Unknown. Final rule, confirmation of effective date

108,061 words·~491 min read·/register/2008/05/14/08-1262·

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-05-14.xml --- 73 94 Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Contents Agency Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: Scientific Peer Review Groups, 27832-27833 E8-10564 Agricultural Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Intent to Grant Exclusive License: Health for All Seasons LLC of Mountain View, California, 27794 E8-10828 Nawgan Products, LLC of Chesterfield, MO, 27794 E8-10826 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Research Service See Energy Policy and New Uses Office, Agriculture Department See Natural Resources Conservation Service Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment:

Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc., 27847-27849 E8-10417 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent: Article of Footwear with Temperature Regulation Means, 27804 E8-10784 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27833-27834 E8-10791 E8-10792 Meetings: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Initial Review Group, 27834-27835 E8-10747 E8-10751 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 27835-27836 E8-10753 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Delegation of Authority, 27836 E8-10766 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Charles River, Boston, MA; Larry Kessler 5K Run, 27744 E8-10709 Charles River, Boston, MA, Fourth of July Fireworks Celebration, 27744 E8-10708 Security Zone:

HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, 27745-27747 E8-10697 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York, 27775-27778 E8-10706 Crewmember Identification Documents, 27778-27783 E8-10707 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CITA Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements NOTICES Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, 27803-27804 E8-10807 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department Education Education Department RULES Demands for Testimony or Records in Legal Proceedings, 27747-27748 E8-10775 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27811-27812 E8-10756 Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year 2008: Training and Advisory Services Program—Equity Assistance Centers (Formerly Desegregation Assistance Centers), 27812-27816 E8-10777 Meetings: National Advisory Council on Indian Education, 27816-27817 E8-10763 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications: Mentoring, Educational, and Employment Strategies to Improve Academic, Social, and Career Pathway Outcomes, 27852-27863 E8-10688 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Energy Energy Policy and New Uses Office, Agriculture Department RULES Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement, 27928-27956, E8-10107 27958-27975, E8-10109 27978-27995 E8-10116 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

Expansion of an Existing Sand and Aggregate Mining Operation; Cottage Grove, MN, 27804-27805 E8-10782 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Land Disposal Restrictions: Site Specific Treatment Variance; Hazardous Mixed Wastes Treated by Vacuum Thermal Desorption; Clive, Utah, 27761-27767 E8-10786 Pesticide Tolerances: Cyproconazole, 27756-27761 E8-10829 Tebuconazole, 27748-27756 E8-10506 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Columbia County, PA;

Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 27783-27786 E8-10811 Crawford County, PA; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 27791-27793 E8-10815 Somerset County, PA; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 27786-27788 E8-10813 Susquehanna County Area, PA; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory, 27788-27791 E8-10809 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27818-27821 E8-10735 E8-10827 Extension of the Period for Preparation of Regional Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Recommendation: Use of Wetlands and Other Waters in the Yazoo River Basin as Disposal Sites, Issaquena County, MS, 27821-27822 E8-10832 Naphthalene Risk Assessments; Availability, and Risk Reduction Options, 27822-27823 E8-10830 Transfer of Data: Battelle Memorial Institute and Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, et al., 27823-27824 E8-10289 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace:

Franklin, PA, 27721 E8-10421 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments, 27721-27727 E8-10546 E8-10603 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27884-27887 E8-10547 E8-10554 E8-10556 E8-10557 E8-10558 E8-10559 E8-10561 Crewmember Demand Oxygen Mask, 27887-27888 E8-10555 Environmental Assessment: Quad City International Airport, Moline, IL, 27888 E8-10434 Proposed Release of Land:

Elkins Randolph County Airport; Elkins, WV, 27888 E8-10428 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Radio Broadcasting Services: AM or FM Proposals to Change the Community of License, 27824-27825 E8-10761 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act), 27825-27826 E8-10691 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 27817-27818 E8-10767 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreement Filed, 27826 E8-10789 Meetings:

Federal Maritime Commission, 27826 E8-10560 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License: Applicants, 27826-27827 E8-10787 Revocations, 27827 E8-10788 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 27827 E8-10738 Formations, Acquisitions, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 27827-27828 E8-10737 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 27828 08-1262 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Status Review for Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout, 27900-27926 E8-10182 NOTICES Availability of the Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment: Innoko National Wildlife Refuge; McGrath, AK, 27842-27844 E8-10810 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements; Technical Amendment, 27727-27728 E8-10727 NOTICES Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension:

AVASTIN, 27836-27837 E8-10726 INVEGA, 27837-27838 E8-10685 ZOLINZA, 27838-27839 E8-10689 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27828-27832 E8-10793 E8-10794 E8-10795 E8-10796 E8-10797 E8-10798 Meetings:

American Health Information Community, 27832 E8-10660 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Preference for Healthy Start Grantees, 27839 E8-10684 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Source Rules Involving U.S.

Possessions and Other Conforming Changes; Correction, E8-10694 27728-27729 E8-10695 PROPOSED RULES Withdrawal of Regulations Under Old Section 6323(b)(10); Correction, 27775 E8-10692 NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Assistance

(VITA)Issue Committee, 27893 E8-10696 International International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico NOTICES Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Improvements to the USIBWC Tijuana River Flood Control Project, 27845-27846 E8-10686 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 27795-27796 E8-10903 Final Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation, 27796-27797 E8-10816 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations: Hand-Held Meat Tenderizers, 27846-27847 E8-10687 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, 27847 E8-10765 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division See National Institute of Corrections Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Mine Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Temporary Route Closure: Sonoran Desert National Monument, Arizona, 27844-27845 E8-10814 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Availability of a Finding of No Significant Impact, 27888-27889 E8-10683 Mexico Mexico and United States, International Boundary and Water Commission See International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration RULES Sealing of Abandoned Areas, 27729-27730 E8-10662 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 27863 E8-10781 National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel, 27864 E8-10713 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Ford Motor Co., 27889-27890 E8-10730 Receipt of Petition for Decision that Nonconforming 1988-1994 ALPINA Burkard Bovensiepen GmbH B12 5.0 Model Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation, 27890-27892 E8-10729 National Institute National Institute of Corrections NOTICES Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement: Identifying Characteristics of High Performing Correctional Organizations, 27849-27852 E8-10728 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, 27797 E8-10762 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Fogarty International Center Advisory Board, 27839-27840 E8-10550 National Advisory Child Health and Human Development, 27840 E8-10469 National Center for Research Resources, 27840-27841 E8-10549 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 27841 E8-10548 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 27841-27842 E8-10551 E8-10553 National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, 27841-27842 E8-10552 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Allocating Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act Sideboards, 27768-27770 E8-10645 PROPOSED RULES Environmental Review Process for Fishery Management Actions, 27998-28023 E8-10271 NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Southeastern Data, Assessment, and Review Steering Committee, 27797-27798 E8-10719 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 27798-27799 E8-10748 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Correction, 27798 E8-10714 New England Fishery Management Council, 27799 E8-10750 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 27799-27800 E8-10716 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 27800-27802 E8-10717 Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 16 Assessment Workshop Panel, 27802 E8-10749 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Correction, 27802-27803 E8-10715 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 27803 E8-10718 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 27845 E8-10712 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 5 of the Plum Creek Watershed, Hays County, TX, 27794-27795 E8-10698 West Tarkio Creek Watershed, Montgomery, Fremont and Page Counties, IA and Atchison County, MO, 27795 E8-10699 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Record of Decision for 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Actions at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, 27805-27811 E8-10752 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Consideration of Petition in Rulemaking Process: Organization of Agreement States, Inc., 27771-27773 E8-10819 Consideration of Petition Rulemaking Process: E. Russell Ritenour, Ph.D, 27773-27775 E8-10736 NOTICES Availability of Final Supplement 32 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement: License Renewal of Wolf Creek Generating Station, 27864 E8-10822 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27865 E8-10754 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Defense Transportation Day and National Transportation Week (Proc. 8254), 27713-27714 08-1265 Peace Officers’ Memorial Day and Police Week (Proc. 8255), 27715-27716 08-1266 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Government Agencies and Employees: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Assignment of Function (Memorandum of May 6, 2008), 27717 08-1264 Russian Federation; Proposed Agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (Presidential Determination) No. 2008-19 of May 5, 2008, 27719 08-1263 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Application: Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Co. et al., 27865-27868 E8-10705 Meetings; Sunshine Act, E8-10720 27868-27869 E8-10721 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 27869-27873 E8-10704 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 27873-27874 E8-10725 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 27874-27878 E8-10701 NYSE Arca, Inc., 27878-27882 E8-10724 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act; Conflicts of Interest: C3 Capital Partners II, L.P., 27882 E8-10758 Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 27882 E8-10760 Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., 27883 E8-10759 Hearing: Region I Regulatory Fairness Board: Concord, NH, 27883 E8-10757 State State Department NOTICES Determination, 27883 E8-10772 Meetings: Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 27883-27884 E8-10771 Proposal to Extend Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Republic of Honduras, 27884 E8-10773 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Montana Regulatory Program, 27730-27743 E8-10743 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition Exemption: Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp.; Line of BNSF Railway Co., 27892 E8-10833 Textile Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27892-27893 E8-10710 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27842 E8-10805 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 27893-27897 E8-10739 E8-10740 E8-10741 E8-10744 E8-10745 E8-10746 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 27900-27926 E8-10182 Part III Agriculture Department, Energy Policy and New Uses Office, Agriculture Department, 27928-27956 E8-10107 Part IV Agriculture Department, Energy Policy and New Uses Office, Agriculture Department, 27958-27975 E8-10109 Part V Agriculture Department, Energy Policy and New Uses Office, Agriculture Department, 27978-27995 E8-10116 Part VI Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 27998-28023 E8-10271 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 94 Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0279; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-19] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Franklin, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 9439) that modifies Class E Airspace at Franklin, PA. The modified airspace from nearby Venango Regional Airport will now adequately support the Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure

(lAP)developed for medical flight operations for the Northwest Medical Center. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 05, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; Telephone

(404)305-5581; Fax

(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9439), Docket No. FAA-2007-0279; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-19. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 21, 2008. Lynda G. Otting, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-10421 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30608; Amdt. No. 3269] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective May 14, 2008. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For Information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *Availability* —All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit *nfdc.faa.gov* to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under DOT Regulatory Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on May 2, 2008. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended] By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 04/03/08 MO Hannibal Hannibal Regional 8/0995 VOR or GPS A, Amdt 3. This NOTAM Published in TL-08-11 is Hereby Rescinded in its Entirety. 04/10/08 NY Schenectady Schenectady County 8/1927 GPS Rwy 22, Orig-B. 04/15/08 MS Oxford University-Oxford 8/3151 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4A. This NOTAM Published in TL08-11 is Hereby Rescinded in its Entirety. 04/15/08 MI Detroit Willow Run 8/3298 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 9R, Orig. This NOTAM Published in TL08-11 is Hereby Rescinded in its Entirety. 04/17/08 OK Lawton Lawton-Ft Sill Regional 8/3571 ILS or LOC Rwy 35, Amdt 7D. 04/22/08 NY Farmingdale Republic 8/3573 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 5. 04/17/08 ID Boise Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld 8/3632 VOR/DME or TACAN Rwy 10L, Amdt 1A. 04/17/08 ID Boise Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld 8/3633 VOR/DME or TACAN Rwy 28L, Amdt 1B. 04/17/08 CO Durango Durango-La Plata County 8/3651 GPS Rwy 2, Orig. 04/17/08 IA Clinton Clinton Muni 8/3743 GPS Rwy 32, Amdt 1A. 04/17/08 AL Dothan Dothan Regional 8/3752 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 18, Orig-A. 04/17/08 CO Montrose Montrose Regional 8/3769 GPS Rwy 35, Orig-A. 04/17/08 CO Montrose Montrose Regional 8/3771 VOR/DME Rwy 13, Amdt 8C. 04/17/08 CO Montrose Montrose Regional 8/3772 GPS Rwy 17, Orig. 04/17/08 SC Summerville Summerville 8/3782 NDB or GPS Rwy 6, Orig-B. 04/17/08 SC Summerville Summerville 8/3783 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 04/18/08 PA York York 8/3821 NDB Rwy 17, Amdt 6. 04/18/08 NY Rochester Greater Rochester Intl 8/3826 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 4, Orig. 04/18/08 NJ Manville Central Jersey Rgnl 8/3828 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 25, Orig. 04/18/08 NH Manchester Manchester 8/3832 VOR/DME or GPS Rwy 17, Orig-B. 04/18/08 NC Erwin Harnett Rgnl Jetport 8/3833 NDB Rwy 23, Amdt 2. 04/18/08 FL Tampa Tampa Intl 8/3834 ILS Rwy 36L (CAT II), ILS Rwy 36L (CAT III), Amdt 15. 04/18/08 MS Oxford University-Oxford 8/3838 LOC Rwy 9, Amdt 2A. 04/18/08 VA Chase City Chase City Muni 8/3845 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 36, Orig. 04/18/08 IN Anderson Anderson Muni-Darlington Field 8/3900 VOR or GPS-A, Amdt 8B. 04/18/08 OK Enid Enid Woodring Regional 8/3901 VOR Rwy 17, Amdt 12B. 04/18/08 OK Enid Enid Woodring Regional 8/3902 VOR Rwy 35, Amdt 13A. 04/18/08 OK Enid Enid Woodring Regional 8/3903 ILS Rwy 35, Amdt 4A. 04/18/08 OK Enid Enid Woodring Regional 8/3904 GPS Rwy 35, Orig-A. 04/18/08 OH Zanesville Zanesville Muni 8/3914 VOR or GPS Rwy 22, Amdt 3A. 04/18/08 OH Zanesville Zanesville Muni 8/3915 VOR or GPS Rwy 4, Amdt 6A. 04/18/08 OH Sandusky Griffing-Sandusky 8/3916 VOR Rwy 27, Amdt 7. 04/18/08 OH Sandusky Griffing-Sandusky 8/3917 VOR/DME or GPS Rwy 27, Amdt 2. 04/18/08 OH Piqua Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field 8/3918 VOR Rwy 26, Amdt 6. 04/18/08 OH Piqua Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field 8/3919 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 8, Orig. 04/18/08 OH Piqua Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field 8/3920 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 26, Orig. 04/18/08 OH Sidney Sidney Muni 8/3921 VOR/DME RNAV or GPS Rwy 28, Amdt 5A. 04/18/08 OH Sidney Sidney Muni 8/3922 VOR or GPS Rwy 23, Amdt 12A. 04/18/08 OH Youngstown Youngstown Elser Metro 8/3967 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 04/18/08 OH Youngstown Youngstown Elser Metro 8/3968 GPS Rwy 28, Orig-A. 04/21/08 AR Clinton Holley Mountain Airpark 8/4118 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 5, Amdt 1. 04/21/08 TX San Antonio San Antonio Intl 8/4121 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 12R, Orig-A. 04/21/08 TX San Antonio San Antonio Intl 8/4122 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 21, Amdt 1. 04/21/08 TX San Antonio San Antonio Intl 8/4141 ILS Rwy 12R Amdt 13A...ILS Rwy 12R (CAT II) Amdt 13A. 04/21/08 SD Mitchell Mitchell Muni 8/4147 ILS Rwy 30, Orig. 04/21/08 SD Vermillion Harold Davidson Field 8/4148 NDB or GPS Rwy 30, Amdt 1. 04/21/08 PA York York 8/4170 GPS Rwy 35, Amdt 2. 04/21/08 IA Keokuk Keokuk Muni 8/4186 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 32, Orig. 04/21/08 IA Iowa Falls Iowa Falls Muni 8/4192 NDB or GPS Rwy 31, Amdt 4. 04/21/08 IA Ames Ames Muni 8/4226 ILS Rwy 1, Amdt 1. 04/21/08 IA Ames Ames Muni 8/4227 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 1, Amdt 1. 04/21/08 IA Ames Ames Muni 8/4228 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 31, Orig. 04/21/08 IA Ames Ames Muni 8/4229 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 19, Orig. 04/21/08 IA Ames Ames Muni 8/4230 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 13, Orig. 04/21/08 CA Oakland Metropolitan Oakland Intl 8/4239 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 11, Orig-A. 04/22/08 MA Boston Gen Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 8/4281 VOR/DME Rwy 15R, Amdt 2. 04/22/08 MA Boston Gen Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 8/4282 VOR/DME Rwy 33L, Amdt 2B. 04/22/08 GA Lagrange Lagrange-Callaway 8/4292 ILS Rwy 31, Amdt 1A. 04/22/08 AK Teller Teller 8/4366 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 25, Orig. 04/22/08 AK Teller Teller 8/4370 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 7, Orig. 04/22/08 TX Austin Austin-Bergstrom Intl 8/4422 ILS or LOC Rwy 35L, Amdt 4. 04/22/08 TX Livingston Livingston Muni 8/4443 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 30, Orig. 04/22/08 TX Houston Lone Star Executive 8/4444 NDB Rwy 14, Amdt 2. 04/22/08 TX Houston Lone Star Executive 8/4448 ILS Rwy 14, Amdt 2. 04/22/08 TX Houston Lone Star Executive 8/4449 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 32, Orig-A. 04/23/08 KS Pittsburg Atkinson Muni 8/4587 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 4, Orig-A. 04/23/08 KS Pittsburg Atkinson Muni 8/4588 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 22, Orig-A. 04/23/08 KS Pittsburg Atkinson Muni 8/4589 VOR/DME Rwy 4, Amdt 3A. 04/24/08 PA Ebensburg Ebensburg 8/4717 VOR or GPS-A, Amdt 6A. 04/24/08 NH Manchester Manchester 8/4719 ILS or LOC Rwy 6, Amdt 1A. 04/24/08 CA Palmdale Palmdale Regional/USAF Plant 42 8/4725 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 25, Orig-A. 04/24/08 CA Stockton Stockton Metropolitan 8/4726 NDB Rwy 29R, Amdt 14D. 04/24/08 CA Stockton Stockton Metropolitan 8/4727 VOR Rwy 29R, Amdt 18A. 04/24/08 CA Stockton Stockton Metropolitan 8/4728 GPS Rwy 29R, Orig-B. 04/24/08 TX Abilene Abilene Regional 8/4813 LOC BC Rwy 17L, Amdt 3C. 04/24/08 ND Jamestown Jamestown Regional 8/4814 ILS or LOC Rwy 31, Amdt 7D. 04/24/08 AR North Little Rock North Little Rock Muni 8/4822 LOC/DME Rwy 5, Orig. 04/24/08 NE Plattsmouth Plattsmouth Muni 8/4823 NDB Rwy 16, Orig. 04/24/08 RI Pawtucket North Central State 8/4856 LOC Rwy 5, Amdt 5D. 04/24/08 RI Pawtucket North Central State 8/4857 VOR or GPS-A, Amdt 6A. 04/24/08 RI Pawtucket North Central State 8/4858 GPS Rwy 5, Orig. 04/24/08 RI Pawtucket North Central State 8/4860 GPS Rwy 23, Orig-A. 04/24/08 RI Pawtucket North Central State 8/4861 VOR or GPS-B, Amdt 6A. 04/24/08 OH Cincinnati Cincinnati Muni Airport-Lunken Field 8/4862 LOC BC Rwy 3R, Amdt 8B. 04/24/08 OH Marion Marion Muni 8/4863 LOC/DME Rwy 25, Orig-A. 04/25/08 AR Osceola Osceola Muni 8/4919 NDB or GPS Rwy 19, Orig-A. 04/25/08 LA New Orleans Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl 8/4936 ILS Rwy 1, Amdt 16C. 04/25/08 LA New Orleans Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl 8/4937 RADAR-1, Amdt 17. 04/25/08 LA New Orleans Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl 8/4938 ILS Rwy 10 (CAT II) Amdt 2A, ILS Rwy 10 (CAT III) Amdt 2A, ILS Rwy 10 (CAT I) Amdt 2A. 04/25/08 OH Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Muni 8/4945 VOR-B, Orig-A. 04/25/08 OH Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Muni 8/4946 VOR Rwy 28, Orig-B. 04/25/08 OH Willoughby Willoughby Lost Nation Muni 8/4947 VOR-A, Orig-A. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4962 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 13, Orig. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4964 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 4L, Amdt 1. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4965 NDB Rwy 31, Amdt 2A. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4967 VOR Rwy 4L, Amdt 17. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4969 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 22R, Amdt 1. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4970 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 31, Amdt 1A. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4973 VOR/DME Rwy 22R, Amdt 8E. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4974 RADAR-1, Amdt 10B. 04/25/08 LA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan Field 8/4975 ILS or LOC Rwy 13, Amdt 27B. 04/25/08 KS Wichita Wichita Mid-Continent 8/5001 ILS or LOC Rwy 1R, Amdt 17A. 04/28/08 IN Goshen Goshen Muni 8/5173 VOR Rwy 9, Amdt 12. 04/28/08 MO Mosby Midwest National Air Center 8/5175 ILS or LOC/DME Rwy 18, Orig. 04/28/08 MO Grain Valley East Kansas City 8/5176 VOR or GPS Rwy 23, Amdt 3. 04/28/08 MO Lee's Summit Lee's Summit Muni 8/5177 VOR/DME A, Orig. 04/28/08 MO Hannibal Hannibal Regional 8/5182 VOR/DME or GPS A, Amdt 3. 04/28/08 MT Miles City Frank Wiley Field 8/5183 NDB Rwy 4, Amdt 5. 04/28/08 MT Miles City Frank Wiley Field 8/5184 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 4, Amdt 1. 04/28/08 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel International 8/5185 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 24, Orig. 04/28/08 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel International 8/5186 VOR A, Orig. 04/28/08 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel International 8/5187 LOC BC Rwy 24, Amdt 18. 04/28/08 WI Green Bay Austin Straubel International 8/5188 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 6, Amdt 1. 04/28/08 MT Miles City Frank Wiley Field 8/5189 VOR Rwy 4, Amdt 11. 04/28/08 MT Miles City Frank Wiley Field 8/5190 VOR/DME or GPS Rwy 22, Amdt 8. 04/28/08 IL Chicago Chicago-O' Hare Intl 8/5191 ILS or LOC Rwy 4R, Amdt 6H. 04/28/08 NE Oshkosh Garden County 8/5192 NDB Rwy 12, Amdt 1. 04/28/08 IL Chicago Chicago-O' Hare Intl 8/5193 ILS or LOC Rwy 22R, Amdt 7D. 04/28/08 MN Granite Falls Granite Falls Muni/Lenzen-Roe Meml Fld 8/5195 GPS Rwy 33, Orig-A. 04/28/08 MN Granite Falls Granite Falls Muni/Lenzen-Roe Meml Fld 8/5196 VOR/DME Rwy 33, Orig-A. 04/28/08 MN Benson Benson Muni 8/5198 NDB Rwy 14, Amdt 7. 04/28/08 MN Morris Morris Muni-Charlie Schmidt Fld 8/5199 VOR or GPS Rwy 14, Orig-A. 04/28/08 OH Waverly Pike County 8/5208 NDB Rwy 25, Amdt 1. 04/28/08 OH Waverly Pike County 8/5209 GPS Rwy 7, Orig-A. 04/28/08 MN Minneapolis Anoka County-Blaine Arpt (Janes Field) 8/5214 ILS or LOC/DME Rwy 27, Orig. 04/28/08 MN Minneapolis Anoka County-Blaine Arpt (Janes Field) 8/5215 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 27, Orig. 04/28/08 MI Davison Athelone Williams Memorial 8/5220 VOR Rwy 8, Orig-A. 04/28/08 MI Linden Prices 8/5221 VOR A, Orig. 04/28/08 TX Beaumont Beaumont Muni 8/5229 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 13, Orig-A. 04/28/08 TX Beaumont Beaumont Muni 8/5230 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 31, Orig-A. 04/28/08 CO Aspen Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field 8/5248 VOR/DME or GPS C, Amdt 4E. 04/28/08 AK Nulato Nulato 8/5252 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 2, Orig. 04/28/08 AK Nulato Nulato 8/5253 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 20, Orig. 04/28/08 AZ Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 8/5255 VOR or GPS Rwy 11, Amdt 4A. 04/28/08 MT Livingston Mission Field 8/5267 GPS Rwy 22, Orig-A. 04/29/08 RI Providence Theodore Francis Green State 8/5347 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 23, Orig-B. 04/29/08 GA Jesup Jesup-Wayne County 8/5351 NDB or GPS Rwy 29, Amdt 2B. 04/29/08 GA Jesup Jesup-Wayne County 8/5352 NDB or GPS Rwy 11, Amdt 1B. 04/30/08 MO Springfield Springfield-Branson National 8/5454 VOR/DME or TACAN Rwy 2, Orig-A. 04/30/08 MO Springfield Springfield-Branson National 8/5455 VOR or TACAN Rwy 20, Amdt 18B. 04/30/08 MO Springfield Springfield-Branson National 8/5456 ILS Rwy 14, Orig. 04/30/08 MO Springfield Springfield-Branson National 8/5457 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 32, Amdt 1. 04/30/08 MO Springfield Springfield-Branson National 8/5458 RNAV

