the judicial system as evidence of a violation of the HOS regulations. This information collection supports the DOT's Strategic Goal of Safety because the information helps the Agency ensure the safe operation of CMVs in interstate commerce on our Nation's highways. In this ICR, FMCSA proposes an increase in the estimated number of CMV drivers affected by the HOS regulations. This reflects an increase in the total number of CMV operators on the highways today, as compared to 2005 when OMB last approved the Agency's calculation of the IC burden. The total number of interstate and intrastate CMV drivers is currently estimated to be 7.0 million. Of these, 4.6 million are required to complete RODS and furnish supporting documents. The remainder consists of the “short haul” drivers exempt from the RODS requirement. In this submission, the FMCSA also provides greater specificity in its calculation of the HOS paperwork burden. To do so, the Agency has reorganized its breakdown of the various paperwork tasks performed by drivers and motor carriers. The revised organization allows the reader to distinguish the paperwork burden of the RODS from the paperwork burden of the supporting documents, and the burden of the driver from the burden of the employer (motor carrier). On November 26, 2007, the FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice on this same topic and provided 60 days for public comment (72 FR 66019). The Agency received 38 comments to the docket, including four that appear to have been sent to this docket inadvertently. None of the comments addressed the paperwork burden of the HOS rules. There was no discussion in the comments of the necessity of the paperwork burden, or the accuracy of the information collected. The comments offered no suggestions for minimizing the burden of the IC, or for improving the quality, usefulness, or clarity of the information collected. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. Issued on: March 12, 2008. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-5477 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirement
(ICR)abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on January 11, 2008 (See 73 FR 2074). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202)493-6292), or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202)493-6139). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13, § 2, 109 Stat. 163
(1995)(codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On January 11, 2008, FRA published a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB approval. 73 FR 2074. FRA received no comments in response to this notice. Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements
(ICRs)and the expected burden. The revised requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA. *Title:* Reflectorization of Freight Rolling Stock. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0566. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Railroads. *Form(s):* FRA F 6180.113. *Abstract:* The Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA)issued this regulation to mandate the reflectorization of freight rolling stock (freight cars and locomotives) to enhance the visibility of trains in order to reduce the number and severity of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings in which train visibility acted as a contributing factor. The information collected is used by FRA to ensure that railroads/car owners follow the schedule established by the regulation for placing retro-reflective material on the sides of freight rolling stock (freight cars and locomotives) in order to improve the visibility of trains. The information is also used by FRA to confirm that railroads/car owners meet the prescribed standards for the application, inspection, and maintenance of the required retro-reflective material. *Annual Estimated Burden:* 56,787 hours. *Addressee:* Send comments regarding these information collections to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA)of the Office of Management and Budget at the following address: *oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov* . *Comments are invited on the following:* Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2008. D.J. Stadtler, Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5481 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2008-0025] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel LADY AND THE TRAMP. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2008-0025 at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2008-0025. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W21-203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LADY AND THE TRAMP is: *Intended Use:* “This vessel will operate for short periods of time with less than 12 passengers on harbor cruises/sightseeing tours within Dana Point Harbor, Newport Harbor, and the Pacific Ocean between Newport Beach and San Diego and out to Catalina.” *Geographic Region:* “Pacific Ocean between Pt. Conception and San Diego and out to Catalina Island.” Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). Dated: March 7, 2008. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Christine Gurland, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5565 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No: MARAD-2006-26228] Comment Period Extension for Kahului Harbor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Maui, HI AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration announces an extension to the public comment period for the Kahului Harbor Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft EIS addresses the community's needs for commercial harbor facilities through 2030. DATES: Comments on this Draft EIS must be received by March 28, 2008. *To Comment on the Draft EIS:* You can send written comments either to the preparers or to the Federal sponsor— *By Mail:* to John Kirkpatrick, Belt Collins Hawaii, 2153 N. King Street, Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96819. *By Mail:* to Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. *By the Internet:* Follow instructions at the Web site, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Please identify all comments by the docket number: MARAD-2006-26228. All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Address requests for more information related to the EIS or requests to be added to the mailing list for this project to John Kirkpatrick, Belt Collins Hawaii, 2153 N. King Street, Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96819, e-mail: *jkirkpatrick@beltcollins.com* . For agency information, please contact Daniel E. Yuska Jr., Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, e-mail: *daniel.yuska@dot.gov* or Dean Watase, Planning Branch, Harbors Division, Hawaii State Department of Transportation, 79 S. Nimitz Highway, Honolulu, HI 96813, e-mail: *dean.watase@hawaii.