(GPS)Rwy 14, Amdt 1. 04/30/08 AR Fayetteville Drake Field 8/5466 VOR or GPS A, Amdt 24B. 04/30/08 AR Fayetteville Drake Field 8/5467 VOR/DME B, Orig-A. 04/30/08 AL Dothan Dothan Regional 8/5490 ILS or LOC Rwy 32, Amdt 8. 04/30/08 FL Tampa Peter O Knight 8/5639 Take-Off Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 4. 04/30/08 IN Brazil Brazil Clay County 8/5740 VOR or GPS Rwy 9, Amdt 7. [FR Doc. E8-10603 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30607; Amdt. No 3268] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes STANDARD Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective May 14, 2008. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *Availability* —All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A. The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. This, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, Associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center

(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule “ under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Blytheville, AR, Blytheville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig Blytheville, AR, Blytheville Muni, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 3 Blytheville, AR, Blytheville Muni, GPS RWY 36, Orig-A, CANCELLED Blytheville, AR, Blytheville Muni, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Carlisle, AR, Carlisle Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Carlisle, AR, Carlisle Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Carlisle, AR, Carlisle Muni, GPS RWY 9, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Carlisle, AR, Carlisle Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Conway, AR, Dennis R. Cantrell Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Mena, AR, Intermountain Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 1 Mena, AR, Intermountain Muni, NDB RWY 27, Amdt 1 Hollister, CA, Hollister Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Hollister, CA, Hollister Muni, GPS RWY 31, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Hollister, CA, Hollister Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Hazlehurst, GA, Hazlehurst, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Agana, Guam, Guam Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 6R, Orig Decorah, IA, Decorah Muni, NDB RWY 29, Amdt 1 Decorah, IA, Decorah Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Grinnell, IA, Grinnell Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13 Amdt 1 Grinnell, IA, Grinnell Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Amdt 1 Grinnell, IA, Grinnell Rgnl, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 4 Grinnell, IA, Grinnell Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 31, Amdt 4 Grinnell, IA, Grinnell Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Arco, ID, Arco-Butte County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Grangeville, ID, Idaho County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 1 Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 7 Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Indianapolis, IN, Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Fld, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Indianapolis, IN, Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Fld, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Ulyssess, KS, Ulyssess, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 12, Amdt 1 Ulyssess, KS, Ulyssess, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Amdt 1 Baton Rogue, LA, Baton Rogue Metro, Ryan Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 10 Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 12, AMDT 1 Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, AMDT 1 Homer, LA, Homer Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4 New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, GPS RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELLED New Roads, LA, False River Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Oakland, MD, Garrett County, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 4 Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, NDB RWY 3L, Amdt 12D, CANCELLED Oscoda, MI, Oscoda-Wurtsmith, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Orig Oscoda, MI, Oscoda-Wurtsmith, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 1 Oscoda, MI, Oscoda-Wurtsmith, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Ainsworth, NE, Ainsworth Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Ainsworth, NE, Ainsworth Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1 Ainsworth, NE, Ainsworth Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Ainsworth, NE, Ainsworth Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Amdt 1 Ainsworth, NE, Ainsworth Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Columbus, NE, Columbus Muni, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 14A Cozad, NE, Cozad Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Amdt 1 Cozad, NE, Cozad Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Amdt 1 Cozad, NE, Cozad Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Nebraska City, NE, Nebraska City Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 15, Orig Nebraska City, NE, Nebraska City Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 33, Orig Nebraska City, NE, Nebraska City Muni, GPS RWY 33, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Nebraska City, NE, Nebraska City Muni, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Plattsmouth, NE, Plattsmouth Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Amdt 1 Plattsmouth, NE, Plattsmouth Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Amdt 1 Plattsmouth, NE, Plattsmouth Muni, NDB RWY 34 Amdt 1 Portsmouth, NH, Portsmouth Intl at Pease, RADAR-1, Amdt 1 Andover, NJ, Aeroflex-Andover, VOR-A, Amdt 8 Andover, NJ, Aeroflex-Andover, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 3, Amdt 1 Albuquerque, NM, Albuquerque Intl Sunport, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, LOC RWY 22, Amdt 6 Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 6R, Amdt 20 Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, LDA/DME RWY 6R, Amdt 1 Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6R, Amdt 2 Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 10, Orig Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 28, Orig Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni, GPS RWY 10, Orig-A, CANCELLED Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni, GPS RWY 28, Orig-A, CANCELLED Springfield, OH, Springfield-Beckley Muni, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 11 Springfield, OH, Springfield-Beckley Muni, VOR/DME RWY 33, Orig Springfield, OH, Springfield-Beckley Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 1 Hinton, OK, Hinton, Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1 Hinton, OK, Hinton, Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Amdt 1 Hinton, OK, Hinton, Muni, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Tahlequah, OK, Tahlequah Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1 Tahlequah, OK, Tahlequah Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Amdt 1 Tahlequah, OK, Tahlequah Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Dubois, PA, Dubois Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, Amdt 8 Dubois, PA, Dubois Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 25, Orig Reedsville, PA, Mifflin County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Somerset, PA, Somerset County, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 6 Somerset, PA, Somerset County, LOC/NDB RWY 25, Amdt 4 Waynesburg, PA, Greene County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Waynesburg, PA, Greene County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Amdt 1 Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Amdt 1 Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Angleton/Lake Jackson, TX, Brazoria County, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Brownsville, TX, Brownsville/South Padre Island Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13R, Amdt 1 Galveston, TX, Scholes Intl at Galveston, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Houston, TX, David Wayne Hooks Memorial, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Houston, TX, Ellington Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 4, Amdt 1 Houston, TX, Ellington Field, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 8L, ILS RWY 8L (CAT II), ILS RWY 8L (CAT III), Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 8R, Amdt 22B Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 7A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 15R, Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, ILS RWY 26L (CAT II), ILS RWY 26L (CAT III), Amdt 18A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 26R, ILS RWY 26R (CAT II), ILS RWY 26R (CAT III), Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, ILS RWY 27 (CAT II), ILS RWY 27 (CAT III), Amdt 6A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 15R, Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 8L, Amdt 2 Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 8R, Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 9, Amdt 2A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 26L, Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 26R, Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, RNAV

(GPS)Z RWY 27, Amdt 1A Houston, TX, George Bush Intercontinental/Houston, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Houston, TX, Houston-Southwest, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Houston, TX, Lone Star Executive, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Houston, TX, Sugar Land Rgnl, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7 Houston, TX, Weiser Air Park, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Houston, TX, West Houston, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Houston, TX, William P. Hobby, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 La Porte, TX, La Porte Muni, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Louisa, VA, Louisa County/Freeman Field, LOC/DME RWY 27, Amdt 2 Charlotte Amalie, VI, Cyril E King, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Appleton, WI, Outagamie County Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 11, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 2, Orig Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 13, Orig Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 20, Orig Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 31, Orig Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 6 Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, VOR RWY 31, Amdt 7 Ashland, WI, John F. Kennedy Memorial, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 La Pointe, WI, Madeline Island, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 4, ORIG La Pointe, WI, Madeline Island, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 22, ORIG La Pointe, WI, Madeline Island, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 7 Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 9 Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 7 Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, GPS RWY 27 Orig-A, CANCELLED Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, Takeoff and Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig * * * Effective 3 JUL 2008 Warroad, MN, Warroad Intl Memorial, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 1A Rome, NY, Griffiss Airfield, Rome, NY, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig [FR Doc. E8-10546 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 111 [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0152] (Formerly Docket No. 1996N-0417) RIN 0910-AB88 Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements; Technical Amendment AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is correcting a final rule that appeared in the **Federal Register** of June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34752). The final rule established current good manufacturing practice

(CGMP)requirements in manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations for dietary supplements. The final rule was published with an inadvertent error in the codified section. This document corrects that error. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the agency's regulations. DATES: This rule is effective May 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vasilios H. Frankos, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-810), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1696. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** of June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34752), FDA established CGMP requirements in manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations for dietary supplements (part 111 (21 CFR part 111)). In the codified section of the rule, § 111.75(c)(3) provides that “You must provide adequate documentation of your basis for determining compliance with the specification(s) selected under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, through the use of appropriate tests or examinations conducted under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, will ensure that your finished batch of the dietary supplement meets all product specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition, and the limits on those types of contamination that may adulterate, or that may lead to the adulteration of, the dietary supplement” (72 FR 34752 at 34949). Due to an inadvertent error, the word “that” was omitted between “determining” and “compliance.” This document corrects that error. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 111 Dietary foods, Drugs, Foods, Packaging and containers. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 111 is amended as follows: PART 111—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE IN MANUFACTURING, PACKAGING, LABELING, OR HOLDING OPERATIONS FOR DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 371, 374, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 264. 2. Section 111.75 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: § 111.75 What must you do to determine whether specifications are met?

(c)* * *

(3)You must provide adequate documentation of your basis for determining that compliance with the specification(s) selected under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, through the use of appropriate tests or examinations conducted under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, will ensure that your finished batch of the dietary supplement meets all product specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition, and the limits on those types of contamination that may adulterate, or that may lead to the adulteration of, the dietary supplement; and Dated: May 7, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-10727 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 [TD 9391] RIN 1545-BF85 Source Rules Involving U.S. Possessions and Other Conforming Changes; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9391) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 (73 FR 19350) providing rules under section 937(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for determining whether income is derived from sources within a U.S. possession or territory specified in section 937(a)(1) (generally referred to in this preamble as a “territory”) and whether income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within a territory. DATES: This correction is effective May 14, 2008, and is applicable on April 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Varley,

(B)of this section, there will be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the amount of the tax liability referred to in section 934(a) to the extent paid to the Virgin Islands.” is removed and the language “In the case of an individual who is required to file an income tax return with the United States as a consequence of failing to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) or

(B)of this section, there will be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the amount of the tax liability referred to in section 934(a) to the extent paid to the Virgin Islands.” is added in its place. § 1.937-2 [Amended] **Par. 5.** Section 1.937-2 is amended as follows: In paragraph

(k)*Example 2* . (i), the fourth sentence, the language “On June 1, 2010, R's interest in Partnership P is not a marketable security within the meaning of section 731(c)(2).” is removed and the language “On June 1, 2010, R's interest in Partnership P is not a marketable security within the meaning of paragraph (f)(1)(vii)(A) of this section.” is added in its place. § 1.937-3 [Amended] **Par. 6.** Section 1.937-3 is amended as follows: In paragraph

(e)*Example 5* . (ii), the last sentence, the language “Accordingly, the U.S. income rule of section 937(b)(2), § 1.937-2(c)(1), and paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not operate to prevent Corporation B's services income from being Territory X source or Possession X effectively connected income within the meaning of section 937(b)(1).” is removed and the language “Accordingly, the U.S. income rule of section 937(b)(2), § 1.937-2(c)(1), and paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not operate to prevent Corporation B's services income from being Possession X source or Possession X effectively connected income within the meaning of section 937(b)(1).” is added in its place. PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Par. 7.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 8** . Section 301.6688-1 is amended as follows: In paragraph (c), in the first sentence of the paragraph, the language “(1) *In general* . The penalty set forth in paragraph

(a)of this section will not apply if it is established to the satisfaction of the appropriate tax authority (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) that the failure to file the information return or furnish the information within the prescribed time was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.” is removed and the language “The penalty set forth in paragraph

(a)of this section will not apply if it is established to the satisfaction of the *Commissioner* that the failure to file the information return or furnish the information within the prescribed time was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.” is added in its place. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-10695 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 [TD 9391] RIN 1545-BF85 Source Rules Involving U.S. Possessions and Other Conforming Changes; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9391) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 (73 FR 19350) providing rules under section 937(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for determining whether income is derived from sources within a U.S. possession or territory specified in section 937(a)(1) (generally referred to in this preamble as a “territory”) and whether income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within a territory. DATES: This correction is effective May 14, 2008, and is applicable on April 9, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Varley,

(202)622-7790 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations and removal of temporary regulations that are the subjects of this document are under sections 1, 170A, 861, 871, 876, 881, 884, 901, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 937, 957, 1402, 6012, 6038, 6046, 6688, and 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9391) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9391), which were the subject of FR Doc. 08-1105, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 19350, column 1, in the preamble, under the caption “Dates:”, line 5, the language “1(k), 1.861-3(d), 1.861-8(h), 1.871-1(d),” is corrected to read “1(k), 1.861-3(d), 1.861-8(h), 1.871-1(c),”. 2. On page 19351, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “1. General Territory Source Rule”, line 8 of the first paragraph, the language “applying the principles of section 861” is corrected to read “applying the principles of sections 861”. 3. On page 19353, column 1, in the preamble, line 3 from the bottom of the first paragraph of the column, the language “of determining whether income for” is corrected to read “of determining whether income from”. 4. On page 19353, column 2, in the preamble, second line of the column, the language “outside of the territories. *Id.* ” is corrected to read “outside of the territory. *Id.* ”. 5. On page 19355, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *B. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands* ”, line 2 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “provisions of the temporary and revised” is corrected to read “provisions of the temporary and proposed”. 6. On page 19356, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *E. Application of Subpart F to Bona Fide Residents of a Territory* ”, line 7 from the bottom of the column, the language “voting of a territory corporation are from” is corrected to read “voting stock of a territory corporation are from”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-10694 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Part 75 RIN 1219-AB52 Sealing of Abandoned Areas AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: MSHA published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on April 18, 2008 (73 FR 21182) on Sealing of Abandoned Areas in underground coal mines. The final rule incorrectly listed cross-references in § 75.336(b)(1) and § 75.336(c). This document corrects the final rule by revising these sections. DATES: *Effective Date:* The corrections are effective May 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939, *silvey.patricia@dol.gov* (e-mail),

(202)693-9440 (voice), or

(202)693-9441 (telefax). This document is available on the Internet at *http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As published, the preamble incorrectly referenced a section of the final rule. On page 21193, in the first column, in the first line, “§ 75.335(a)(1)(iii)” should be “§ 75.336(a)(1)(iii).” The sentence should read “Under final § 75.336(a)(1)(iii) for less than 120 psi seals constructed after April 18, 2008, the District Manager cannot approve different sampling locations and frequencies in the ventilation plan until after a minimum of 14 days and after seals have reached design strength.” In addition, the final rule incorrectly listed cross-references in § 75.336(b)(1) and § 75.336(c). This document corrects the final rule by revising these sections. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75 Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Underground coal mines, Ventilation. Accordingly, 30 CFR part 75 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 75—MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND COAL MINES 1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. 2. Revise paragraph (b)(1) and the first sentence of paragraph

(c)of § 75.336 to read as follows: § 75.336 Sampling and monitoring requirements.

(b)* * *

(1)Except as provided in § 75.336(d), the atmosphere in the sealed area is considered inert when the oxygen concentration is less than 10.0 percent or the methane concentration is less than 3.0 percent or greater than 20.0 percent.

(c)Except as provided in § 75.336(d), when a sample is taken from the sealed atmosphere with seals of less than 120 psi and the sample indicates that the oxygen concentration is 10 percent or greater and methane is between 4.5 percent and 17 percent, the mine operator shall immediately take an additional sample and then immediately notify the District Manager. * * * Dated: May 8, 2008. Jack Powasnik, Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. [FR Doc. E8-10662 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 926 [SATS No.: MT-026/027-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2008-0006] Montana Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment. SUMMARY: We are approving amendments to the Montana regulatory program (the Montana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Montana proposed revisions to, additions to, and deletions from its program statutes and corresponding regulations about: procedures for contested case hearings; permit fees and surety bonds; applications for increase or reduction in permit area; prospecting permits; refusal of permits; submission of actions on reclamation plans; required area mining bonds and alternative plans; planting of vegetation following grading of disturbed areas; determination of successful reclamation and final bond release; noncompliance, and suspension of permits; violations, penalties, and waivers; penalty factors; and collection of penalties, fees, late fees, and interest. Montana intends to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA, clarify ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Telephone: 307.261.6550, E-mail address: *jfleischman@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Montana Program II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment III. OSM's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSM's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Montana Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana program on April 1, 1980. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the April 1, 1980, **Federal Register** (45 FR 21560). You can also find later actions concerning Montana's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30. Rules for the Montana program are contained in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), Title 17 Chapter 24 (ARM 17.24.101 through 17.24.1820) entitled “Reclamation.” The enabling statutes for the Montana program are contained generally under Montana Code Annotated

(MCA)Title 82 (MCA 82-1-101 through 82-15-207) entitled “Minerals, Oil, and Gas,” and more specifically, under Chapter 4 (MCA 82-4-101 through 82-4-1002) entitled “Reclamation” and Chapter 4, Part 2 (MCA 82-4-201 through 82-4-254) entitled “Coal and Uranium Mine Reclamation.” Provisions for penalties, fees, and interest are found in Chapter 4, Part 10 (MCA 82-4-1001 through 82-4-1002) and procedures for initiating and holding contested case administrative hearings are found in Chapter 4, Part 2 (MCA 82-4-206) and under Title 2, Chapter 4, Part 6 (MCA 2-4-601 through 2-4-631). Provisions providing for judicial review of contested case decisions are found under Title 2, Chapter 4, Part 7 (MCA 2-4-701 through 2-4-711). II. Submission of the Proposed Amendments By letter dated January 18, 2006, Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program (MT-026-FOR, Administrative Record No. MT-23-1) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Montana sent the amendment in response to an April 2, 2001, letter that we sent in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c) (pertaining to valid existing rights). The proposed amendment also includes revisions in response to changes in Montana's statutes enacted in 2005. The provisions of the MCA that Montana proposes to revise or add are: MCA 82-4-206, Procedure for contested case hearings; MCA 82-4-223, Permit fee and surety bond; MCA 82-4-225, Application for increase or reduction in permit area; MCA 82-4-226, Prospecting permit; MCA 82-4-227, Refusal of permit; MCA 82-4-231, Submission of and action on reclamation plan; MCA 82-4-232, Area mining required—bond—alternative plan; MCA 82-4-233, Planting of vegetation following grading of disturbed area; MCA 82-4-235, Determination of successful reclamation—final bond release; MCA 82-4-251, Noncompliance—suspension of permits; MCA 82-4-254, Violation—penalty—waiver; MCA 82-4-1001, Penalty factors; and MCA 82-4-1002, Collection of penalties, fees, late fees, and interest. We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 27, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 15090). In the same document, we provided opportunity for public comment and a public hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (Administrative Record No. MT-23-5). The public comment period ended on April 26, 2006. In addition to the proposed changes to its statute, by letter dated November 6, 2006, Montana sent us proposed changes to its program rules (MT-027-FOR, Administrative Record No. MT-24-1). These changes reflect the revisions to the statute submitted on January 18, 2006. In its November 6, 2006 letter, Montana suggested that the regulatory changes be combined with the January 18, 2006 submittal for purposes of conducting a more efficient review. We announced receipt of the proposed rule changes in the February 6, 2007, **Federal Register** (FR 5377). In the same document, we provided opportunity for public comment and a public hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy (Administrative Record No. MT-24-6). The public comment period ended on March 8, 2007. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting for either proposal because no one requested one. We received one public comment which is discussed under section IV below. This document contains our decision and findings for both submissions. III. OSM's Findings Following are the findings we made concerning the amendments under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. 1. Montana proposed revisions to 82-4-206, MCA, to provide that an applicant, permittee, or person with an interest that is or may be adversely affected may request a hearing before the Board of Environmental Review (Board) on decisions of the Department of Environmental Quality (Department) pertaining to

(a)approval or denial of an application for a permit pursuant to 82-4-231;

(b)approval or denial of an application for a prospecting permit pursuant to 82-4-226;

(c)approval or denial of an application to increase or reduce a permit area pursuant to 82-4-225;

(d)approval or denial of an application to renew or revise a permit pursuant to 82-4-221; or

(e)approval or denial of an application to transfer a permit pursuant to 82-4-238 or 82-4-250. In its proposed revision to 82-4-206, MCA, Montana changes the phrase from “persons aggrieved by a final decision of the Department” to “applicants, permittees or persons with an interest that is or may be adversely affected.” This defines who can request a hearing before the Board. In subparagraph (1)(a) through (e), Montana also specifies the types of permitting decisions that can be contested. The revised wording and types of decisions are in accordance with SMCRA Section 514(c) which states that any person with an interest which is or may be adversely affected may request a hearing on the reasons for the final determination. The proposed State statute provides more detail as to who may request a contested case hearing and for what reasons without altering the provision's consistency with Federal law. We are approving the revisions to 82-4-206, MCA. 2. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-223, MCA, to:

(1)Delete “permit fee” from the title; and

(2)delete the provision for a permit application fee; and

(3)make editorial changes. Under Section 507(a) of the Act and 30 CFR 777.17, the amount of a permit fee is to be determined by the regulatory authority. Montana proposes to delete its existing requirement for a $100 application fee because the administrative burden to collect it exceeds the value of the fee. We accept Montana's reason for deleting the fee and approve it. The proposal to modify 82-4-223, MCA also includes minor substitutions and editorial changes which do not change the meaning of the existing statute. We approve these minor changes. 3. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-225, MCA, to delete the requirement for a $50 application fee when revising a permit to increase or decrease the permitted area. Montana claims that the administrative burden to collect this fee exceeds the fee's value. Section 507(a) of SMCRA states that applications “* * * shall be accompanied by a fee as determined by the regulatory authority. Such fee may be less than but shall not exceed the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing such permit issued pursuant to a State or Federal program.” It is evident that Congress enacted this provision to enable the regulatory authority to (among other things) recoup administrative costs associated with processing permit applications. However, Montana has stated that, under its current program, the administrative burden to collect the $50 application fee exceeds the fee's value. Given this explanation, and given the fact that Section 507(a) of the Act vests complete discretion in the regulatory authority to determine the amount of the fee (even in this case where the amount of the fee will be zero), we find that Montana's proposed revision is in accordance with the Act, and we approve it. A minor editorial revision replaces “in no case shall” with “may not.” This minor revision is for clarification and does not alter the meaning of the provision. We approve it. 4. Montana proposed to delete 82-4-226 (3), deleting the requirement for a $100 fee accompanying an application for a prospecting permit. Montana claims that the administrative burden to collect the fee exceeds the fee's value. Section 507(a) of SMCRA states that applications “* * * shall be accompanied by a fee as determined by the regulatory authority. Such fee may be less than but shall not exceed the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing such permit issued pursuant to a State or Federal program.” It is evident that Congress enacted this provision to enable the regulatory authority to (among other things) recoup administrative costs associated with processing permit applications. However, Montana has stated that, under its current program, the administrative burden to collect the $100 application fee exceeds the fee's value. Given this explanation, and given the fact that Section 507(a) of the Act vests complete discretion in the regulatory authority to determine the amount of the fee (even in this case where the amount of the fee will be zero), we find that Montana's proposed revision is in accordance with the Act, and we approve it. Other changes recodify previous subsections

(4)through

(8)as subsections

(3)through

(7)as a result of deleting the prospecting permit fee provision at original subsection (3). This recodification does not alter the content of the existing provisions. We approve these changes. 5. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-227(13)(a), MCA, to add the national system of trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act study rivers and study river corridors, and Federal lands within National Forests, to areas where mining is prohibited (subject to valid existing rights). Montana submitted this proposal in response to an OSM letter dated April 2, 2001, notifying Montana that revisions to the Federal rules on valid existing rights required the State to revise equivalent provisions in the State program. There are no additions to 82-4-227(13)(a), MCA that are not fully expressed in the corresponding Federal counterpart, Section 522(e) of SMCRA, which states:

(e)After the enactment of this Act and subject to valid existing rights no surface coal mining operations except those which exist on the date of enactment of this Act shall be permitted—

(1)on any lands within the boundaries of units of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge Systems, the National System of Trails, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, including study rivers designated under section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Recreation Areas designated by Act of Congress;

(2)on any Federal lands within the boundaries of any national forest: Provided, however, That surface coal mining operations may be permitted on such lands if the Secretary finds that there are no significant recreational, timber, economic, or other values which may be incompatible with such surface mining operations and—(A) surface operations and impacts are incident to an underground coal mine; or

(B)where the Secretary of Agriculture determines, with respect to lands which do not have significant forest cover within those national forests west of the 100th meridian, that surface mining is in compliance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the provisions of this Act: And provided further, That no surface coal mining operations may be permitted within the boundaries of the Custer National Forest; In 82-4-227(13)(b), MCA Montana adds “* * * subject to the exceptions and limitations of 30 CFR 761.11(b) and the procedures of 30 CFR 761.13.” 30 CFR 761.11(b) is substantively identical to Section 522(e)(1) and

(2)of the Act. 30 CFR 761.13 provides that, if applicants intend to rely on the provisions in 30 CFR 761.11(b) they must request that OSM first obtain the Secretarial findings required by Section 761.11(b). Thus, by making 82-4-227(13)(b), MCA subject to the exceptions and limitations in these two Federal regulations, Montana's proposal is consistent with the Federal regulations and in accordance with Section 522(e)(1) and

(2)of the Act. Also, Montana proposed changing “systems” to “system” for grammatical correctness. For the above reasons, we approve Montana's proposed changes. 6. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-231(9), MCA, to specify the Environmental Quality Board, or its hearing officer, as the authority to hold hearings appealing adverse permit decisions by the Department, and to clarify that hearings must be started, rather than held, within the 30-day timeframe. Montana is establishing that, since appeals of permit decisions of the Department are contested cases, they will be heard by the Board and not the Department in compliance with the provisions in 82-4-206, MCA. These minor changes clarify Montana's specific processes and do not alter the requirements of existing statutory provisions. Therefore, we find that they are consistent with and will not make Montana's statute less stringent than its Federal counterpart, SMCRA Section 514(c). We approve these changes to 82-4-231, MCA. 7. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-232(6), MCA, concerning bond release applications to:

(1)Change the term bond release “requests” to bond release “applications” ((6)(a));

(2)Provide that a bond release application is administratively complete if it includes: (6)(b)(i) The location and acreage of the land for which bond release is sought;

(ii)The amount of bond release sought;

(iii)A description of the completed reclamation, including the date of performance;

(iv)A discussion of how the results of the completed reclamation satisfy the requirements of the approved reclamation plan; and

(v)Information required by rules implementing this part.

(3)Provide that: (6)(c) The [D]epartment notify the applicant in writing of its determination no later than 60 days after submittal of the application; if the [D]epartment determines that the application is not administratively complete, it shall specify in the notice those items that the application must address; after an application for bond release has been determined to be administratively complete by the [D]epartment, the permittee shall publish a public notice that has been approved as to form and content by the [D]epartment at least once a week for 4 successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the mining operation.

(4)Provide that: (6)(d) Any person with a valid legal interest that might be adversely affected by the release of a bond or the responsible officer or head of any federal, state, or local governmental agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental, social, or economic impact involved in the operation or is authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards with respect to the operation may file written objections to the proposed release of bond to the [D]epartment within 30 days after the last publication of the notice. If written objections are filed and a hearing is requested, the [D]epartment shall hold a public hearing in the locality of the operation proposed for bond release or in Helena, at the option of the objector, within 30 days of the request for hearing. The [D]epartment shall inform the interested parties of the time and place of the hearing. The date, time, and location of the public hearing must be advertised by the [D]epartment in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality for 2 consecutive weeks. Within 30 days after the hearing, the [D]epartment shall notify the permittee and the objector of its final decision.

(5)Provide that: (6)(e) Without prejudice to the rights of the objector or the permittee or the responsibilities of the [D]epartment pursuant to this section, the [D]epartment may establish an informal conference to resolve written objections.

(6)Provide that: (6)(f) For the purpose of the hearing under subsection (6)(d), the [D]epartment may administer oaths, subpoena witnesses or written or printed materials, compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of materials, and take evidence, including but not limited to conducting inspections of the land affected and other operations carried on by the permittee in the general vicinity. A verbatim record of each public hearing required by this section must be made, and a transcript must be made available on the motion of any party or by order of the [D]epartment.

(7)Provide that: (6)(g) If the applicant significantly modifies the application after the application has been determined to be administratively complete, the [D]epartment shall conduct a new review, including an administrative completeness determination. A significant modification includes, but is not limited to:

(i)The notification of an additional property owner, local governmental body, planning agency, or sewage and water treatment authority of the permittee's intention to seek a bond release;

(ii)A material increase in the acreage for which a bond release is sought or in the amount of bond release sought; or

(iii)A material change in the reclamation for which a bond release is sought or the information used to evaluate the results of that reclamation.

(8)Provide that: ((6)(h)) The [D]epartment conduct an inspection and evaluation of the reclamation work involved within 30 days of determining that the application is administratively complete or as soon as weather permits;

(9)Provide that: (6)(i) The [D]epartment shall review each administratively complete application to determine the acceptability of the application. A complete application is acceptable if the application is in compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this part, the rules adopted under this part, and the permit.

(10)Provide that: (6)(j)(i) The [D]epartment shall notify the applicant in writing regarding the acceptability of the application no later than 60 days from the date of the inspection.

(ii)If the [D]epartment determines that the application is not acceptable, it shall specify in the notice those items that the application must address.

(iii)If the applicant revises the application in response to a notice of unacceptability, the [D]epartment shall review the revised application and notify the applicant in writing within 60 days of the date of receipt as to whether the revised application is acceptable.

(iv)If the revision constitutes a significant modification, the [D]epartment shall conduct a new review, beginning with an administrative completeness determination.

(v)A significant modification includes, but is not limited to:

(A)The notification of an additional property owner, local governmental body, planning agency, or sewage and water treatment authority of the permittee's intention to seek a bond release;

(B)A material increase in the acreage for which a bond release is sought or the amount of bond release sought; or

(C)A material change in the reclamation for which a bond release is sought or the information used to evaluate the results of that reclamation.

(11)Recodify original subsections (6)(c) through

(e)as (6)(k) through (m), with some minor editorial changes, and,

(12)Recodify original subsections (6)(f) through (6)(h) as (6)(d) through (f). The proposed changes in Paragraph 3 above (MCA 82-4-232(6)(c)) require that public notice be published (at least once a week for 4 successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the mining operation) after the bond release application has been reviewed and is determined to be administratively complete by the Department. These changes also include a provision which states that the Department will notify the applicant of its determination no later than 60 days after it receives the application. Although there is no direct Federal counterpart to this provision, we find that it is generally in accordance with Section 519 of SMCRA. The proposed changes at Paragraph

(2)(MCA 82-4-232(b)(2)) state that a bond release application shall be administratively complete if it includes certain specific information specified in (6)(b)(i) through

(v)listed above. The corresponding Federal counterpart to the above provisions, SMCRA 519(a), requires the operator to publish (at least once a week for 4 successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the mining operation) a notice within 30 days of filing an application for bond release containing the location of the land affected, the number of acres, the permit and the date approved, the amount of the bond filed, and the portion sought to be released, the type and dates of reclamation performed, and a description of the results as they relate to the operator's approved reclamation plan. Proposed 82-4-232(6)(b) and

(c)are substantively identical to and in accordance with the requirements of Section 519(a) of the Act. We approve the changes. The changes in Paragraphs 4 through 10 above (MCA 82-4-232(6)(d) through (j)) specify requirements for bond release applications including criteria for administrative completeness and procedures for review. These provisions are similar to the provisions for permit and permit revision applications in MCA 82-4-231. While providing more specificity, revised MCA 82-4-232(6) (d), (e), (f), and

(h)through

(j)include all of the provisions contained in Sections 519 (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), and

(h)of SMCRA regarding bond release procedures. MCA 82-4-232(6) (g), (i), and

(j)elaborate on administrative completeness determinations and procedures, and have no Federal counterparts. These additions add specificity to Montana's requirements and exceed SMCRA's requirements. For the above reasons, we find these changes to be no less stringent than comparable provisions in SMCRA, and we approve them. As discussed below, additional changes at MCA 82-4-232(11) and

(12)are minor wording, editorial, punctuation, grammatical and recodification changes to existing statutes. More specifically, former MCA 82-4-232 (6)(c) through 82-4-232 (6)(e) have been recodified as 82-4-232 (6)(k) through 82-4-232 (6)(m). These changes are required by other recodification changes within the statute. “[O]r deposit” has been deleted from 82-4-232 (6)(k). The term “bonds” means deposits such as cash or securities as well as other types of bonds and therefore the term “deposits” is not necessary. “[O]r county” was added to 82-4-232 (6)(m), clarifying that an applicant for total or partial bond release must notify the municipality or county in which a prospecting or mining operation is located 30 days prior to the bond release. This minor addition clarifies applicant responsibilities and does not alter the requirements of the provision. We find that these recodification and editorial changes are minor and do not change the meaning of existing statutes. We approve these changes. Former MCA 82-4-232(6)(f) through 82-4-232(6)(h) have been recodified as 82-4-232(6)(d) through (6)(f). These changes are required by recodification changes to the previously approved statute (January 22, 1999) (64 FR 3604). The content of these provisions was unaffected, and we approve these changes. MCA 82-4-232(8) deals with proposals in postmining land use. Montana proposed in

(a)to change “alternate” to “alternative” for consistency of terminology within the Montana statute and also with the revisions to rules approved by OSM on February 16, 2005 (70 FR 8018), where “alternative” was used. This is a minor wording change that is consistent with previously approved statutes and regulations. We approve this change. 8. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-233, MCA, by deleting existing Paragraph

(5)concerning special revegetation requirements for land that was mined, disturbed, or redisturbed after May 2, 1978, and that was seeded prior to January 1, 1984. Subsection

(5)is no longer necessary as its provisions are now included in subsections

(1)and

(2)of 82-4-233, MCA. This is a result of changes to 82-4-233, MCA approved by OSM on February 16, 2005, (70 FR 8001). Subsections

(1)and

(2)include all the provisions of 30 CFR 816.111 for revegetation general requirements that were previously approved in subsection (5). We approve this change. 9. Existing MCA 82-4-235(a) prescribes revegetation success criteria and the time requirements for reclamation responsibility for lands with regard to coal removal and disturbance or redisturbance before and after May 2, 1978. SMCRA took effect in two stages, an initial regulatory program described in Section 502, and the permanent regulatory program. On and after nine months from the date of enactment of the Act, on lands where surface coal mining operations were regulated by States, the initial regulatory program required compliance with Section 515(b)(19) of SMCRA requiring establishment of vegetative cover but did not require compliance with Section 515(b)(20) establishing the responsibility period for successful revegetation. The initial regulatory program became effective on May 3, 1978. The permanent regulatory program became effective with permits issued under approved State regulatory or Federal programs. Under MCA 82-4-235(a), lands mined for coal or redisturbed prior to May 3, 1978 are subject to revegetation requirements listed in existing MCA 82-4-235(3)(a)(i) and (ii). Existing MCA 82-4-235

(2)sets a period of 5 years after planting as the responsibility period for lands mined for coal or redisturbed prior to May 3, 1978. Montana proposes additional language to MCA 82-4-235(3)(a) to clarify that lands disturbed by mining at any time prior to May 3, 1978 that were permitted under Montana programs that preceded SMCRA are required to meet the vegetation requirements in MCA 82-4-235(3)(a)(i) and (ii). For the most part, this additional provision deals with lands not subject to SMCRA provisions. Despite this proposed change, MCA 82-4-235 remains in accordance with requirements in SMCRA in Sections 515(b)(19) and

(20)and in Section 502 (c). The addition also provides clarification to the statute that was previously approved by OSM in the January 22, 1999 **Federal Register** (64 FR 3604). We approve the changes. 10. Montana 82-4-251(3), MCA, pertains to orders issued to the permittee to show cause as to why the permit should not be suspended or revoked based on a determination that a pattern of violations exists. The existing provision provides for the opportunity for a public hearing in accordance with Section 521(a)(4) of SMCRA. In addition, Montana proposed that the permittee may request a contested case hearing. Pursuant to Montana's Administrative Procedures Act, whenever a statute requires a license or permit decision to be preceded by a hearing, the contested case provisions apply pursuant to MCA 82-4-206(2). Procedures for contested case hearings are contained in Title 2, chapter 4, part 6, MCA (2-4-601 through 2-4-631). The contested case procedures provide for opportunity for reasonable notice, requiring the reason for and details of the hearing, and prescribe hearing procedures and time limits for decisions. Applying the contested case provisions of the Montana Administrative Procedures Act to hearings required in the Montana regulatory program is reasonable, is not inconsistent with the requirements of Section 521(a)(5) of the Act for notices and orders, public hearings conferences, and procedures associated with enforcement matters, and does not alter our previous approvals of MCA 82-4-251(3). We approve the change. In 82-4-251(5), MCA, revisions are proposed to

(a)allow an opportunity by a permittee to request an informal public hearing on any notice or order issued by the Department under this section of the Montana Code, and