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HI DOT) has previously conducted planning for Kahului Harbor, leading to a 2025 Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. However, demand for harbor facilities has been much greater than anticipated, and space for current operations is very tight. The 2025 Master Plan called for development of new pier and harbor space at the west breakwater of the harbor. HI DOT has conducted a new master planning process, which has led to new alternatives to meet current and future harbor needs. The west breakwater expansion and other steps to help assure that the harbor supports the continuing prosperity and quality of life of Maui County are under consideration. The Draft EIS addresses the following issues:
(1)Demand for additional space and facilities at Kahului;
(2)organization of harbor space and facilities to promote and preserve orderly cargo operations, passenger operations, and recreational activity; and
(3)environmental impacts of proposed alternatives. The Preferred Alternative involves development of passenger facilities in the west breakwater area, along with expansion of Piers 1 and 2 and development of new cargo handling areas near those piers. Significant impacts could affect corals and surf sites. Authority: 49 CFR 1.66. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: March 13, 2008. Murray A. Bloom, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E8-5566 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permit. AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permit. SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier **Federal Register** publications, they are not repeated here. Request of modifications of special permits (e.g., to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the suffix “M” denote a modification request. Their applications have been separated from the new application for special permits to facilitate processing. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2008. *Address Comments To:* Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC or at *http://dms.dot.gov.* This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 51I7(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2008. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals. Application No. Docket No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permit thereof MODIFICATION SPECIAL PERMITS 5493-M Marsulex, Inc. North York, ON 49 CFR 173.314(c) To modify the special permit to authorize a lower minimum loading temperature. 11602-M East Tennessee Iron & Metal, Inc. Rogersville, TN 49 CFR 172.101; 172.301(c); 173.22a; 173.241; 173.242; Part 107, Subpart B, Appendix B To modify the special permit to authorize the addition of class 9 hazardous material. 13325-M RSPA-16599 Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Allentown, PA 49 CFR 173.301(f)(3); 180.205(c)(4) To modify the special permit to authorize an increase in service life of certain DOT specification cylinders. 14318-M Lockheed Martin Corporation (Former Grantee: Lockheed-Martin Technical Operations) Vandenberg AFB, CA 49 CFR 173.315 To modify the special permit to authorize multiple tanks of the same commodity to be transported in dedicated enclosed metal sided box vans or trucks. 14418-M Department of Defense Ft. Eustis, VA 49 CFR 172.301; 172.400; 172.504(a) To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of an additional Division 4.3 hazardous material. 14638-M Teledyne Energy Systems, Inc. Hunt Valley, MD 49 CFR 173.213 To reissue the special permit originally issued on an emergency basis for the transportation in commerce of up to two pressure vessels containing Magnesium or Magnesium alloys under an Argon blanket further packaged in a non-DOT specification wooden box capable of meeting the performance requirements for PG II and to remove the one time restriction. [FR Doc. E8-5472 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4909-60-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Innovative Technology Administration [DOCKET: RITA 2007-27185] Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report of Financial and Operating Statistics for Small Aircraft Operators; Paperwork Reduction Notice AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of BTS collecting financial, traffic and operating statistics from small certificated and commuter air carriers. Small certificated air carriers (operate aircraft with 60 seats or less or with 18,000 pounds of payload capacity or less) currently must file the two quarterly schedules listed below: *F-1 Report of Financial Data,* *F-2 Report of Aircraft Operating Expenses and Related Statistics,* and Commuter air carriers must file the Schedule F-1 *Report of Financial Data,* Commenters should address whether BTS accurately estimated the reporting burden and if there are other ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected. DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number RITA 2007-27185 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Instructions:* Identify docket number, RITA 2007-27185, at the beginning of your comments, and send two copies. To receive confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may access all comments received by DOT at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments are posted electronically without charge or edits, including any personal information provided. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Electronic Access An electronic copy of this Notice and copies of the comments may be downloaded at: *http://www.regulations.gov,* by searching docket RITA 2007-27185. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
(202)366-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Approval No.* 2138-0009. *Title:* Report of Financial and Operating Statistics for Small Aircraft Operators. *Form No.:* BTS Form 298-C. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection for the financial data. *Respondents:* Small certificated and commuter air carriers. *Number of Respondents:* 80. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 hours × 40 commuter carriers per quarter. 12 hours × 40 small certificated carriers per quarter. *Total Annual Burden:* 2,560 hours. *Needs and Uses:* Program uses for Form 298-C financial data are as follows: Mail Rates The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)sets and updates the Intra-Alaska Bush mail rates based on carrier aircraft operating expense, traffic, and operational data. Form 298-C cost data, especially fuel costs, terminal expenses, and line haul expenses are used in arriving at rate levels. DOT revises the established rates based on the percentage of unit cost changes in the carriers' operations. These updating procedures have resulted in the carriers receiving rates of compensation that more closely parallel their costs of providing mail service and contribute to the carriers' economic well-being. Essential Air Service DOT often has to select a carrier to provide a community's essential air service. The selection criteria includes historic presence in the community, reliability of service, financial stability and cost structure of the air carrier. Carrier Fitness Fitness determinations are made for both new entrants and established U.S. domestic carriers proposing a substantial change in operations. A portion of these applications consists of an operating plan for the first year (14 CFR Part 204) and an associated projection of revenues and expenses. The carrier's operating costs, included in these projections, are compared against the cost data in Form 298-C for a carrier or carriers with the same aircraft type and similar operating characteristics. Such a review validates the reasonableness of the carrier's operating plan. The quarterly financial submissions by commuter and small certificated air carriers are used in determining each carrier's continuing fitness to operate. Section 41738 of Title 49 of the United States Code requires DOT to find all commuter and small certificated air carriers fit, willing, and able to conduct passenger service as a prerequisite to providing such service to an eligible essential air service point. In making a fitness determination, DOT reviews three areas of a carrier's operation:
(1)The qualifications of its management team,
(2)its disposition to comply with laws and regulations, and
(3)its financial posture. DOT must determine whether or not a carrier has sufficient financial resources to conduct its operations without imposing undue risk on the traveling public. Moreover, once a carrier begins conducting flight operations, DOT is required to monitor its continuing fitness. Senior DOT officials must be kept fully informed and advised of all current and developing economic issues affecting the airline industry. In preparing financial condition reports or status reports on a particular airline, financial and traffic data are analyzed. Briefing papers prepared for senior DOT officials may use the same information. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters. M. Clay Moritz, Jr., Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. [FR Doc. E8-5539 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Innovative Technology Administration [DOCKET: RITA 2007-27185] Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report of Financial and Operating Statistics for Large Certificated Air Carriers; Paperwork Reduction Notice AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS)invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of BTS collecting financial data from large certificated air carriers. Large certificated air carriers are carriers that operate aircraft with over 60 seats, aircraft with over 18,000 pounds of payload capacity, or operate international air services. DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number RITA 2007-27185 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Instructions:* Identify docket number, RITA 2007-27185, at the beginning of your comments, and send two copies. To receive confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may access all comments received by DOT at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments are posted electronically without charge or edits, including any personal information provided. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Electronic Access An electronic copy of this Notice and copies of the comments may be downloaded at: *http://www.regulations.gov* , by searching docket RITA 2007-27185. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
(202)366-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Approval No.* 2138-0013. *Title:* Report of Financial and Operating Statistics for Large Certificated Air Carriers. *Form No.:* BTS Form 41. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Large certificated air carriers. *Number of Respondents:* 88. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 hours per schedule, an average carrier may submit 90 schedules in one year. *Total Annual Burden:* 31,680 hours. *Needs and Uses:* Program uses for Form 41 data are as follows: Mail Rates The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)sets and updates the international and mainline Alaska mail rates based on carrier aircraft operating expense, traffic and operational data. Form 41 cost data, especially fuel costs, terminal expenses, and line haul expenses are used in arriving at rate levels. DOT revises the established rates based on the percentage of unit cost changes in the carriers' operations. These updating procedures have resulted in the carriers receiving rates of compensation that more closely parallel their costs of providing mail service and contribute to the carriers' economic well-being. Submission of U.S. Carrier Data to ICAO As a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the United States is obligated to provide the International Civil Aviation Organization with financial and statistical data on operations of U.S. air carriers. Over 99 percent of the data filed with ICAO is extracted from the carriers' Form 41 reports. Standard Foreign Fare and Rate Levels DOT uses Form 41 cost data to calculate the Standard Foreign Fare Level