(b)specify the procedures for such informal hearings. More specifically, Montana proposes the above revisions to provide that informal public hearings on notices or orders that require cessation of mining must be requested by the person to whom the notice or order was issued. Further, if the Department receives a request for an informal public hearing 21 days after service of the notice or order, the period for holding the informal public hearing will be extended by the number of days after the 21st day that the request was received. Montana's previous statute did not provide for an opportunity by a permittee to request an informal public hearing on any notice or order issued by the Department under the statute. Therefore, it was inconsistent with the provisions in Section 521(a)(4) of SMCRA which provide the opportunity for a public hearing to be requested by the permittee after service of “* * * an order to the permittee to show cause as to why the permit should not be revoked or suspended * * *.” The proposed changes are in accordance with Section 521(a)(4) of SMCRA and the requirements for notices and orders, public hearings conferences, and procedures associated with enforcement matters contained in Section 521(a)(5). We approve these changes. Montana proposes to revise 82-4-251(6), MCA, to allow an alleged violator to “request a hearing before the [B]oard,” and delete existing requirements for Departmental investigations. Previously, hearings under this subsection were limited to notices of violation and cessation orders. The previous version also specified that the hearings were to be conducted by the Department, and the Department was required to make findings and issue a decision from such hearings. By definition, this is contrary to 82-4-205(2) which requires that contested cases must be heard and decided by the Board of Environmental Review and not the Department. The above changes rectify this problem and are in accordance with the requirements for notices and orders, public hearings conferences, and procedures associated with enforcement matters contained in Section 521(a)(5) of SMCRA. Therefore, we approve these changes. The following paragraphs, 11 through 27, address proposed changes to Montana statutes and regulations dealing with penalties. The standard for penalty provisions in a State program is established in Section 518(i) of SMCRA. This provision states that civil and criminal penalty provisions shall incorporate penalties no less stringent than those set forth in Section 518 of the Act, and shall contain the same or similar procedural requirements. OSM suspended 30 CFR 732.15(b)(7) and 840.13(a) (which implement Section 518(i) of the Act) insofar as they require State programs to establish a point system for assessing civil penalties or impose civil penalties as stringent as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15 (which deals with the assessment of separate violations for each day) (August 4, 1980) (45 FR 51548). Hence, if the State program requires consideration of the four mandatory statutory criteria—history of previous violations, seriousness, negligence, and good faith in attempting to achieve compliance—when determining whether to assess a penalty and in determining the penalty amount, the program meets the Federal requirements. 30 CFR Part 846 covers the assessment of individual civil penalties and is the basis for State regulations. 11. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-254(1)(a), MCA, to provide individual administrative penalties determined in accordance with 82-4-1001, MCA, for persons who “purposely or knowingly,” rather than “willfully,” authorize, order, or carry out violations. Montana explains that the terms “purposely or knowingly” are used in the Montana Criminal Code, and “willfully” is not; therefore, this change will provide consistency within Montana state law. OSM believes that Montana's term “purposely or knowingly” is substantively the same as “willfully and knowingly,” as used in Section 518(e) of SMCRA and we are approving it. Montana proposes further additions and deletions in (1)(a) that are minor wording, editorial, punctuation, grammatical and recodification changes to existing statutes. Additionally, the term “civil” is replaced with “administrative” to clarify that penalties assessed by the Department are administrative penalties, rather than judicial penalties that are levied by Montana State District Court. This proposed change is consistent with Section 518(b) of SMCRA which provides for penalties to be assessed by the regulatory body, and not through the courts. This change is therefore consistent with SMCRA, and we approve it. Proposed part

(b)references a new section, MCA 82-4-1001, which sets forth guidelines for determining the amount of administrative penalty to be assessed (discussed below). 82-4-254(2), MCA, is revised to add that the Department may not waive a penalty assessed under the section if the person or operator fails to abate the violation as directed under MCA 82-4-251. This revision does not have a Federal counterpart and is more stringent than requirements in Section 518 of SMCRA dealing with the assessment of penalties. Moreover, the addition provides clarification and specificity to existing provisions. We approve this change. Montana also proposes additions and deletions in 82-4-254(2), MCA that are for clarification of terminology. These changes are minor and do not alter the meaning of the existing regulation. We approve these minor changes. Montana adds new requirements at 82-4-254(3)(a), MCA, providing that: To assess an administrative penalty under this section, the Department shall issue a notice of violation and penalty order to the person or operator, unless the penalty is waived pursuant to subsection (2). The notice and order must specify the provision of this part, rule adopted or order issued under this part, or term or condition of a permit that is violated and must contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a statement of the proposed administrative penalty. The notice and order must be served personally or by certified mail. Service by mail is complete 3 business days after the date of mailing. The notice and order become final unless, within 30 days after the order is served, the person or operator to whom the order was issued requests a hearing before the Board. A requirement is added to Paragraph (3)(a) that on receiving a request, the Board must schedule a hearing. The changes in proposed MCA 82-4-254(3)(a) are for the purpose of converting the current two-step process of assessing a penalty into a more streamlined one-step process. The Department would now issue a Notice of Violation and Administrative Penalty Order (NOV/APO) that would contain all of the relevant components from the existing two-step process. If a hearing is not requested, the NOV/APO would become final and eliminate the need to issue separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. New Paragraph (3)(b) indicates that only persons or operators issued a final order may obtain judicial review. The changes in MCA 82-4-254(3)(b) reflect the changes in (3)(a) and provide additional clarification. New Paragraphs (3)(c) and

(4)allow

(1)the Department, rather than the Attorney General, to file actions for collection,

(2)filing in the first judicial district (if agreed by the parties), and

(3)the Department, rather than the Attorney General, to bring actions for judicial relief. Additionally, the changes in MCA 82-4-254(3)(c) specify that the Department, not the Attorney General, may file an action in District Court to recover penalties; Department attorneys are special assistants to the Attorney General and are authorized to file such cases in District Court. The changes in MCA 82-4-254(4) reflect changes in (3)(c) specifying that the Department, rather than the Attorney General, may file an action for a restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction against an operator or person meeting criteria outlined in subsections (4)(a) through (f). These changes will result in assessment and collection of civil penalties by Montana in accordance with the provisions for assessing and collecting civil penalties found in Section 518(a), (b),

(c)and

(d)of SMCRA. The changes provide clarification and specificity to existing provisions. We approve the proposed changes, finding that the additions and deletions are reasonable and do not alter OSM's previous decision to approve MCA 82-4-254(1) through

(3)in the January 22, 1999 **Federal Register** (64 FR 3604). 12. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.24.1219(1) and

(2)for individual civil penalties and procedures for assessments that reflect revisions discussed above to 82-4-254(3)(a), MCA. The proposed amendments to

(1)and

(2)provide for the Department to issue a penalty order rather than a statement of proposed penalty. The proposed amendment to subparagraph

(1)also deletes the requirement that the penalty document give an explanation for the penalty as well as its amount. These requirements are now set forth in 82-4-254(3)(a) and 82-4-1001, MCA (see Findings 11 and 15). It is, therefore, unnecessary to impose them by administrative rule. These changes to ARM 117.24.1219, reflect the changes in 82-4-254(3)(a), MCA that were approved by OSM on February 16, 2005 (70 FR 8018). We approve the changes to ARM 17.24.1219(1) and (2). 13. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.24.1220(1),

(2)and

(3)concerning individual civil penalty payments. The proposed amendment to subparagraph

(1)reflects the proposed changes to MCA 82-4-254 discussed above, and requires the payment of a penalty within 30 days after the expiration of the period for requesting a hearing rather than upon issuance of the final order. Pursuant to 82-4-254, MCA, the notice of violation and penalty order become final by operation of law if a request for hearing is not made in a timely manner. Therefore, the deadline for paying the penalty must be keyed to the expiration of the period for requesting a hearing (rather than to the issuance of a final order as previously required under 82-4-254, MCA). Subparagraph

(2)replaces the phrase “proposed individual civil penalty assessment” with “violation and penalty order” to maintain consistency with MCA 82-4-254. To further maintain this consistency, the phrase “[U]pon issuance” (of a final administrative order) is replaced with “within 30 days after the issuance” (of a final administrative order). Under 30 CFR 846.17(b), the notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment shall become a final order of the Secretary 30 days after service upon the individual unless:

(1)The individual files within 30 days of service of the notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment a petition for review with the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals; or

(2)The Office [of Surface Mining] and the individual or responsible corporate permittee agree within 30 days of service of the notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment to a schedule or plan for the abatement or correction of the violation. Under 30 CFR 846.18(a) a penalty for an individual civil penalty assessed in accordance with 30 CFR 846.17, in the absence of a petition for review or abatement agreement, shall be due upon issuance of the final order. The Federal and proposed State provisions have similar procedural requirements, differing only in that in the absence of requesting a hearing or a petition for review, the Federal notice becomes a final order and payment is due 30 days after issuance, whereas the State allows an additional 30 days (total of 60 days) for payment. The State's extra 30 days is keyed to the time allowed to file an appeal. OSM finds Montana's reference to the time period for requesting review to be reasonable since, until the time has passed to file a petition for review, the penalty may yet be subject to change. A comparison of the time frames for the Federal regulations and Montana's program, from detection of a violation, to the issuance of a notice of violation, to the issuance of civil penalties and individual civil penalties and the requirements for payment of penalties, indicates slight differences between the steps; however, the steps are similar from violation issuance to payment of the penalty. In addition, a petition for review under both the State and Federal schemes can delay the issuance of a final order affirming a penalty well beyond 30 days. These considerations reduce the importance of each specific Federal timeframe. For these reasons, Montana's proposed revisions to ARM 17.24.1220(1) and

(2)are consistent with 30 CFR 846.17 and 846.18 and we approve them. Section

(3)currently provides that an individual who has entered into a written agreement with the Department for “abatement of the violation” or “compliance with the unabated order” may postpone payment until receiving a final order indicating that the penalty is due or has been withdrawn. Compliance with an unabated order is synonymous with the abatement of the violation. The proposed amendment to

(3)deletes two unnecessary references to the phrase “compliance with the unabated order.” Section

(3)is nearly identical to its Federal counterpart at 30 CFR 846.18(c), which states that “[w]here the Office and the corporate permittee or individual have agreed in writing on a plan for the abatement of or compliance with the unabated order, an individual named in a notice of proposed civil penalty assessment may postpone payment until receiving either a final order from the Office stating that the penalty is due on the date of such final order, or written notice that the abatement or compliance is satisfactory and the penalty has been withdrawn.” The changes to subsection

(3)are for clarification and reduce redundancy without altering the meaning of the existing regulation. Accordingly, we approve the proposed changes. 14. Montana proposed to revise 82-4-254(6) and (8), MCA, to provide criminal sanctions against persons who purposely or knowingly, rather than willfully, commit certain acts. The term “willfully” is changed to “purposely or knowingly” for clarification and consistency with 82-4-254(1)(a), MCA, and other provisions of State law. In a previous finding (see Paragraph 11 above), we found that the term, “purposely and knowingly,” is substantively the same as “willfully and knowingly” used in Section 518(e) of SMCRA. For the above reasons, we are approving the proposed changes to 82-4-254(6) and (8), MCA, because they are minor and do not change the meaning of the existing statute. Montana adds a new Paragraph, 82-4-254(10), MCA, providing that within 30 days after receipt of full payment of an administrative penalty assessed under this section, the Department will issue a written release of civil liability for the violations for which the penalty was assessed. This provides a legal conclusion to violations that have been satisfactorily resolved. This is an addition for which there is no Federal counterpart. Section 518(i) of SMCRA states that “any State program * * * shall, at a minimum, incorporate penalties no less stringent than those set forth in this section, and shall contain the same or similar procedural requirements relating thereto.” We find the proposed addition does not jeopardize other Program requirements that ensure assessment and collection of civil penalties in accordance with the requirements of Section 518 of SMCRA. Therefore, we approve this addition. 15. Montana proposed a new section, 82-4-1001, MCA, as follows: Penalty factors.

(1)In determining the amount of an administrative or civil penalty assessed under the statutes listed in subsection (4), the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality or the district court, as appropriate, shall take into account the following factors:

(a)The nature, extent, and gravity of the violation;

(b)The circumstances of the violation;

(c)The violator's prior history of any violation, which:

(i)Must be a violation of a requirement under the authority of the same chapter and part as the violation for which the penalty is being assessed;

(ii)Must be documented in an administrative order or a judicial order or judgment issued within 3 years prior to the date of the occurrence of the violation for which the penalty is being assessed; and

(iii)May not, at the time that the penalty is being assessed, be undergoing or subject to administrative appeal or judicial review;

(d)The economic benefit or savings resulting from the violator's action;

(e)The violator's good faith and cooperation;

(f)The amounts voluntarily expended by the violator, beyond what is required by law or order, to address or mitigate the violation or impacts of the violation; and

(g)Other matters that justice may require.

(2)Except for penalties assessed under 82-4-254, after the amount of a penalty is determined under (1), the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality or the district court, as appropriate, may consider the violator's financial ability to pay the penalty and may institute a payment schedule or suspend all or a portion of the penalty.

(3)Except for penalties assessed under 82-4-254, the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality may accept a supplemental environmental project as mitigation for a portion of the penalty. For purposes of this section, a “supplemental environmental project” is an environmentally beneficial project that a violator agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement action but which the violator is not otherwise legally required to perform.

(4)This section applies to penalties assessed by the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality or the district court under 82-4-141, 82-4-254, 82-4-361, and 82-4-441.

(5)The [B]oard of [E]nvironmental [R]eview and the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality may, for the statutes listed in subsection

(4)for which each has rulemaking authority, adopt rules to implement this section. The purpose of this new section is to create a standard set of factors that can be used to assess and enforce penalties for the Montana Program and 15 other environmental programs under the Department's jurisdiction. This enables staff to apply fair and consistent penalties Department wide. Section (1)(a) lists the following factor for consideration: “the nature, extent and gravity of the violation.” In considering the “nature” of a violation, Montana states in its submission that the Department will determine whether the violation harms or has the potential to harm human health or the environment, or whether the violation adversely impacts the Department's administration of the Montana Act. This is consistent with and corresponds to the consideration of “seriousness” in Section 518(a) of SMCRA. Montana further explains in its submission that the consideration of “extent” takes into account the degree of harm or potential harm to human health and the environment, or the degree of adverse impact to the Department's administration of the Montana Act. As such, Montana states that violations resulting in a higher degree of harm or potential harm or a higher degree of adverse impact to the Department's administration of the Montana Act will be assigned higher points under “extent.” This too is in accordance with the “seriousness” factor in Section 518(a) of SMCRA. Next, Montana states that the consideration of “gravity” in (1)(a) factors in the probability of occurrence. Specifically, a violation that results in a higher probability of occurrence of the event that a standard is designed to prevent is more grave than a violation with a lower probability of the occurrence of the event, and will be assigned more points. This also is consistent with the consideration of “seriousness” in Section 518(a) of SMCRA. In its submission, Montana states that the consideration of “circumstances” in (1)(b) directly relates to the negligence or culpability of the violator. This definition also is set forth under proposed ARM 17.4.302 (1), described below. Under the Department's proposed penalty rules, the more negligent or culpable the violator is, the higher the penalty will be. This is consistent with the consideration of “negligence” in Section 518(a) of SMCRA. Proposed section MCA 82-4-1001(1)(c) defines the ways a violator's prior history of violations may result in increased penalty assessment. Subsections (1)(c)(i), (ii), and

(iii)specify that for violations to be considered as prior history, they must be less than 3 years old, a violation of the same chapter and part as the violation for which the penalty is assessed, and not under administrative appeal or judicial review. This section is in accordance with the requirement in Section 518(a) of SMCRA to consider the permittee's history of previous violations. Proposed section MCA 82-4-1001(1)(d) allows the Department in assessing a penalty to consider the economic benefit or savings resulting from the violator's action. The new text in (1)(d) takes into account the extent to which a violator has gained any economic benefit as a result of its failure to comply. The Federal regulations do not contain a similar provision. However, Montana's provision can only result in an increased penalty should there have been an economic benefit or savings resulting from the violator's action. Therefore, we find new (1)(d) to be no less effective than the Federal regulations and we approve it. The assessment of “good faith and cooperation” under proposed section MCA 82-4-1001(1)(e) relates to a violator's willingness to abate the violation, and measures employed to abate the violation in the timeliest manner possible, with the least amount of environmental harm possible. In its submission, Montana explains that, if a person has a high degree of good faith and cooperation, the Department will calculate a lower penalty. This subsection is consistent with Section 518(a) of SMCRA dealing with the consideration of “demonstrated good faith” by the permittee in attempting to achieve compliance and we approve it. Proposed section MCA 82-4-1001(1)(f) allows the Department to consider the amount voluntarily expended by the violator beyond what is necessary to address or mitigate the violation or impacts of the violation. There is no counterpart in the Federal regulations allowing for consideration of effort or amounts expended beyond the necessary minimum. However, a provision of 30 CFR 845.16(a) allowing for waiver of use of the formula to determine civil penalty provides that “the Director shall not waive the use of the formula or reduce the proposed assessment on the basis of an argument that a reduction in the proposed penalty could be used to abate violations of the Act, this chapter, any applicable program, or any condition of any permit or exploration approval.” Under Montana's proposed (1)(f) the amount of funding or effort required to abate the violation cannot be considered in reducing the penalty. Rather, this provision gives the Department the authority to consider amounts expended by the operator beyond that which is necessary to abate the violation. Therefore, we find that new (1)(f) is not inconsistent with the Federal regulations and we approve it. In its submission, Montana states that provision (1)(g) was inserted to cover other circumstances that warrant consideration in penalty assessment, e.g. to provide for fairness and effectiveness. Montana goes on to explain that the Department expects that this factor will only be used when, based on particular facts and circumstances, the application of the penalty factors would not result in a fair and just penalty. 30 CFR 845.16(a), concerning waiver of use of the formula to determine civil penalty, states that “The Director, upon his own initiative or upon written request received within 15 days of issuance of a notice of violation or a cessation order, may waive the use of the formula contained in 30 CFR 845.13 to set the civil penalty, if he or she determines that, taking into account exceptional factors present in the particular case, the penalty is demonstrably unjust.” We find proposed (1)(g) to be consistent with this provision in the Federal regulations and we approve it. Subsections

(2)and

(3)allow for penalties in other Departmental programs to be reduced and waived, but do not apply to penalties assessed in the coal regulatory program under 82-4-254, MCA. Thus, these provisions are of no concern for purposes of this amendment. Subsection

(4)states that the provisions of this section (82-4-1001, MCA) will apply to penalties assessed by the Department or District Court, and subsection

(5)empowers the Department and Board to adopt rules to implement this new statute. This delegation of authority is acceptable under Montana's permanent regulatory program approved by OSM in the April 1, 1980 **Federal Register** (45 FR 21560), and we approve it. We are approving each of the proposed changes above in MCA, 82-4-1001, finding that the additions and deletions incorporate penalties that are no less stringent than those set forth in Section 518 of the Act and contain the same or similar procedural requirements relating thereto. 16. Consistent with 82-4-254(1), MCA (discussed above), Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.24.1218 to require that individual civil penalties be calculated based on criteria specified in 82-4-1001, MCA. The changes to ARM 17.24.1218 implement and are consistent with changes to the corresponding statute and we are approving them. 17. Montana proposed revisions to 17.4.303, ARM concerning base penalties. Montana proposes that the Department shall calculate the penalties according to the following:

(1)The base penalty is calculated by multiplying the maximum penalty amount authorized by statute by a factor from the appropriate base penalty matrix in

(2)or (3). In order to select a matrix from

(2)or (3), the nature of the violation must first be established. For violations that harm or have the potential to harm human health or the environment, the [D]epartment shall classify the extent and gravity of the violation as major, moderate, or minor as provided in

(4)and (5). For all other violations, the extent factor does not apply, and the [D]epartment shall classify the gravity of the violation as major, moderate, or minor as provided in (5).

(2)The [D]epartment shall use the following matrix for violations that harm or have the potential to harm human health or the environment: Extent Gravity Major Moderate Minor Major 0.85 0.70 0.55 Moderate 0.70 0.55 0.40 Minor 0.55 0.40 0.25

(3)The [D]epartment shall use the following matrix for violations that adversely impact the [D]epartment's administration of the applicable statute or rules, but which do not harm or have the potential to harm human health or the environment: Gravity Major Moderate Minor 0.50 0.40 0.30

(4)In determining the extent of a violation, the factors that the [D]epartment may consider include, but are not limited to, the volume, concentration, and toxicity of the regulated substance, the severity and percent of exceedance of a regulatory limit, and the duration of the violation. The [D]epartment shall determine the extent of a violation as follows:

(a)A violation has a major extent if it constitutes a major deviation from the applicable requirements;

(b)A violation has a moderate extent if it constitutes a moderate deviation from the applicable requirements;

(c)A violation has a minor extent if it constitutes a minor deviation from the applicable requirements.

(5)The [D]epartment shall determine the gravity of a violation as follows:

(a)A violation has major gravity if it causes harm to human health or the environment, poses a serious potential to harm human health or the environment, or has a serious adverse impact on the [D]epartment's administration of the statute or rules. Examples of violations that may have major gravity include a release of a regulated substance that causes harm or poses a serious potential to harm human health or the environment, construction or operation without a required permit or approval, an exceedance of a maximum contaminant level or water quality standard, or a failure to provide an adequate performance bond.

(b)A violation has moderate gravity if it:

(i)Is not major or minor as provided in (5)(a) or (c); and

(ii)Poses a potential to harm human health or the environment, or has an adverse impact on the [D]epartment's administration of the statute or rules. Examples of violations that may have moderate gravity include a release of a regulated substance that does not cause harm or pose a serious potential to harm human health or the environment, a failure to monitor, report, or make records, a failure to report a release, leak, or bypass, or a failure to construct or operate in accordance with a permit or approval.

(c)A violation has minor gravity if it poses no risk of harm to human health or the environment, or has a low adverse impact on the [D]epartment's administration of the statute or rules. Examples of violations that may have minor gravity include a failure to submit a report in a timely manner, a failure to pay fees, inaccurate recordkeeping, or a failure to comply with a minor operational requirement specified in a permit. Pursuant to the above-described regulations, the first step in the penalty calculation process is to identify a base penalty, which is a percentage of the statutory maximum penalty. The percentage varies depending on how the three statutory factors of “nature”, “extent”, and “gravity” are weighed. These three statutory factors are defined and two matrices are created for determining the amount of the base penalty. The “nature” of a violation is determined on the basis of whether it harms or has the potential to harm human health or the environment. The “extent” of a violation is determined by considering such factors as the volume, concentration and toxicity of the regulated substance, the severity and percent exceedance of a regulatory limit, and the duration of the violation. The “gravity” of a violation is determined by considering (among other things) such factors as whether a release of a regulated substance has occurred, the degree of risk to human health or the environment, and the extent of impact to the Department's ability to administer the statute and rules. The rule clarifies how the statutory factors will be implemented, and ensures that a consistent penalty calculation process is used for all of the environmental laws subject to 82-4-1001, MCA. The additions noted above under ARM 17.4.303 implement 82-4-1001, MCA. OSM approved the proposed changes to 82-4-1001, MCA in Paragraph 15 above. Penalties under 82-4-1001, MCA are based on the “nature, extent, gravity, and circumstances” of the violation. The violator's history and good faith abating the violation are also factors in determining penalties in 82-4-1001, MCA. Our approval found that 82-4-1001, MCA incorporated factors for determining penalties in accordance with Section 518 of the Act. ARM 17.4.303 clarifies how the statutory factors in 82-4-1001, MCA will be implemented. It includes a procedure for calculating penalties. As discussed above, the standard for penalty provisions in a State program is established in Section 518(i) of SMCRA. This provision states that civil and criminal penalty provisions shall incorporate penalties no less stringent than those set forth in Section 518 of the Act, and shall contain the same or similar procedural requirements. OSM suspended 30 CFR 732.15(b)(7) and 840.13(a) insofar as they require State programs to establish a point system for assessing civil penalties or to impose civil penalties as stringent as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15 (August 4, 1980) (45 FR 51548). Hence, if the State program requires consideration of the four mandatory statutory criteria—history of previous violations, seriousness, negligence, and good faith in attempting to achieve compliance—when determining whether to assess a penalty and in determining the penalty amount, the program meets the Federal requirements. 30 CFR Part 846 covers the assessment of individual civil penalties and is the basis for State regulations. We find that Montana's procedure for calculating penalties incorporates criteria consistent with the four criteria of Section 518(a) of SMCRA. Additionally, we find that ARM 17.4.303 is consistent with 82-4-1001, MCA, and that both of these provisions provide for civil penalties in accordance with Section 518 of the Act. Therefore, we approve the additions to ARM 17.4.303. 18. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.4.304, for adjusted base penalty.

(1)As provided in this rule, the [D]epartment may consider circumstances, good faith and cooperation, and amounts voluntarily expended to calculate an adjusted base penalty. Circumstances may be used to increase the base penalty. Good faith and cooperation and amounts voluntarily expended may be used to decrease the base penalty. The amount of adjustment for each of the above factors is based upon a percentage of the base penalty. The amount of the adjustment is added to the base penalty to obtain an adjusted base penalty.

(2)The [D]epartment may increase a base penalty by up to 30 percent based upon the circumstances of the violation. To determine the penalty adjustment based upon circumstances, the [D]epartment shall evaluate a violator's culpability associated with the violation. In determining the amount of increase for circumstances, the [D]epartment's consideration must include, but not be limited to, the following factors:

(a)How much control the violator had over the violation;

(b)The foreseeability of the violation;

(c)Whether the violator took reasonable precautions to prevent the violation;

(d)The foreseeability of the impacts associated with the violation; and

(e)Whether the violator knew or should have known of the requirement that was violated.

(3)The [D]epartment may decrease a base penalty by up to 10 percent based upon the violator's good faith and cooperation. In determining the amount of decrease for good faith and cooperation, the department's consideration must include, but not be limited to, the following factors:

(a)The violator's promptness in reporting and correcting the violation, and in mitigating the impacts of the violation;

(b)The extent of the violator's voluntary and full disclosure of the facts related to the violation; and

(c)The extent of the violator's assistance in the [D]epartment's investigation and analysis of the violation.

(4)The [D]epartment may decrease a base penalty by up to 10% based upon the amounts voluntarily expended by the violator, beyond what is required by law or order, to address or mitigate the violation or the impacts of the violation. The amount of a decrease is not required to match the amounts voluntarily expended. In determining the amount of decrease for amounts voluntarily expended, beyond what is required by law or order, the [D]epartment's consideration must include, but not be limited to, the following factors:

(a)Expenditures for resources, including personnel and equipment, to promptly mitigate the violation or impacts of the violation;

(b)Expenditures of resources to prevent a recurrence of the violation or to eliminate the cause or source of the violation; and

(c)Revenue lost by the violator due to a cessation or reduction in operations that is necessary to mitigate the violation or the impacts of the violation. This proposed rule implements 82-4-1001, MCA (discussed above), and sets out procedures for adjusting the base penalty based upon a consideration of the three statutory factors of “circumstances,” “good faith and cooperation,” and “amounts voluntarily expended.” The rule provides for an increase to the base penalty by up to 30 percent based upon the circumstances of the violation. In determining the adjustment for circumstances, the rule requires a consideration of factors that reflect the culpability of the violator. As discussed in Paragraph 15 above, circumstances directly relate to the negligence or culpability of the violator. Under both State and Federal regulations, a more negligent violator will receive a higher penalty. Therefore, we find that the consideration of “circumstances” in Section

(2)is consistent with the consideration of “negligence” in Section 518(a) of the Act. The rule provides for a decrease to the base penalty up to 10 percent based upon a consideration of certain factors that reflect the good faith and cooperation of a violator, and a decrease to the base penalty up to 10 percent based upon certain voluntary expenditures. Good faith and cooperation relate to a violator's willingness to abate the violation, and measures employed to abate the violation in the timeliest manner possible, with the least amount of environmental harm possible. If a person has a high degree of good faith and cooperation, the Department will calculate a lower penalty. This is in accordance with SMCRA Section 518(a) dealing with “good faith” in attempting to achieve compliance. We approve ARM 17.4.304. 19. Montana proposed adding a new section 82-4-1002, MCA, covering collection of penalties, fees, late fees, and interest as follows:

(1)If the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality is unable to collect penalties, fees, late fees, or interest assessed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality may assign the debt to a collection service or transfer the debt to the [D]epartment of [R]evenue pursuant to Title 17, chapter 4, part 1. (2)(a) The reasonable collection costs of a collection service, if approved by the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality, or assistance costs charged the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality by the [D]epartment of [R]evenue pursuant to 17-4-103(3) may be added to the debt for which collection is being sought. (b)(i) All money collected by the [D]epartment of [R]evenue is subject to the provisions of 17-4-106.

(ii)All money collected by a collection service must be paid to the [D]epartment of [E]nvironmental [Q]uality and deposited in the general fund or the accounts specified in statute for the assessed penalties, fees, late fees, or interest, except that the collection service may retain those collection costs or, if the total debt is not collected, that portion of collection costs that are approved by the [D]epartment. The purpose of this new section is to assist the Department in the collection of penalties. There is no Federal counterpart to this section. We are approving the proposed changes, finding that they add specificity to the Montana program and are not inconsistent with SMCRA or the Federal regulations. In various provisions mentioned above, Montana proposes changes to paragraph numbering where provisions are proposed to be added, deleted, or provide clarity. Montana also proposes editorial revisions not specified above. Because such changes and revisions are minor and do not alter the meanings of the respective provisions, we approve them. Montana proposes changes and additions to other regulations implementing changes to the MCA that are discussed above. The proposed regulation changes to implement 82-4-254, 1000, 1001, and 1002, MCA deal with civil penalty assessments and procedures for collection, waivers, and conferences related to penalty assessments. Montana proposes regulations that track the Federal regulations in 30 CFR 845. Normally, OSM would review these regulations for consistency with the counterpart Federal regulations. However, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 845.12 through .15 have been suspended insofar as they require State programs to establish a point system for assessing or imposing civil penalties as stringent as those appearing in 30 CFR 845.15. Section 518(i) of SMCRA only requires the incorporation of penalties and procedures explicated in Section 518 of the Act. The system proposed by the State must incorporate the four criteria of Section 518(a) (August 4, 1980) (45 FR 51548). As previously stated, Montana proposes changes to provisions for waivers, procedures, conferences, hearings and payment. The counterpart Federal provisions at 30 CFR 845.16 through .20 have not been suspended. Therefore, Montana's provisions for these subjects are evaluated below for consistency with the Federal provisions. 20. Montana has proposed new rules at ARM 17.4.301, ARM 17.4.302, and ARM 17.4.305 through ARM 17.4.308 (as discussed in the findings that follow) to implement 82-4-1001, MCA and set out the details of how the statutory penalty factors will be used in the penalty calculation process. 82-4-1001, MCA is discussed and approved above. Specifically, Montana proposed new subchapter ARM 17.4.301: (1)(a) Through

(d)which implements 82-4-1001, MCA, and provides factors for calculating penalties assessed under several titles including Title 82, chapter 4, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, MCA, insofar as they relate to reclamation requirements.

(2)The purpose of the penalty calculation process is to calculate a penalty that is commensurate with the severity of the violation, that provides an adequate deterrent, and that captures the economic benefit of noncompliance. The [D]epartment shall provide a copy of the penalty calculation to the alleged violator.

(3)The [D]epartment may not assess a penalty that exceeds the maximum penalty amount authorized by the statutes listed in (1). Proposed ARM 17.4.301(2) describes the overall purpose of penalties relating to severity of the violation, adequate deterrent, and the principle that economic benefit of noncompliance is a consideration. Proposed ARM 17.4.301(3) states that the [D]epartment may not assess a penalty that exceeds the maximum penalty amount authorized by the statutes listed in subparagraph (1). The objectives for civil penalties are described in 30 CFR 845.2. Civil penalties are assessed under Section 518 of SMCRA which is intended to deter violations and ensure maximum compliance with the terms and purposes of the Act. There is no requirement for a State to incorporate counterparts to the Federal provisions describing scope and objectives. However, introductory regulations such as Montana's overall purpose states in ARM 17.4.301(2) do not conflict with purposes and objectives in SMCRA or the Federal regulations. ARM 17.4.301(3) states that penalties cannot exceed maximum authorized penalty amounts. For the reasons discussed above, we find subparagraphs

(2)and

(3)to be reasonable and not in conflict with Section 518 of SMCRA or 30 CFR part 845 and we approve them. 21. Montana proposed new subchapter ARM 17.4.302, Definitions. Montana adds definitions for terms used throughout its regulations and statutes. In its submittal, Montana explains that the definitions are necessary to clarify the meaning of the rules and achieve consistent and fair penalty calculations. The definitions are:

(1)“Circumstances” means a violator's culpability associated with a violation.

(2)“Continuing violation” means a violation that involves an ongoing unlawful activity or an ongoing failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory requirement.

(3)“Extent” of the violation means the violator's degree of deviation from the applicable statute, rule or permit.

(4)“Gravity” of the violation means the degree of harm, or potential for harm, to human health or the environment, or the degree of adverse effect on the [D]epartment's administration of the statute and rules.

(5)“History of violation” means the violator's prior history of any violation, which:

(a)Must be a violation of a requirement under the authority of the same chapter and part as the violation for which the penalty is being assessed;

(b)Must be documented in an administrative order or a judicial order or judgment issued within three years prior to the date of the occurrence of the violation for which the penalty is being assessed; and

(c)May not, at the time that the penalty is being assessed, be undergoing or subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.

(6)“Nature” means the classification of a violation as one that harms or has the potential to harm human health or the environment or as one that adversely affects the department's administration of the statute and rules. These regulatory definitions define terms used in Montana's statutes which we approved in Paragraph 15 above. We find these definitions to be reasonable and consistent with their use within the Montana program and statutes. OSM is approving the additions noted above under ARM 17.4.302, Definitions. 22. Montana proposed the following revisions to ARM 17.4.305, Total Adjusted Penalty—Days of Violation:

(1)The [D]epartment may consider each day of each violation as a separate violation subject to penalties. The [D]epartment may multiply the adjusted base penalty calculated under [NEW RULE IV] by the number of days of violation to obtain a total adjusted penalty.

(2)For continuing violations, if the application of

(1)results in a penalty that is higher than the department believes is necessary to provide an adequate deterrent; the [D]epartment may reduce the number of days of violation. Montana represents in its submittal that the environmental laws provide the Department with discretion whether and how to bring enforcement actions, and that most of the laws state that each day of violation constitutes a separate violation. Montana goes on to explain that this rule clarifies that the Department may limit the number of days for which it assesses penalties if an assessment for the full number of violation days would result in a penalty that is higher than the Department believes is necessary to provide an adequate deterrent. Lastly, Montana states that, under this rule, the adjusted base penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.304 (as discussed in Paragraph 18 above) is multiplied by the appropriate number of days to arrive at a total adjusted penalty. 30 CFR 845.16(a) provides that “[t]he Director, upon his own initiative or upon written request received within 15 days of issuance of a notice of violation or cessation order, may waive the use of the formula contained in 30 CFR 845.13 to set the civil penalty, if he or she determines that, taking into account exceptional factors present in the particular case, the penalty is demonstrably unjust.” Montana's proposed rule at ARM 17.4.305 provides discretion similar to and consistent with that allowed in 30 CFR 845.16(a) to adjust penalties on a case by case basis to ensure a fair and just penalty. For this reason, OSM is approving the proposed revision. 23. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.4.306, Total Penalty, History of Violation and Economic Benefit, as follows:

(1)As provided in this rule, the [D]epartment may increase the total adjusted penalty based upon the violator's history of violation. Any penalty increases for history of violation must be added to the total adjusted penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.305 to obtain a total penalty.

(2)The [D]epartment may calculate a separate increase for each historic violation. The amount of the increase must be calculated by multiplying the base penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.303 by the appropriate percentage from (3). This amount must then be added to the total adjusted penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.305.

(3)The [D]epartment shall determine the nature of each historic violation in accordance with ARM 17.4.302(6). The [D]epartment may increase the total adjusted penalty for history of violation using the following percentages:

(a)for each historic violation that, under these rules, would be classified as harming or having the potential to harm human health or the environment, the penalty increase must be 10% of the base penalty calculated under (ARM 17.4.303); and

(b)for each historic violation that, under these rules, would be classified as adversely impacting the [D]epartment's administration of the applicable statute or rules, but not harming or having the potential to harm human health or the environment, the penalty increase must be 5% of the base penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.303.

(4)If a violator has multiple historic violations and one new violation, for which a penalty is being calculated under these rules, the percentages from

(3)for each historic violation must be added together. This composite percentage may not exceed 30%. The composite percentage must then be multiplied by the base penalty for the new violation to determine the amount of the increase. The increase must be added to the total adjusted penalty for the new violation calculated under ARM 17.4.305.

(5)If a violator has one historic violation and multiple new violations, each with a separate penalty calculation under these rules, the base penalties for the new violations calculated under ARM 17.4.303 must be added together. This composite base penalty must then be multiplied by the percentage from

(3)for the historic violation to determine the amount of the increase. The increase must then be added to the sum of the total adjusted penalties calculated for each new violation under ARM 17.4.305.

(6)If a violator has multiple historic violations and multiple new violations, for which a separate penalty is being calculated under these rules, the percentages from

(3)for each historic violation must be added together, not to exceed 30%, and the base penalties for each new violation calculated under ARM 17.4.303 must be added together. The composite base penalties must be multiplied by the composite percentage to determine the amount of the increase. The increase must be added to the sum of the total adjusted penalties calculated for each violation under ARM 17.4.305. In its submittal, Montana states that new ARM 17.4.306 sets out procedures for increasing the total adjusted penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.305 (discussed in Paragraph 22 above), based on certain qualifying prior violations, and clarifies how the Department will calculate the adjustment for prior violations. The definitions of what constitutes a qualifying prior violation are set out in newly-proposed and approved 82-4-1001(1)(c), MCA and ARM 17.4.302(5), respectively. Montana further explains that, under this rule, the total adjusted penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.305 is adjusted for prior violations to arrive at a total penalty. In approving 82-4-1001, MCA (Paragraph 15) above, OSM found that the Department's consideration of a violator's prior history of certain violations to increase a penalty is in accordance with Section 518 of SMCRA. New ARM 17.4.306 implements 82-4-1001, MCA. For the reasons stated in Paragraph 15 above, we approve it. 24. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.4.307, Economic Benefit, as follows:

(1)The [D]epartment may increase the total adjusted penalty, as calculated under ARM 17.4.305, by an amount based upon the violator's economic benefit. The [D]epartment shall base any penalty increase for economic benefit on the [D]epartment's estimate of the costs of compliance, based upon the best information reasonably available at the time it calculates a penalty under these rules. The economic benefit must be added to the total adjusted penalty calculated under ARM 17.4.305 to obtain the total penalty. This proposed rule implements subsection (1)(d) of 82-4-1001, MCA establishing any economic benefit or savings resulting from the violator's action as a factor for possibly increasing the total adjusted penalty. We are approving proposed ARM 17.4.307 because it implements the provisions of 82-4-1001, MCA, which we approved in Paragraph 15 above. 25. Montana proposed ARM 17.4.308, to allow the Department to consider other matters as “justice may require” when determining penalties. The Department may consider such matters to either increase or decrease the total penalty. This rule implements 82-4-1001(1)(g), MCA that we approved above. The Department states that this factor will be used only when, based on particular facts and circumstances, the application of the factors in new rules ARM 17.4.301 through ARM 17.4.307 would result in an injustice. Although worded differently, this waiver of the use of the penalty factors in certain circumstances to increase or decrease the total penalty amount is consistent with 30 CFR 845.16 that allows a penalty to be adjusted as appropriate so long as a written explanation is provided for the assessment. Accordingly, we find ARM 17.4.308 to be no less stringent than the Federal requirements at SMCRA Section 518 and consistent with 30 CFR 845.16 and we approve it. 26. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.24.1206(2), concerning notices and orders of abatement and cessation orders, including issuance and service. The proposed amendment implements 82-4-254(3)(a), MCA, which requires the Department to issue a Notice of Violation and Penalty Order containing (among other things) findings of fact and conclusions of law that, in the absence of a request for a hearing, becomes a final order of the Department. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed in Paragraph 11 above approving the provisions in 82-4-254(3)(a), MCA, we also approve the changes to ARM 17.24.1206(2). 27. Montana proposed revisions to ARM 17.24.1211(2), (3), and

(4)addressing the procedure for assessment and waiver of civil penalties. These changes implement changes to the statute at 82-4-254, MCA, discussed in Paragraph 11 above, which we are approving. The proposed amendment to subparagraph