(SFFL)for passengers and the Standard Foreign Rate Level
(SFRL)for freight. Any international fare or rate set below this fare level are automatically approved. Separate passenger fare and rate levels are established for Canadian, Atlantic, Latin America, and Pacific areas. In markets where liberal bilateral or multilateral pricing agreements provide for more competitive open market pricing, such agreements may take precedence over the SFFL and SFRL. Carrier Fitness Fitness determinations are made for both new entrants and established U.S. domestic carriers proposing a substantial change in operations. A portion of these applications consists of an operating plan for the first year (14 CFR Part 204) and an associated projection of revenues and expenses. The carrier's operating costs, included in these projections, are compared against the cost data in Form 41 for a carrier or carriers with the same aircraft type and similar operating characteristics. Such a review validates the reasonableness of the carrier's operating plan. Form 41 reports, particularly balance sheet reports and cash flow statements play a major role in the identification of vulnerable carriers. Data comparisons are made between current and past periods in order to assess the current financial position of the carrier. Financial trend lines are extended into the future to analyze the continued viability of the carrier. DOT reviews three areas of a carrier's operation:
(1)The qualifications of its management team,
(2)its disposition to comply with laws and regulations, and
(3)its financial posture. DOT must determine whether or not a carrier has sufficient financial resources to conduct its operations without imposing undue risk on the traveling public. Moreover, once a carrier is operating, DOT is required to monitor its continuing fitness. Senior DOT officials must be kept fully informed as to all current and developing economic issues affecting the airline industry. In preparing financial conditions reports or status reports on a particular airline, financial and traffic data are analyzed. Briefing papers may use the same information. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters. M. Clay Moritz, Jr., Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. [FR Doc. E8-5545 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35123] Fortress Investment Group LLC, et al.—Exemption for Transaction Within a Corporate Family Fortress Investment Group LLC, on behalf of certain private equity firms managed by it and its affiliates (Fortress); FECR Rail LLC (FECR Rail), a Delaware limited liability company and affiliate of Fortress; FECR Rail Corp (FECR Railcorp), a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of FECR Rail; Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (FECR), a Florida limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of FECR Railcorp; RR Acquisition Holding LLC (RR Acquisition), a Delaware limited liability company and affiliate of Fortress; RailAmerica, Inc. (RailAmerica), a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of RR Acquisition; Palm Beach Holding, Inc. (PB Holding), a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of RailAmerica; and RailAmerica Transportation Corp. (RTC), a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of PB Holding, have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a transaction within a corporate family. Fortress controls RailAmerica, and it indirectly controls that entity's rail carrier subsidiaries (collectively, RailAmerica Railroads). 1 Fortress also indirectly controls FECR. 2 The instant transaction involves the merger of FECR Railcorp with and into PB Holding and the subsequent contribution of all of the limited liability company interests of FECR from PB Holding to RTC. 3 As a result of the transaction, FECR will become a wholly owned rail subsidiary of RTC, and a sister company to the RailAmerica Railroads. 1 *See Fortress Investment Group LLC, et al.—Control Exemption—Rail America, Inc., et al.* , STB Finance Docket No. 34972 (STB served Dec. 22, 2006) ( *Rail America Control* ). 2 *See Fortress Investment Group LLC, et al.—Control—Florida East Coast Railway, LLC* , STB Finance Docket No. 35031 (STB served Sept. 28, 2007). 3 Immediately following the merger of FECR Railcorp with and into PB Holding, FECR Rail will merge with and into RR Acquisition, the Delaware limited liability company through which Fortress currently controls RailAmerica and the RailAmerica Railroads. RR Acquisition obtained authority to control the RailAmerica Railroads in *Rail America Control* . The transaction is scheduled to be consummated as soon as possible after April 2, 2008, the effective date of the exemption. The purpose of the transaction is to align the transportation-related activities of all of the rail carriers controlled by Fortress within RailAmerica, and to facilitate more efficient management of those carriers. The parties anticipate that the transaction will present opportunities to enhance the efficiency of both FECR and the RailAmerica Railroads through the sharing of locomotive and car fleets, consolidation of certain administrative functions, sharing of management expertise, and common purchasing of insurance, rolling stock, equipment and vehicles, track materials and other materials and supplies. This is a transaction within a corporate family of the type specifically exempted from prior review and approval under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). According to the parties, the transaction will not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or changes in the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employees adversely affected by this transaction will be protected by the conditions set forth in *New York Dock Ry.—Control—Brooklyn Eastern Dist.,* 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio* . Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than March 26, 2008 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35123, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov* . Decided: March 11, 2008. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5546 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-398 (Sub-No. 8X)] San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Tulare County, CA On February 28, 2008, San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company
(SJVR)filed with the Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a 9.20-mile portion of its South Exeter Branch extending between milepost 259.40, near Exeter, and milepost 268.60, near Strathmore, in Tulare County, CA. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 93221, 93247, and 93267, and includes the stations of Strathmore and Lindsay. The line sought to be abandoned does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in SJVR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen* , 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). Petitioner indicates that the proposed abandonment may generate comments, and it requests that the Board adopt a procedural schedule to allow it to file rebuttal to any comments received. Instead of addressing the request at this time, the Board will allow petitioner to raise the matter again if comments and replies in response to the petition are actually filed. Comments and replies to the petition for exemption are due on or before April 8, 2008. Once comments and replies are filed, SJVR may request leave to file rebuttal. By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by June 17, 2008. Any OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,300 filing fee. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than April 8, 2008. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27)(i). All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-398 (Sub-No. 8X) and must be sent to:
(1)Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and
(2)Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. Persons seeking further information concerning the abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Governmental and Public Affairs at
(202)245-0230 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)at
(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.] An environmental assessment
(EA)(or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary), prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov* . Decided: March 13, 2008. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5548 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 13, 2008. The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *Dates:* Written comments should be received on or before April 18, 2008 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)*OMB Number:* 1545-XXXX. *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Title:* Form 13930, Central Withholding Agreement. *Form:* 13930. *Description:* The collection is necessary if the individual wishes to have a CWA. This form instructs him regarding how to make his application for consideration. IRS Section 1441(a) requires withholding on certain payments of Non Resident Aliens (NRAs). Section 1.1441-4(b)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that the withholding can be considered for adjustment if a CWA is applied for and granted. *Respondents:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 2,000 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Glenn P. Kirkland,
(202)622-3428, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,
(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Robert Dahl, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-5533 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Solicitation of Public Comments to the President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy AGENCY: Office of Financial Education, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of request for public comments. SUMMARY: The President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy, which convened its first meeting on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, hereby solicits public comments on the state of financial literacy in the United States and proposed solutions to improve it, as detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. DATES: Comments are requested to be submitted by May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: The public is invited to submit written statements to the President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy as follows: Statements may be e-mailed to *financialliteracycouncil@do.treas.gov,* or sent in triplicate form to the President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy, Office of Financial Education, Room 1332, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. The Department will make such statements available for public inspection and copying in the Department's Library, Room 1428, Main Department Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect statements by telephoning
(202)622-0204. All statements, including attachments and other supporting materials, received are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Bodensiek, Director of Outreach, Department of the Treasury, Main Department Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, at *ed.bodensiek@do.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council was established to promote and enhance financial literacy among the American people. One of the functions of the Council is to obtain information and advice concerning financial literacy. Upon consideration of such information and advice, the Council will advise the President and Secretary of the Treasury on means to improve financial education efforts, promote effective access to financial services, establish effective measures of financial literacy, conduct research on financial knowledge, and strengthen and coordinate financial education programs. *Request for comments:* Comments are specifically requested concerning the following questions.