(2)replaces the term “proposed penalty” with “penalty order.” Additionally, the time within which a person charged with a violation can request a contested case hearing is changed from 20 to 30 days to be consistent with the time allowed under 82-4-254, MCA. This proposed change is consistent with Federal regulations at 30 CFR 845.19(a), which allow a person 30 days from the date the proposed assessment or reassessment is received to request a hearing. The proposed amendment further provides that the person charged with a violation may enter into settlement negotiations with the Department prior to the notice and order being finalized (rather than prior to the Department's issuance of findings of fact, conclusions of law and order). Also in ARM 17.24.1211(2), the notice and order become final by operation of law if a request for a hearing is not timely received. As discussed above, this change is consistent with 82-4-254, MCA, and with Federal regulations at 30 CFR 845.20(a) which states “[i]f the person to whom a notice of violation or cessation order is issued fails to request a hearing as provided in § 845.19, the proposed assessment shall become a final order * * *.” Lastly, the proposed amendment to subparagraph

(2)deletes the requirement that the Department issue findings of fact, conclusions of law and order either after the hearing or after the period of requesting a hearing has expired. This is so because, as previously discussed, the Department will now include findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Notice of Violation and Penalty Order. OSM is approving these changes to ARM 17.24.1211(2), finding that the additions and deletions are consistent with 30 CFR 845.19(a) concerning requests for hearings and 30 CFR 845.20 pertaining to final assessment and payment of penalties. Montana's proposed amendment to ARM 17.24.1211(2) also requires the Department to serve a notice of violation within 90 days after issuance of the notice of noncompliance. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 843.14 require the notice to be served on the person to whom it is directed or their designated agent “promptly after issuance.” Montana's current regulation requires service within 30 days following issuance of the notice of noncompliance. Montana states that in practice, 30 days has proven to be an insufficient amount of time within which to issue a notice of violation. This is due to the fact that an alleged violator is afforded an opportunity to submit a statement of mitigating circumstances regarding the occurrence of the violation and the assessment of the proposed penalty. The Department then reviews and responds in writing to the statement of mitigating circumstances. This process usually takes more than 30 days. The purpose of this new requirement is to provide notice of the violations as soon as possible. Under Montana's proposal, given the fact that the violator has an opportunity to submit a statement of mitigating circumstances, the operator does have such “notice.” Therefore, the violator does not suffer any prejudice by being issued the notice of violation 90 days after the notice of noncompliance is issued. For these reasons, we accept Montana's explanation for allowing 90 days to serve the notice of violation and find it to be consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 843.14. We approve the change. Montana's proposed amendment to ARM 17.24.1211(3) provides that penalties are to be calculated pursuant to new 82-4-1001, MCA, which establishes new factors for penalties that are applicable to all environmental programs administered by the Department. We are approving the new 82-4-1001, MCA in Paragraph 15 above. As a consequence, existing ARM 17.24.1212(3), Point System for Civil Penalties and Waivers, is being repealed because its method of penalty calculation is inconsistent with 82-4-1001, MCA. For the above reasons, OSM approves the revisions to ARM 17.24.1211(3) finding that the revisions and the proposed civil penalty assessment procedure are in accordance with Section 518(i) of SMCRA, which requires State programs to incorporate penalties no less stringent than those set forth in SMCRA. In ARM 17.24.1211(4), Montana proposes waiver provisions for minor violations. Under these proposals, decisions to waive a penalty for a violation must be based on whether the violation presents potential harm to public health, public safety, or the environment, or impairs the Department's administration of the Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act. Provisions for the waiver of use of the formula to determine civil penalty are found at 30 CFR 845.16 and state that, if the Director finds that exceptional factors present in a case demonstrate that the penalty is demonstrably unjust, he may waive the use of the formula for calculating penalties. Montana's provision would allow the penalty to be completely waived, while the Federal provision allows the method of calculating the penalty to be waived, which could result in a penalty being waived. Both provisions are based on a determination that the penalty is demonstrably unjust. Accordingly, OSM finds the waiver provision in revised ARM 17.24.1211(4) to be consistent with the Federal provision at 30 CFR 845.16 and we approve it. IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments One comment letter was received from an individual, dated December 28, 2006 (Administrative Record No. MT-24-7) commenting on SAT-026-FOR. The commenter's overall concern is that with recent amendments, Montana has softened its required enforcement so that it is no longer timely. Specifically, the commenter stated that Montana has no requirements for the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 843.12(b) and for Section 521(a)(4) of SMCRA. As discussed below, Montana has existing provisions that are consistent with 30 CFR 843.12(b) and in accordance with Section 521(a)(4) of SMCRA. Nonetheless, Montana's provisions are not being changed in this amendment, and therefore are not subject to comment or revision at this time. 30 CFR 843.12(b) requires that notices of violation describe the nature of the violation, the remedial action required, the time for abatement, and a description of the area of the permit to which it applies. Montana's statute at MCA 82-4-251(2) requires that, “When, on the basis of an inspection, the [D]epartment determines that any permittee is in violation of any requirement of this part or any permit condition required by this part that does not create an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public or cannot be reasonably expected to cause significant and environmental harm to land, air, or water resources, the director or an authorized representative shall issue a notice to the permittee or the permittee's agent fixing a reasonable time, not exceeding 90 days, for the abatement of the violation * * *.” Section 521(a)(4) of SMCRA requires reviews of violations to determine whether a pattern exists which can lead to suspension or revocation of the permit. Montana has consistent provisions in its statutes at 82-4-251(3), MCA and its regulations at ARM 17.24.1213. Federal Agency Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and Section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Montana program (Administrative Record Nos. MT-23-3 and MT-24-3). We received comments from two Federal Agencies. In its December 12, 2006, letter commenting on SATS MT-027-FOR, the United States Geological Survey said it had “no comments” (Administrative Record No. MT-24-4). In its December 6, 2006 letter, the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)said it had “no objections” (Administrative Record No. MT-24-5) for SATS MT-027-FOR. In its February 7, 2006, letter on SATS MT-026-FOR (Administrative Record No. MT-23-4), BIA said that it did not recognize any deficiencies but commented on some wording in Section 7 of 82-4-226, MCA pertaining to prospecting for which no prospecting permit is required. Specifically, BIA stated that the first sentence in Section 7 is difficult to understand. In response, we note that Section 7 was previously approved by OSM and is not being changed as part of these amendments. Therefore, it is not under consideration. 82-4-226, MCA establishes requirements for prospecting permits, but only Section

(3)is being changed in this amendment by eliminating the application fee (see Paragraph 4 above). Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)Concurrence and Comments Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and (ii), we are required to get concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clear Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ). None of Montana's proposed revisions pertains to air or water quality standards. Therefore we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO)and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP)Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On November 30, 2006, we requested comments on Montana's amendment (Administrative Record No. MT-24-3), but neither responded to our request. V. Director's Decision Based on the above findings, the Director approves Montana's proposed amendments as submitted on January 18 and November 6, 2006, respectively. The Director approves, as discussed in III, OSM's Findings, amendments to MCA 82-4-206, Procedure for contested case hearings; MCA 82-4-223, Permit fee and surety bond; MCA 82-4-225, Application for increase or reduction in permit area; MCA 82-4-226, Prospecting permit; MCA 82-4-227, Refusal of permit; MCA 82-4-231, Submission of and action on reclamation plan; MCA 82-4-232, Area mining required—bond—alternative plan; MCA 82-4-233, Planting of vegetation following grading of disturbed area; MCA 82-4-235, Determination of successful reclamation—final bond release; MCA 82-4-251, Noncompliance—suspension of permits; MCA 82-4-254, Violation—penalty—waiver; MCA 82-4-1001, Penalty factors; and MCA 82-4-1002, Collection of penalties, fees, late fees, and interest; ARM 17.4.301 Purpose; ARM 17.4.302 Definitions; 17.4.303 Base Penalty; ARM 17.4.304 Adjusted Base Penalty—Circumstances, Good Faith and Cooperation, Amounts Voluntarily Expended; ARM 17.4.305 Total Adjusted Penalty—Days of Violation: ARM 17.4.306 Total Penalty—History of Violation, Economic Benefit; ARM 17.4.307 Economic Benefit; ARM 17.4.308 Other Matters as Justice may Require; ARM 17.24.1206 Notices, Orders of Abatement and Cessation Orders: Issuance and Service; ARM 17.24.1211 Procedure for Assessment and Waiver of Civil Penalties; ARM 17.24.1212 Point System for Civil Penalties and Waivers; ARM 17.24.1218 Individual Civil Penalties: Amount; ARM 17.24.1219 Individual Civil Penalties: Procedure for Assessment; and ARM 17.24.1220 Individual Civil Penalties: Payment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 926, codifying decisions concerning the Montana program, are being amended to implement this decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by SMCRA. VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the Federal regulations. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections

(a)and

(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under Sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on any Tribe, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The State of Montana, under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of the Interior (the validity of which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), does have the authority to apply the provisions of the Montana regulatory program to mining of some coal minerals held in trust for the Crow Tribe. This proposed program amendment does not alter or address the terms of the MOU. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect The Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The rule approves the provision of the state submittal which applies only in the state of Montana. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal applies only in the state of Montana and will have limited economic affect. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the rule approves the state submittal and does not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: April 2, 2008. Billie E. Clark, Acting Director, Western Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below: PART 926—MONTANA 1. The authority citation for part 926 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 2. Section 926.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of Final Publication” to read as follows: § 926.15 Approval of Montana regulatory program amendments. Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description * * * * * * * 1/18/2006 May 14, 2008 Montana Code Annotated

(MCA)82-4-206; 82-4-223; 82-4-225; 82-4-226; 82-4-227; 82-4-231; 82-4-232; 82-4-233; 82-4-235; 82-4-251; 82-4-254; 82-4-1001; 82-4-1002. 11/6/2006 May 14, 2008 Administrative Record of Montana

(ARM)17.4.301; 17.4.302; 17.4.303; 17.4.304; 17.4.305; 17.4.306; 17.4.307; 17.4.308; 17.24.1206; 17.24.1211; 17.24.1212; 17.24.1218; 17.24.1219; 17.24.1220. [FR Doc. E8-10743 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0258] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River, Boston, MA, Larry Kessler 5K Run AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Craigie Bridge across the Charles River at mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position for one hour during a public event, the 2008 Larry Kessler 5K Run. This deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during a public event. DATES: This deviation is effective from 10:45 a.m. through 11:45 a.m., on June 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0258 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Craigie Bridge, across the Charles River at mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13.5 feet at normal pool elevation above the Charles River Dam. The existing drawbridge operation regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.591(e). The waterway is predominantly a recreational waterway supporting various size vessels. The facilities were notified regarding this closure and no objections were received. The owner of the bridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public safety during a public event, the 2008 Larry Kessler 5K Run. Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 10:45 a.m. through 11:45 a.m. on June 1, 2008, the Craigie Bridge at mile 1.0, across the Charles River at Boston, Massachusetts, may remain in the closed position. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: May 6, 2008. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-10709 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0319] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River, Boston, MA, Fourth of July Fireworks Celebration AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Craigie Bridge across the Charles River at mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position for two hours to facilitate a public event, the Boston Fourth of July Fireworks Celebration. This deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during a public event. DATES: This deviation is effective from 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008 through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0319 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Craigie Bridge, across the Charles River at mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13.5 feet at normal pool elevation above the Charles River Dam. The existing drawbridge operation regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.591(e). The waterway is predominantly a recreational waterway supporting various size vessels. The facilities were notified regarding this closure and no objections were received. The owner of the bridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public safety during a public event, the Boston Fourth of July Celebration. Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008 through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2008, the Craigie Bridge at mile 1.0, across the Charles River at Boston, Massachusetts, may remain in the closed position. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: May 6, 2008. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-10708 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0284, Formerly COTP San Juan 05-007] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a final rule for a security zone in the vicinity of the HOVENSA refinery facility on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, which makes a slight change to the current boundary established by an interim rule. The security zone is needed for national security reasons to protect the public and the HOVENSA facility from potential subversive acts. This rule excludes entry into the security zone by all vessels without permission of the U.S. Coast Guard Captain San Juan

(COTP)or a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. DATES: This rule is effective June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket Docket No. USCG-2008-0284 (formerly COTP San Juan 05-007), and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday thru Friday, except Federal holidays and at Sector San Juan Prevention Operations Department in San Juan, Puerto Rico, between 7:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule call Lieutenant A. M. Schmidt of Sector San Juan, Prevention Operations Department at

(787)289-2086. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On February 10, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands” in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 7065). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. On August 6, 2007, we published an interim rule

(IR)with request for comments entitled “Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands” in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 43535). We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose Before the IR we published in August, the Coast Guard published similar temporary security zones in the **Federal Register** at 67 FR 2332, January 17, 2002; 67 FR 57952, September 13, 2002; 68 FR 22296, April 28, 2003; 68 FR 41081, July 10, 2003; 69 FR 6150, February 10, 2004; 69 FR 29232, May 21, 2004; and 70 FR 2950, January 19, 2005. Given the highly volatile nature of the substances handled at the HOVENSA facility, the Coast Guard recognizes that it could be a potential terrorist target and there is continuing risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the facility. This activity could be directed against tank vessels and the waterfront facility. The COTP is reducing this risk by prohibiting all vessels from entering within approximately two miles of the HOVENSA facility unless they have been specifically authorized by the COTP or have submitted a notice of arrival in accordance with the notice of arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. Discussion of Comments and Changes Although no comments were received on the NPRM, in the preamble of the IR the COTP proposed an amendment to the regulatory text before issuing this final rule. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify the boundaries of the security zone and reduce the potential for misinterpretation. The proposed amendment was published in the aforementioned IR with request for comments in the **Federal Register** . No comments were received, and we have made no changes from the text of the interim rule other than what was specifically proposed in the IR: To change a portion of the description of the security zone in 33 CFR 165.766(a) from “and returning to the point of origin,” to “then tracing the shoreline along the water's edge to the point of origin.” 72 FR 43535, August 6, 2008. Discussion of Rule The security zone includes all waters surrounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: 17°41′31″ N, 064°45′09″ W; 17°39′36″ N, 064°44′12″ W; 17°40′00″ N, 064°43′36″ W; 17°41′48″ N, 064°44′25″ W, and then tracing the shoreline along the water's edge to the point of origin. The security zone includes the waters extending approximately 2 miles seaward of the HOVENSA facility including Limetree Bay Channel and portions of Limetree Bay. All coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983). All vessels without a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, are prohibited from entering the zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The burden imposed on the public by this rule is minimal and mariners may obtain permission to enter the zone from the COTP or by scheduling an arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR, part 160, subpart C. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Owners of small fishing or charter diving operations that operate near the HOVENSA facility may be affected by the existence of this security zone. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on the above-mentioned entities or a substantial number of small entities because this security zone covers an area that is not typically used by commercial fishermen or divers. Additionally, vessels can transit around the zone and may be allowed to enter the zone on a case-by-case basis with the permission of the COTP. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.770 to read as follows: § 165.770 Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

(a)*Regulated area.* The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in and around the HOVENSA Refinery on the south coast of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. This security zone includes all waters from surface to bottom, encompassed by an imaginary line connecting the following points: Point 1 in position 17°41′31″ N, 064°45′09″ W; Point 2 in position 17°39′36″ N, 064°44′12″ W; Point 3 in position 17°40′00″ N, 064°43′36″ W; Point 4 in position 17°41′48″ N, 064°44′25″ W; then tracing the shoreline along the water's edge to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983).

(b)*Regulations.*

(1)Under § 165.33, entry into or remaining within the regulated area in paragraph

(a)of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan or vessels have a scheduled arrival at HOVENSA, Limetree Bay, St. Croix, in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C.

(2)Persons and vessels desiring to transit the Regulated Area may contact the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan at telephone number 787-289-2041 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port. Dated: April 30, 2008. R.R. Rodriguez, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Juan. [FR Doc. E8-10697 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 8 [Docket ID ED-2007-OS-0138] Demands for Testimony or Records in Legal Proceedings AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Education. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations regarding the production of information pursuant to demands in judicial or administrative proceedings. The changes are intended to promote consistency in the Department's assertion of privileges and objections, and thereby prevent harm that may result from inappropriate disclosure of confidential information or inappropriate allocation of agency resources. These changes apply only where employees are subpoenaed in litigation to which the agency is not a party. Former Department employees are expressly required to seek the Secretary's approval prior to responding to subpoenas that seek non-public materials and information acquired during their employment at the Department. DATES: These regulations are effective June 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine M. Rose, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6C122, Washington, DC 20202-2110. Telephone:

(202)401-6700. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 26, 2007 the Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this part in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 72976). In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 72976 and 72977 the major changes proposed in that document to clarify the instructions and procedures to be followed by current and former Department employees with respect to the production and disclosure of material or information acquired as a result of performance of the person's official duties or because of the person's official status in response to judicially enforceable subpoenas or demands in judicial or administrative proceedings, except demands from the Congress. These included the following: • Amending § 8.1 to modify the definition of *employee* to include both current and former employees. • Amending § 8.3(a)(2) to provide that a demand for testimony or records expressly include a statement of why the release of information would not be contrary to an interest of the Department or the United States. There are no differences between the NPRM and these final regulations. Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, two parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the comments follows. *Comment:* One commenter expressed support for the proposed changes. *Discussion:* We appreciate this statement of support. *Change:* None. *Comment:* One commenter requested that we clarify the definition of *employee* in § 8.2 by changing the definition's structure to a listing so that former employees are a specific category under the definition. *Discussion:* In the definition of *employee* in § 8.2, we added the words “or former” between the words “current” and “employee” to clarify that the regulations concerning disclosure or production of agency materials or information in judicial or administrative proceedings in response to a judicially enforceable subpoena or demand apply to both current and former employees. We do not believe that a listing, within this definition, would add additional clarity. *Change:* None. Executive Order 12866 We have reviewed these final regulations in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the final regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to be necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of these final regulations, we have determined that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. We summarized the potential costs and benefits of these final regulations in the preamble to the NPRM at 72 FR 72977 and 72978. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements. 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

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0097. 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. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open 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: Tracy Keigwin, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-6605; e-mail address: *keigwin.tracy@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 those engaged in the following activities: • 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 to provide 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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0097 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before July 14, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0097, 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. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28257) (FRL-7708-5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F4895) by Bayer CropScience LP, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.474 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide tebuconazole, alpha-[2-(4-Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-alpha-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, in or on food commodities nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; almond, hulls at 5.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; barley, hay at 6.0 ppm; barley, straw at 1.4 ppm; wheat, forage at 3.0 ppm; wheat, hay at 6.0 ppm; wheat, straw at 1.4 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LP, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the proposed tolerances as follows: Almond, hulls at 6.0 ppm; barley, grain at 0.15 ppm, barley, hay at 7.0 ppm; barley, straw at 3.5 ppm; wheat grain at 0.05 ppm, wheat, hay at 7.0 ppm; wheat, straw at 1.5 ppm; and a separate pistachio tolerance is not needed. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerances for residues of tebuconazole. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Tebuconazole has low acute toxicity by the oral or dermal route of exposure, and moderate toxicity by the inhalation route. It is not a dermal sensitizer or a dermal irritant; however, it is slightly to mildly irritating to the eye. The main target organs are the liver, the adrenals, the hematopoetic system and the nervous system. Effects on these target organs were seen in both rodent and non-rodent species. In addition, ocular lesions are seen in dogs (including lenticular degeneration and increased cataract formation) following subchronic or chronic exposure. Oral administration of tebuconazole caused developmental toxicity in all species evaluated (rat, rabbit, and mouse), with the most prominent effects seen in the developing nervous system. In the available toxicity studies on tebuconazole, there was no toxicologically significant evidence of endocrine disruptor effects. Tebuconazole was classified as a Group C - possible human carcinogen, based on an increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas and combined adenomas/carcinomas in male and female mice. Submitted mutagenicity studies did not demonstrate any evidence of mutagenic potential for tebuconazole. Tebuconazole shares common metabolites with other triazole-derivative chemicals, including free triazole (1,2,4-triazole) and triazole-conjugated plant metabolites (such as triazole alanine). These common metabolites have been the subject of separate risk assessments. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tebuconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document entitled *Tebuconazole: Human Health Risk Assessment to support tolerances in/on Asparagus, Barley, Beans, Beets, Brassica leafy greens, Bulb Vegetables, Coffee (import), Commercial Ornamentals, Corn, Cotton, Cucurbits, Hops, Lychee, Mango, Okra, Pome fruit, Soybean, Stone fruit, Sunflower, Tree Nut Crop Group, Turf, Turnips and Wheat* , pages 79-107 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0097. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure

(POD)is identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose

(BMD)approach is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UFs)are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tebuconazole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. **Table 1. — Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Tebuconazole for Use in Dietary and Non-Occupational Human Health Risk Assessments** Exposure/Scenario Point of Departure Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors RfD, PAD, Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary (General Population, including Infants and Children) LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day UF = 300 UF A = 10x UF H =10x FQPA(UF L )= 3x Acute RfD = 0.029 mg/kg/day aPAD = 0.029 mg/kg/day Developmental Neurotoxicity Study - Rat. LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weights, absolute brain weights, brain measurements and motor activity in offspring. Chronic Dietary (All Populations) LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day UF = 300 UF A = 10x UF H =10x FQPA(UF L )= 3x Chronic RfD = 0.029mg/kg/day cPAD =0.029 mg/kg/day Developmental Neurotoxicity Study - Rat. LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weights, absolute brain weights, brain measurements and motor activity in offspring. Incidental Oral Short-/Intermediate-Term (1-30 days/1-6 months) LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day UF = 300 UF A = 10x UF H =10x FQPA(UF L )= 3x Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study - Rat. LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weights, absolute brain weights, brain measurements and motor activity in offspring. Dermal Short-/Intermediate-Term (1-30 days/1-6 months) LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day UF = 300 UF A = 10x UF H =10x FQPA (UF L )= 3x DAF = 23.1% Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study - Rat. LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weights, absolute brain weights, brain measurements and motor activity in offspring. Inhalation Short-/Intermediate-Term (1-30 days/1-6 months) LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day UF = 300 UF A = 10x UF H =10x FQPA (UF L )= 3x Inhalation and oral toxicity are assumed to be equivalent Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study - Rat. LOAEL = 8.8 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weights, absolute brain weights, brain measurements and motor activity in offspring. Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: Group C- possible human carcinogen based on statistically significant increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenoma, carcinoma, and combined adenoma/carcinomas in both sexes of NMRI mice. Considering that there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats, there was no evidence of genotoxicity for tebuconazole, and tumors were only seen at a high and excessively toxic dose in mice, EPA concluded that the chronic RfD would be protective of any potential carcinogenic effect. The chronic RfD value is 0.029 mg/kg/day which is approximately 9600 fold lower than the dose that would induce liver tumors (279 mg/kg/day). Point of Departure

(POD)= A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UF A = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UF H = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UF L = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. N/A = not applicable. DAF = dermal absorption factor. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to tebuconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances, including other pending petitions, as well as all existing tebuconazole tolerances in (40 CFR 180.474). EPA assessed dietary exposures from tebuconazole in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, anticipated residues for bananas, grapes, raisins, nectarines, peaches and peanut butter were derived using the latest USDA Pesticide Data Program

(PDP)monitoring data from 2002- 2006. Anticipated residues for all other registered and proposed food commodities were based on field trial data. For uses associated with PP 7F4895, 100% Crop treated was assumed. DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors were assumed for processed commodities associated with petition 7F4895. For several other uses EPA used percent crop treated

(PCT)data as specified in Unit III.C.1.iv. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the same assumptions as stated in Unit III. C.1.i. for acute exposure. iii. *Cancer* . As explained in Unit III.B., the chronic risk assessment is considered to be protective of any cancer effects; therefore, a separate quantitative cancer dietary risk assessment was not conducted. iv. *Anticipated residue and PCT information* . Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if: *Condition a* : The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue. *Condition b* : The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group. *Condition c* : Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information for tebuconazole on grapes, grape, raisin, nectarine, oats, peach, and peanuts. The PCT for each crop is as follows: Grapes: 25%; grape, raisin: 25%; nectarine 25%; oats 2.5%; peach: 20%; and peanuts 45%. In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%. The Agency used projected percent crop treated

(PPCT)information for tebuconazole on cherries (pre-harvest) and cherries (post-harvest). The PCT for each crop is as follows: Cherries, pre-harvest: acute assessment 42%, chronic assessment 37%; Cherries, post-harvest: acute assessment 100%, chronic assessment 66%. EPA estimates PPCT for a new pesticide use by assuming that its actual PCT during the initial five years of use on a specific use site will not exceed the recent PCT of the market leader (i.e., the one with the greatest PCT) on that site. An average market leader PCT, based on three recent surveys of pesticide usage, if available, is used for chronic risk assessment, while the maximum PCT from the same three recent surveys, if available, is used for acute risk assessment. The average and maximum market leader PCTs may each be based on one or two surveys if three are not available. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide types (i.e., the leading fungicide on the use site is selected for comparison with the new fungicide). The market leader PCTs used to determine the average and the maximum may be each for the same pesticide or for different pesticides since the same or different pesticides may dominate for each year. Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source for raw PCT data because it is publicly available. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses other sources including proprietary data. An estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leaders, is appropriate for use in chronic dietary risk assessment, and an estimated PPCT, based on the maximum PCT of the market leaders, is appropriate for use in acute dietary risk assessment. This method of estimating PPCTs for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new pesticide produces high-end estimates that are unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded during the initial five years of actual use. Predominant factors that bear on whether the PPCTs could be exceeded may include PCTs of similar chemistries, pests controlled by alternatives, pest prevalence in the market and other factors. All relevant information currently available for predominant factors have been considered for tebuconazole on cherries, resulting in adjustments to the initial estimates for three crops to account for lack of confidence in projections based on less than three observations, old data and/or data based on expert opinion. The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis, or conservative estimates based on information from agricultural experts. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which tebuconazole may be applied in a particular area. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for tebuconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of tebuconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tebuconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 78.5 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic, non-cancer are estimated to be 44.9 ppb for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic, cancer exposures are estimated to be 32.3 ppb for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 78.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment (which is protective of any possible cancer effects), the water concentration value of 44.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Tebuconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in residential exposures. Short-term dermal and inhalation exposures are possible for residential adult handlers mixing, loading, and applying tebuconazole products outdoors to ornamental plants. Short- and intermediate-term dermal postapplication exposures to adults during golfing and children playing on treated wood structures are also possible. Children may also be exposed via the incidental oral route when playing on treated wood structures. Long-term exposure is not expected. As a result, risk assessments have been completed for residential handler scenarios as well as residential postapplication scenarios. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Tebuconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative* . Triazole-derived pesticides can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazole alanine and triazole acetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including tebuconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazole alanine, and triazole acetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide as of September 1, 2005. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's September 1, 2005 risk assessment can be found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497). An addendum to the risk assessment, *Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Common Triazole Metabolites 1,2,4-triazole, Triazolylalanine, Triazolylacetic Acid and Triazolylypyruvic Acid; Updated to Include New Uses of Fenbuconazole, Ipconazole, Metconazole, Tebuconazole, and Uniconazole* can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0097. D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold

(10X)margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . The toxicity database for tebuconazole is complete, and includes prenatal developmental toxicity studies in three species (mouse, rat, and rabbit), a reproductive toxicity study in rats, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats, and a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats. The data from prenatal developmental toxicity studies in mice and a developmental neurotoxicity

(DNT)study in rats indicated an increased quantitative and qualitative susceptibility following *in utero* exposure to tebuconazole. The NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental toxicity in the mouse study were found at dose levels less than those that induces maternal toxicity or in the presence of slight maternal toxicity. In the DNT study, the LOAEL at which developmental toxicity was seen was below the NOAEL for maternal animals. No NOAEL was identified for the offspring in this study. There was no indication of increased quantitative susceptibility in the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, the NOAELs for developmental toxicity were comparable to or higher than the NOAELs for maternal toxicity. In all three species, however, there was indication of increased qualitative susceptibility. For most studies, minimal maternal toxicity was seen at the LOAEL (consisting of increases in hematological findings in mice, increased liver weights in rabbits and rats, and decreased body weight gain/food consumption in rats) and did not increase substantially in severity at higher doses; however, there was more concern for the developmental effects at each LOAEL which included increases in runts, increased fetal loss, and malformations in mice, increased skeletal variations in rats, and increased fetal loss and frank malformations in rabbits. Additionally, more severe developmental effects (including frank malformations) were seen at higher doses in mice, rats and rabbits. In the developmental neurotoxicity study, maternal toxicity was seen only at the high dose (decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption, prolonged gestation with mortality, and increased number of dead fetuses), while offspring toxicity (including decreases in body weight, brain weight, brain measurements and functional activities) was seen at all doses. Available data indicated greater sensitivity of the developing organism to exposure to tebuconazole, with the exception of the effects seen in the DNT study, the degree of concern is low and there are no residual uncertainties because the toxic endpoints in the pre- and post-natal developmental toxicity studies were well characterized with clear NOAELs established and the endpoint used for all risk assessments is protective of the effects seen in these studies. There is concern with regard to the DNT study because of the failure to achieve a NOAEL in that study. This concern is addressed by a retention of FQPA SF in the form of UF L of 3X. Reduction of the FQPA safety factor from 10 to 3X is based on a Benchmark Dose

(BMD)analysis of the datasets relevant to the adverse offspring effects (decreased body weight and brain weight) seen at the LOAEL in the DNT study. All of the BMDLs (the lower limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the BMD) modeled successfully on statistically significant effects are 1-2X lower than the LOAEL. The results indicate that an extrapolated NOAEL is not likely to be 10X lower than the LOAEL and that use of a FQPA safety factor of 3X would not underestimate risk. Using a 3X FQPA safety factor in the risk assessment (8.8 mg/kg/day ÷ 3x = 2.9 mg/kg/day) is further supported by other studies in the tebuconazole toxicity database (with the lowest NOAELs being 3 and 2.9 mg/kg/day, from a developmental toxicity study in mice and a chronic toxicity study in dogs, respectively [respective LOAELs 10 and 4.5 mg/kg/day]). 3. *Conclusion* . The Agency has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA SF to 3x for all potential exposure scenarios. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for tebuconazole is complete and includes an acceptable rat developmental neurotoxicity study. ii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats, mice, and rabbits, and in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties or concerns with regard to these studies after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of tebuconazole. iii. A concern was identified with regard to the failure to identify a NOAEL for the development effects found in the DNT study. A FQPA safety factor of 3X was found sufficient to protect infants and children based on the BMD analysis summarized in Unit III.D.2. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. Although the acute and chronic food exposure assessments are refined, EPA believes that the assessments are based on reliable data and will not underestimate exposure/risk. The drinking water estimates were derived from conservative screening models. The residential exposure assessment utilizes reasonable high-end variables set out in EPA's Occupational/Residential Exposure SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). The aggregate assessment is based upon reasonable worst-case residential assumptions, and is also not likely to underestimate exposure/risk to any subpopulation, including those comprised of infants and children. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to tebuconazole will occupy 53% of the aPAD for the population group (all infants less than 1 year old) receiving the greatest exposure. 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to tebuconazole from food and water will utilize 4% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 11% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population group (infants less than 1 year old). 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Tebuconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to tebuconazole. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the short-term aggregate MOE from dietary exposure (food + drinking water) and non-occupational/residential handler exposure for adults using a hose-end sprayer on ornamentals is 400. The short-term aggregate MOE from dietary exposure and exposure from golfing is 1,800. The short-term aggregate MOE to children from dietary exposure and exposure from wood surfaces treated at the above ground use rate is 530. The short-term aggregate MOE to children from dietary exposure and exposure to wood surfaces treated at the below ground use rate is 230. The combined and aggregate MOEs for wood treated for below ground uses exceed the Agency's LOC of 300, and indicate a potential risk of concern. However, the MOE of 230 is based on the assumption that 100% of a child's exposure is to below ground wood. In reality, the probability and frequency of children contacting wood intended for below ground use is reasonably assumed to be small and incidental compared to wood intended for above ground uses. Treated wood intended for below ground use is the 4 inch X 4 inch support beams for decks and playsets, while treated wood intended for above ground use is the decking and connecting wood. Therefore, the majority of contact is reasonably assumed to be to wood intended for above ground uses. The combined/aggregate MOEs for wood treated for above ground uses does not exceed the LOC, and exposure to above ground wood is expected to more closely represent actual exposures to children. Therefore, the Agency considers this assessment to be a conservative screening level assessment. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Tebuconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to tebuconazole. Since the POD, relevant exposure scenarios and exposure assumptions used for intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments are the same as those used for short-term aggregate risk assessments, the short-term aggregate risk assessments represent and are protective of both short- and intermediate-term exposure durations. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Tebuconazole is classified as a Group C Carcinogen-Possible Human Carcinogen based on statistically significant increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenoma, carcinoma, and combined adenoma/carcinomas in both sexes of NMRI mice. The Agency believes that the chronic RfD is protective of the cancer effects because the increased incidences of hepatocellular adenoma, carcinomas, and combined adenoma/carcinoma were seen only at the highest dose 1,500 ppm (279 mg/kg/day for males and 365.5 mg/kg/day for females) in the mouse carcinogenicity study. The dose was considered excessive. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats, and no evidence of genotoxicity for tebuconazole. The chronic RfD value is 0.029 mg/kg/day which is approximately 9,600 fold lower than the dose that would induce liver tumors (279 mg/kg/day). 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tebuconazole residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate GC/NPD and LC/MS/MS methods are available for both collecting and enforcing tolerances for tebuconazole and its metabolites in plant commodities, livestock matrices and processing studies. The methods have been adequately validated by an independent laboratory in conjunction with a previous petition. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits There are currently Codex, Canadian and Mexican maximum residue limits

(MRLs)for residues of tebuconazole in/on a variety of plant and livestock commodities. The tolerance definition for residues in plants is tebuconazole, *per se* , for Codex, Canada, and Mexico. For livestock commodities, the tolerance expression is for the combined residues of tebuconazole and HWG 2061 in the U.S. and Canada, and tebuconazole, *per se* , for Codex. Where possible, the proposed tolerances levels have been harmonized with the MRLs from Canada, Mexico, and Codex C. Response to Comments The Agency received a comment from a citizen of New Jersey. The commenter questioned the necessity of using taxpayer money through the agency of the Interregional Research Project No. 4 to develop pesticides, challenged the appropriateness of conducting some of the tebuconazole field trials outside of the United States, expressed concern over whether specific warnings were given to residents of New Jersey prior to conducting field trials in that State, and worried that students at Rutgers University may have been injured in the tebuconazole toxicological tests on animals that were performed at that facility. In response, EPA notes that although IR-4 has petitioned for other tebuconazole tolerances it was not a petitioner as to the tolerances being established today. The notice cited by the commenter contained petitions from both IR-4 and a pesticide manufacturer. EPA is only acting today on the petition from the pesticide manufacturer. IR-4 was established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help minor acreage, specialty crop producers obtain EPA tolerances and new registered uses of pesticides. As to the commenter's concern with field trials that were conducted in countries other than the United States, the field trials that are referenced do not involve the tolerances being acted on in this rulemaking. EPA notes, however, that frequently field trials are conducted in other countries as well as in the United States so that EPA can understand the range of pesticide residues that may be present on a food. Similarly, the field trial conducted in New Jersey was for a tolerance that is not involved in today's action. EPA's regulations governing use of pesticides under experimental use permits can be found at 40 CFR part 172. EPA also has regulations governing the toxicological data testing laboratories that are designed to insure data quality (40 CFR part 160). Federal jurisdiction concerning the safety of workers in testing laboratories would be under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor. EPA has responded to similar comments from this commenter on previous occasions. Refer to 70 FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), and 69 FR 63083 (October 29, 2004). D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA determined that the proposed tolerances should be revised as follows: Almond, hulls increased from 5.0 ppm to 6.0 ppm; barley, hay increased from 6.0 ppm to 7.0 ppm; barley, straw increased from 1.4 ppm to 3.5 ppm; wheat, hay increased from 6.0 to 7.0 ppm; and wheat, straw increased from 1.4 ppm to 1.5 ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels based on analysis of the residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Additionally, tolerances were not proposed, but are required for barley, grain at 0.15 ppm based on detectable residues using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet and wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm, because tolerances are needed even with residues are non-detectable. Also, a separate tolerance is not needed for pistachios, as they are considered under the nut, tree, group 14. V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide tebuconazole, alpha-[2-(4-Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-alpha-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, in or on food commodities nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; almond, hulls at 6.0 ppm; barley, grain at 0.15 ppm; barley, hay at 7.0 ppm; barley, straw at 3.5 ppm; wheat, forage at 3.0 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, hay at 7.0 ppm; and wheat, straw at 1.5 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 2, 2008. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.474 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) in the table by alphabetically adding the commodities Almond, hulls and Nut, tree, group 14 and by revising the following commodities to read as follows: § 180.474 Tebuconazole; tolerances for residues.

(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 6.0 * * * * * Barley, grain 0.15 Barley, hay 7.0 Barley, straw 3.5 * * * * * Nut, tree, group 14 0.05 * * * * * Wheat, forage 3.0 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, hay 7.0 Wheat, straw 1.5 [FR Doc. E8-10506 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0149; [FRL-8362-9] Cyproconazole; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for the free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole, α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol in or on aspirated grain fractions; field corn, forage, grain and stover; soybean, seed, forage, hay and oil; wheat, forage, hay, straw, grain, grain, milled by products; fat of cattle, goat, horse and sheep; and meat byproducts (except liver) of cattle, goat, horse and sheep. Additionally, this regulation establishes tolerances for cyproconazole and its metabolite, δ-(4-chlorophenyl)-β,δ-dihydroxy-γ-methyl-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-hexenoic acid in or on milk and for cyproconazole and its metabolite, 2-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-cyclopropyl-1-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl-butane-2,3-diol in or on liver of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). DATES: This regulation is effective May 14, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 14, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0149. 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. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-9354; e-mail address: *waller.mary@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 those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide 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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0149 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before July 14, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0149, 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

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67575) (FRL-8089-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7072) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.485 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide cyproconazole, in or on the following commodities: Soybean, seed at 0.05 parts per million (ppm); soybean, forage at 1.0 ppm; soybean, hay at 2.5 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.02 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.6 ppm; corn, field, stover at 1.5 ppm; wheat, straw at 1.0 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, forage at 1.0 ppm; wheat, hay at 1.5 ppm; aspirated grain fractions at 0.6 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.3 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts (except liver) at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, liver at 0.3 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts (except liver) at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, liver at 0.3 ppm; hog meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts (except liver) at 0.01 ppm; horse, liver at 0.3 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts (except liver) at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.3 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; and sheep, meat byproducts (except liver) at 0.01 ppm. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the registrant. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA concluded that the preferred chemical name for cyproconazole is “α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol.” 40 CFR 180.485 is being revised to use this terminology. Also, EPA determined that the time-limited tolerance established for soybean seed under 40 CFR 180.485(b) can be deleted given that a tolerance for soybean seed without time limitation is being established in section (a). Additionally, EPA has determined that, as a result of the tolerances sought in this petition, a tolerance is needed for the combined free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol and its metabolite [δ-(4-chlorophenyl)-β,δ-dihydroxy-γ-methyl-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-hexenoic acid in or on the commodity: Milk at 0.02 ppm and that tolerances are needed for the combined free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole [α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol and its metabolite [2-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-cyclopropyl-1-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl-butane-2,3-diol in or on the commodities: Liver of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep at 0.50 ppm and hog liver at 0.01 ppm. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for-tolerance. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cyproconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES , and is identified as “Cyproconazole: Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses” in that docket. B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern

(LOC)is derived from the NOAEL in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the LOAEL is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UFs)are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of exposure

(MOE)called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm* . A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyproconazole used for human risk assessment can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in document “Cyproconazole Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Corn, Soybean and Wheat” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0149. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to cyproconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing cyproconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.485. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyproconazole in food as follows: i. *Acute exposure* . Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues. ii. *Chronic exposure* . In conducting this chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996, or 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues. iii. *Cancer* . Cyproconazole has been classified by the Agency as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”. The decision was based on the weight of evidence that supports a non-genotoxic mitogenic mode of action for cyproconazole. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyproconazole in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of cyproconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm* . Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations

(EECs)of cyproconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.14 parts per billion

(ppb)for surface water and 0.05 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.11 ppb for surface water and 0.05 ppb for ground water. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyproconazole is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding for cyproconazole and any other substance. Other than as discussed below for the cyproconazole metabolite 1,2,4-triazole for the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cyproconazole does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/* . Cyproconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazole alanine and triazole acetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including cyproconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazole alanine, and triazole acetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional 10X FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* (docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497). An addendum to the risk assessment, “Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Common Triazole Metabolites 1,2,4-triazole, Triazolylalanine, Triazolylacetic Acid and Triazolyl Pyruvic Acid; Updated to Include New Uses of Fenbuconazole, Ipconazole, Metconazole, Tebuconazole, and Uniconazole” can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0149. D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional (“10X”) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the developmental study in rats or in the 2-generation reproduction study in rat. There is no concern for the increased susceptibility in the New Zealand white