(1)*Youth financial literacy:* How can financial literacy among young people be improved?
(2)*Financial education in the workplace:* How can financial education be provided in the workplace? What financial education issues should be addressed in the workplace?
(3)*Financial access for underserved markets:* How can access to financial services be increased in underserved markets? What markets are underserved for financial services?
(4)*Financial literacy research:* What questions should be answered to provide a thorough understanding of the current state of financial literacy in the country? What are the gaps in existing research on financial literacy?
(5)*Outreach and awareness:* What are the best ways to communicate to those who lack awareness of financial education resources? Commenters are urged to keep comments succinct. Commenters are asked to number their answers so that they correspond to the specific question being addressed if their response addresses one of those topics. Dated: March 12, 2008. Taiya Smith, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-5480 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4811-42-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Change in the Legacy Treasury Direct Annual Maintenance Fee Schedule AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury is announcing a change in the fee schedule for the Legacy Treasury Direct investor account maintenance fee. Legacy Treasury Direct investor account maintenance fees are assessed annually for each investor account with security holdings in excess of $100,000 in par value, pursuant to the Regulations Governing Book-Entry Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills Held in Legacy Treasury Direct. DATES: *Effective Date:* This notice is effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: You can download this notice at the following Internet address: *http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov* or *http://www.gpoaccess.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisha Whipkey, Director, Division of Program Administration, Office of Securities Operations, Bureau of the Public Debt, at
(304)480-6319 or *elisha.whipkey@bpd.treas.gov* . Susah Sharp, Attorney-Adviser, Edward Gronseth, Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Public Debt, at
(304)480-8692 or *susan.sharp@bpd.treas.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 103-329) authorized the Secretary to collect an annual fee of not less than $25 for each Legacy Treasury Direct investor account, referred to in the regulations as a “securities account,” with security holdings in excess of $100,000 in par value, to recover the costs of providing account services to Legacy Treasury Direct investors. The fee was set at that time at $25, and has not been increased since. This Notice increases the amount of the fee to $100. The $100 fee will more nearly offset the Bureau of the Public Debt's cost for maintaining Legacy Treasury Direct accounts. Schedule of Fees for Legacy Treasury Direct Accounts The fee schedule for Legacy Treasury Direct securities accounts is as follows: beginning in 2008 and until further notice, the investor account maintenance fee for each Legacy Treasury Direct investor account holding Treasury securities that exceed $100,000 in par amount is $100. Dated: March 14, 2008. Gary Grippo, Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1052 Filed 3-14-08; 1:24 pm]
Connectionstraces to 79
Traces to 79 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
86 references not yet in our index
  • 50 CFR 660
  • 50 CFR 680
  • 50 CFR 600
  • 15 CFR 774
  • 15 CFR 738
  • Pub. L. 108-360
  • 42 USC 1861-75
  • Pub. L. 110-161
  • 121 Stat. 1844
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • Pub. L. 100-584
  • Pub. L. 101-555
  • 104 Stat. 2758
  • 15 CFR 2301
  • 41 USC 10a-10d
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 34 CFR 79
  • 40 CFR 3
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 166
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 180.7(f)
  • 40 CFR 231.4
  • 40 CFR 231
  • 40 CFR 1504
  • 40 CFR 231.2(e)
  • 40 CFR 230
  • 40 CFR 230.10(a)
  • 40 CFR 230.10(b)
  • 40 CFR 230.10(c)
  • 40 CFR 230.10(d)
  • 46 CFR 515
  • 12 CFR 225
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
  • 42 USC 5121-5206
  • 44 USC 35
  • 103 Stat. 1987
  • 43 CFR 2
  • 25 CFR 83
+ 46 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments
U.S.C.§ 1801
C.F.R.§ 742.7
C.F.R.§ 351.106
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.211
U.S.C.§ 1442
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Cite50 CFR 660
Cite50 CFR 680
Cite50 CFR 600
Cites 165 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.