(NZW)rabbit study since clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for maternal and developmental toxicities and malformations were observed at doses higher than the dose that produced marginal maternal toxicity. The concern is low for the increased susceptibility in the Chinchilla rabbit study since the incidences of hydrocephaly were low, there was no dose response, high concentration of the vehicle

(CMC)used, and the hydrocephaly was not seen at the same doses in the NZW strain of rabbit. Therefore, there is no residual uncertainty for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for cyproconazole is complete. ii. There is no indication that cyproconazole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats and rabbits, EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and selecting traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of cyproconazole. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% crop treated

(CT)and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground water and surface water modeling estimates were used. There are no residential uses of cyproconazole. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. *Acute risk* . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to cyproconazole will occupy 3% of the aPAD for the population group (females 13-49 years old). 2. *Chronic risk* . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to cyproconazole from food and water will utilize 13% of the cPAD for the population group (children 1 - 2 years old). There are no residential uses for cyproconazole that result in chronic residential exposure to cyproconazole. 3. *Short-term risk* . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Cyproconazole is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water. 4. *Intermediate-term risk* . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Cyproconazole is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's LOC. 5. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Cancer risk is expected to be negligible because EPA concluded that cyproconazole is not likely to be a human carcinogen. 6. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cyproconazole residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Method AM-0842-0790-0 for determining cyproconazole in plant commodities is an improved version of the current enforcement, which allows for use of either Nitrogen-Phosphorous Detection

(NPD)or Mass-Selective Detection (MSD). As this method is superior to the current enforcement method, it will be forwarded to FDA to either replace or supplement the existing tolerance enforcement method for plant commodities. The liguid chromotography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method (Syngenta Method RAM 499/01) for determining cyproconazole in livestock commodities has undergone a successful Independent Laboratory Validation

(ILV)trial and radiovalidation trial. Therefore, a copy of the method will be forwarded to the Analytical Chemistry Branch for evaluation as an enforcement method. The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . As metabolites in liver and in milk need to be included in the tolerance expression, enforcement methods will be required for these residues. Methods have been sent to the Analytical Chemistry Branch for evaluation. B. International Residue Limits There are no established or proposed Canadian or Codex maximum residue limits

(MRLs)for cyproconazole on food or feed crops. Mexico has established tolerances for cyproconazole at 0.05 ppm in barley and wheat grain, which is equivalent to the recommended U.S. tolerance for wheat grain. Therefore, there are generally no questions about the compatibility of the proposed tolerances with international tolerances. However, EPA notes that Japan has established numerous tolerances for cyproconazole, including MRLs on wheat (0.2 ppm), corn (0.1 ppm), and soybeans (0.05 ppm). C. Response to Comment Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA has responded to similar comments from the commenter on previous occasions. Refer to **Federal Register** cites: 70 FR 37686 (June 30, 2005); 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005); and 69 FR 63083 (October 29, 2004). V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole, α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol in or on the following commodities at the indicated tolerance levels in parts per million. Aspirated grain fractions . . . 2.5 Corn, field, forage, . . . 0.60 Corn, field, grain . . . 0.01 Corn, field, stover . . . 1.2 Fat of cattle, goat, horse and sheep. . . 0.01 Meat byproducts (except liver) of cattle, goat, horse and sheep . . .0.01 Soybean, seed . . . 0.05 Soybean, forage . . . 1.0 Soybean hay . . .3.0 Soybean, oil . . . 0.10 Wheat, forage . . . 0.80 Wheat, hay . . . 1.3 Wheat, straw . . . 0.90 Wheat, grain . . . 0.05 Wheat, grain, milled byproducts . . . 0.10 A tolerance is also established for the combined free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole [α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol] and its metabolite [δ-(4-chlorophenyl)-β,δ-dihydroxy-γ-methyl-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-hexenoic acid in or on the following commodity: Milk. . . 0.02 Also, tolerances are established for the combined free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol and its metabolite [2-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-cyclopropyl-1-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl-butane-2,3-diol in or on the following commodities: Liver of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep . . . 0.50 Hog liver . . . 0.01 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection. Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 6, 2008. Deborah McCall, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.485 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)and removing the text from paragraph

(b)and reserving to read as follows: § 180.485 Cyproconazole; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for the free and conjugated residues of the fungicide cyproconazole, α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Aspirated grain fractions 2.5 Cattle, fat 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts (except liver) 0.01 Coffee bean, green (Imported) 1 0.1 Corn, field, forage 0.60 Corn, field, grain 0.01 Corn, field, stover 1.2 Goat, fat 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts (except liver) 0.01 Horse, fat 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts (except liver) 0.01 Sheep, fat 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts (except liver) 0.01 Soybean, forage 1.0 Soybean, hay 3.0 Soybean, oil 0.10 Soybean, seed 0.05 Wheat, forage 0.80 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, grain, milled byproducts 0.10 Wheat, hay 1.3 Wheat, straw 0.90 1 There are no U.S. registrations as of February 15, 2008 for use on coffee bean.

(2)A tolerance is established for the combined free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol] and its metabolite [δ-(4-chlorophenyl)-β,δ-dihydroxy-γ-methyl-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-hexenoic acid in or on the following commodity: Commodity Parts per million Milk 0.02

(3)Tolerances are established for the combined free and conjugated residues of cyproconazole α-(4-chlorophenyl)-α-(1-cyclopropylethyl)-1 *H* -1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol and its metabolite 2-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-cyclopropyl-1-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl-butane-2,3-diol in or on the following commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, liver 0.50 Goat, liver 0.50 Hog, liver 0.01 Horse, liver 0.50 Sheep, liver 0.50

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E8-10829 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 268 [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936; FRL-8565-9] Land Disposal Restrictions: Site-Specific Treatment Variance for P- and U-Listed Hazardous Mixed Wastes Treated by Vacuum Thermal Desorption at the Energy Solutions' Facility in Clive, UT AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is promulgating a final rule granting a site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* LLC (Energy *Solutions* ) in Clive, Utah for the treatment of certain P- and U-listed hazardous waste containing radioactive contamination (“mixed waste”) using vacuum thermal desorption (VTD). This variance is an alternative treatment standard to treatment by combustion (CMBST) required for these wastes under EPA's rules in implementing the land disposal restriction

(LDR)provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Agency has determined that combustion of the solid treatment residue generated from the VTD unit is technically inappropriate due to the effective performance of the VTD unit. Thus, once the P- and U-listed mixed waste are treated using the VTD unit, the solid treatment residue can be land disposed without further treatment. This variance is conditioned upon Energy *Solutions* complying with a Waste Family Demonstration Testing

(WFDT)plan specifically addressing the treatment of these P- and U-listed wastes, which is to be implemented through a RCRA Part B permit modification for the VTD unit. DATES: This final rule will be effective June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0936. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, because for example, it may be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain 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 through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

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

(202)566-0270. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this rulemaking, contact Elaine Eby, Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(703)308-8449; fax

(703)308-8443; or *eby.elaine@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies only to Energy *Solutions* located in Clive, Utah. B. Table of Contents I. Summary of This Action II. Background III. Development of This Variance A. Energy *Solutions'* Petition B. Comments Received on Variance and the Agency's Response C. What Type and How Much Mixed Waste Are Subject to This Variance? D. Description of the VTD Process IV. EPA's Reasons for Granting This Variance V. Conditions of the Variance VI. Statutory and Executive Orders A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. Summary of This Action EPA is promulgating, as proposed, a site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* in Clive, Utah for the treatment of certain P- and U-listed mixed waste using an alternative treatment standard of VTD. 1 The current treatment standard for these wastes is combustion (CMBST). See 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.42. 1 Mixed waste is defined as radioactive waste that contains hazardous waste that either:

(1)Is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261; or

(2)causes the waste to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. Mixed waste is regulated under multiple authorities: RCRA (for the non-radioactive component), as implemented by EPA or authorized States; and the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA)(for the source, special nuclear, or by-product material component), as implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NRC agreement States (for commercially-generated mixed wastes), or the Department of Energy

(DOE)(for defense-related mixed waste generated by DOE activities). The variance is limited to the RCRA requirements for treatment of the hazardous waste portion of the mixed waste and does not affect the regulations under AEA authority. Energy *Solutions'* VTD unit currently operates pursuant to a Part B RCRA permit issued by the State of Utah which (among other things) authorizes the treatment of mixed waste containing both semi-volatile organic compounds

(SVOC)and volatile organic compounds (VOC). In 2006, Energy *Solutions* submitted a petition to EPA for a site-specific treatment variance from the LDR treatment standard of CMBST for various P- and U-listed mixed waste. The petitioner is seeking an alternative treatment standard of VTD. Energy *Solutions* provided data and information indicating that the VTD unit is capable of achieving at least 99.99% removal of analyzable SVOC 2 and VOC 3 constituents in the solid treatment residue generated from the VTD unit; analysis of the solid treatment residue shows that the LDR concentration-based treatment standards for these chemical constituents are consistently achieved. (Concentration-based treatment standards for specific chemical constituents are found in 40 CFR 268.48.) The petitioner also supplied performance data demonstrating that the VTD unit effectively removes chemical compounds (in the SVOC and VOC families) from the mixed waste having similar chemical and physical properties (i.e., boiling points and vapor pressures) to the regulated hazardous constituents in the P- and U-listings that are the subject of this site-specific treatment variance. These P- and U-listed wastes are not analyzable, hence the treatment standard of CMBST. Energy *Solutions* contends that additional treatment of the solid treatment residue from the VTD unit, using the treatment method of CMBST, would be technically inappropriate in that substantial treatment, as measured with the use of similar chemical compounds, has already been achieved using the VTD unit. 2 The SVOC waste family is defined as those chemical compounds that are detected using SW-846 Method 8270. 3 The VOC waste family is defined as those chemical compounds that are detected using SW-846 Method 8260. The Agency has reviewed the information and data presented by the petitioner and has determined that additional treatment of the solid treatment residue (i.e., complying with the existing CMBST treatment standard) is technically inappropriate given the documented performance of the VTD unit. The Agency is therefore taking final action to grant a site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* for an alternative LDR treatment standard of VTD for certain P- and U-listed mixed wastes that have undergone treatment using the VTD process. Once treated, the solid treatment residue can be land disposed: in this case, in Energy *Solutions'* on-site hazardous mixed waste landfill. As a condition of this treatment variance, Energy *Solutions* must comply with a WFDT plan that establishes conditions on the treatment process that will assure optimized treatment of the mixed waste, which is implemented through a RCRA Part B permit modification of the VTD unit. II. Background Under sections 3004(d) through

(g)of RCRA, the land disposal of hazardous wastes is normally prohibited unless such wastes are able to meet the treatment standards established by EPA. Section 3004(m) of RCRA requires EPA to set levels or methods of treatment that substantially diminish the hazardous waste's toxicity or substantially reduce the likelihood of hazardous constituents migrating from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment posed by the waste's land disposal are minimized. EPA interprets this language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in *Hazardous Waste Treatment Council* v. *EPA,* 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989). However, facilities can apply for a site-specific treatment variance in cases when a hazardous waste that is generated cannot be treated to the specified levels or when it is technically inappropriate for the waste to undergo such treatment (See 51 FR at 40605-40606 (November 7, 1986)). In such cases, the generator or treatment facility may apply for a variance from a treatment standard. The requirements for a treatment variance are found at 40 CFR 268.44. 4 4 In the case where the rules specify that a method of treatment must be used to treat a particular constituent or constituent(s), EPA also allows facilities to demonstrate that an alternative treatment method can achieve a measure of performance equivalent to that achievable by the EPA-specified treatment method (40 CFR 268.42(b)). This demonstration of equivalency, known as a Determination of Equivalent Treatment (DET), is typically both waste-specific and site-specific. EPA notes that the petition submitted by Energy *Solutions* appears to meet the criteria of 40 CFR 268.42(b) in that the VTD unit removes SVOC and VOC constituents with the same efficiency as hazardous waste combustion units. However, while the Agency could choose to evaluate the petition under the criteria developed for a DET, we are processing Energy *Solutions* petition under the criteria found in 40 CFR 268.44, as requested in Energy *Solutions's* petition to EPA. Today's decision is thus based on the rationale provided by Energy *Solutions'* treatment variance petition, i.e., that it is inappropriate to require the waste to be treated by the method specified as the treatment standard (i.e., CMBST), even though such treatment is technically possible (see 40 CFR 268.44(h)(2)). An applicant for a site-specific treatment variance may demonstrate that it is inappropriate to require a waste to be treated by the method specified as the treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically possible (40 CFR 268.44(h)(2)). This is the criterion pertinent to today's action in that Energy *Solutions* claims it is technically inappropriate to further treat the waste (i.e., solid treatment residue) that has already been treated to remove over 99.99% of the hazardous organic constituents contained in the waste. III. Development of This Variance A. EnergySolutions' Petition On April 28, 2006, Energy *Solutions* petitioned EPA for a site-specific treatment variance from the treatment standard of combustion (CMBST) for certain P- and U-listed mixed wastes. 5 Energy *Solutions* requested an alternative treatment standard of VTD 6 which would allow the land disposal of the solid treatment residue from the VTD unit without having to combust the treatment residue (as required by the CMBST treatment standard). The petitioner contends that additional treatment is inappropriate and would result in little if any additional reduction of the waste's toxicity. 5 Under 40 CFR 268.42, “CMBST” is defined as “[h]igh temperature organic destruction technologies, such as combustion in incinerators, boilers, or industrial furnaces operated in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, or 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart O, or 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H, and in other units operated in accordance with applicable technical operating requirements; and certain non-combustive technologies, such as the Catalytic Extraction Process.” Energy *Solutions'* VTD does not meet this definition. 6 For certain P- and U-listed wastes, EPA was not able to identify an analytical method by which treatment effectiveness could be determined in the regulated constituent. As a result, EPA promulgated CMBST as the treatment standard for these P- and U-listed wastes. CMBST was selected as the method of treatment because it is relatively indiscriminate in the destruction of organics due to the high temperatures, efficient mixing, and consistent residence times present in a well-designed and well-operated facility (see 55 FR 22611, June 1, 1990.) Energy *Solutions* provided data and information indicating that treatment using their VTD unit achieves substantial reductions in the concentrations of organic constituents (greater than 99.99%) in the solid treatment residue. Data included SVOC and VOC concentrations in the untreated waste, organic liquid condensate and solid treatment residue from demonstration tests conducted in August and September of 2004 and October of 2006. The petitioner also supplied performance data indicating that the VTD unit can remove 99.99% of organic constituents with chemical and physical properties (i.e., boiling points and vapor pressures) similar to the organic constituents in the P- and U-listed hazardous waste identified in their petition. 7 The petitioner also provided a description of the analytical and methodological protocol established by the State of Utah that describes how the VTD unit will be optimized to assure continued optimized removal of hazardous organic constituents from P- and U-listed mixed waste. 7 The specific P- and U-listed hazardous wastes associated with the untreated mixed waste had been conservatively determined by the facility, in consultation with the State of Utah, using the “derived-from rule” described in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i). A listing of the specific waste codes and chemical applicable to this rule can be found in the docket supporting this rule. On March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12043), the Agency issued a direct final rule and a parallel proposal (73 FR 12043) granting a site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* for the treatment of certain P- and U-listed mixed waste using the VTD unit. The treatment variance established an alternative treatment standard to treatment by combustion (CMBST) required for these wastes under EPA's rules implementing the LDR provisions of RCRA. The Agency made the determination that combustion of the solid treatment residue generated from the VTD unit was technically inappropriate due to the effective performance of the VTD unit. The treatment variance was conditioned upon Energy *Solutions* complying with a WFDT plan specifically addressing the treatment of these P- and U-listed wastes, which is to be implemented through a RCRA Part B permit modification for the VTD unit. We stated in the preamble to the direct final rule and parallel proposal that if we received adverse comment we would withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with a subsequent final rule. We received adverse comment on the direct final rule and therefore withdrew the direct final rule as of May 2, 2008. B. Comments Received on Variance and Agency's Response The Agency received four comments on the direct final rule. Two of the comments were identical, and urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)to deny Energy *Solutions'* request to import nuclear waste into the United States for disposal. We have concluded that these comments are not germane to the treatment variance and addressed an issue outside the scope of this rulemaking. The third comment supported granting the site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* . The final comment raised concerns about radioactive waste being treated in Utah and EPA's determination that the only regulated entity that would be affected by the rule would be Energy *Solutions* (see 73 FR at 12044). The commenter argued that Energy *Solutions* was not the only affected party and stated that the commenter, the State of Utah, and the United States would be affected by granting this treatment variance. The commenter, however, did not state why or how these entities would be affected. While the commenter's assertion that citizens, the States, and the federal government could be affected by this action may be correct in the broadest sense, we believe that it has no relation to the narrow question at issue here of whether the criteria for a treatment variance are satisfied. However, EPA believes firmly that no entities will be adversely affected by granting the treatment variance. First, Energy *Solutions* is a permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility and is subject to regulations and permit conditions which assure protection of human health and the environment. Second, the unchallenged record indicates that Energy *Solutions'* method of treatment fully satisfies the criterion for a treatment variance; that is, the method of treatment is one that minimizes threats to human health and the environment posed by land disposal of the wastes being treated. 8 8 It should be noted that even if the Agency were to deny Energy *Solutions'* petition, it would not prevent them from treating these wastes, although the solid treatment residue generated from the VTD unit would need to be further treated by CMBST. However, the data and information provided by Energy *Solutions* demonstrates that such further treatment is inappropriate. After review of the comments, the Agency has determined that the site specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* should be promulgated. C. What Type and How Much Mixed Waste Are Subject to This Variance? The wastes subject to this variance are mixed waste consisting of discarded commercial chemical products (P- and U-listed hazardous wastes) that are required to meet the technology performance standard of CMBST. 9 It also includes secondary waste (e.g., carbon filter media) generated by the Energy *Solutions'* VTD unit during the processing of the mixed waste. 9 A list of these chemicals, with associated boiling point data, is included as part of the docket supporting this rulemaking. The Department of Energy

(DOE)has identified approximately 50 cubic meters (m 3 ) of mixed waste (tank sludges and decontamination residues) in legacy storage in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Energy *Solutions* has also identified an additional 900 m 3 of hardened tank sludge at a commercial facility. Another potential source of hazardous waste to be treated by Energy *Solutions'* VTD unit is from a commercial chemical manufacturer. The waste can be characterized as tank sludge, much of which is in a hardened/compressed form, identified as U053 (crotonaldehyde) and U122 (formaldehyde) mixed waste. 10 10 Waste codes are assigned by the generator based upon process knowledge of raw feed materials and by-products within the chemical manufacturing process. D. Description of the VTD Process Energy *Solutions'* VTD unit holds a permit from the State of Utah as a RCRA Subpart X miscellaneous treatment unit. This permit allows the facility to treat mixed waste that contains SVOC and VOC waste families. The VTD unit has been in operation since March 2005, and has processed more than 304,000 kilograms

(kg)of mixed waste. Energy *Solutions'* VTD process design achieves a removal efficiency of 99.99% for SVOC and VOC waste families in the VTD solid treatment residue and meets all applicable LDR concentration-based treatment standards. Treatment residue from the unit is land disposed at Energy *Solutions'* on-site permitted mixed waste landfill after all other regulatory requirements are met. The VTD unit consists of four subsystems:

(1)A thermal separation system (dryer);

(2)a processed material discharge system;

(3)an off-gas treatment train; and

(4)a condensate tank system. 11 The treatment system operates by indirectly heating the raw waste fed into the unit, vaporizing the volatile and semi-volatile organic constituents and capturing these constituents as a condensate. The process has one input stream (the raw waste) and three output streams. The three output streams are:

(1)The solid treatment residue;

(2)the concentrated liquid condensate; and

(3)an off-gas, which is released to the atmosphere after passing through a series of filters and condensers. It should be noted that the liquid condensate and the off-gas are not subject to this rulemaking. The condensate is still subject to the CMBST treatment standard before it can be land disposed, and is sent off-site for incineration. The off-gas emission is regulated under a state-issued Part B Permit (its emission limits established using a risk assessment under 40 CFR 270.32(b)(2) (the so-called omnibus provision) and by an Air Approval Order issued by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality). 11 A process diagram of the Energy *Solutions'* VTD unit can be found in the docket supporting this rulemaking. Schematic drawings of the equipment are also provided. The thermal separation unit or dryer is a completely enclosed cylindrical tank with a processing capacity of approximately 29 cubic feet (ft 3 ) of feed material per process cycle. Several process cycles can be run per day. It is indirectly heated by a propane-fired furnace and is permitted to reach process temperatures up to 650 °C. The feed material is introduced into the dryer through a hopper. The system is maintained below atmospheric pressure by a vacuum pump. Nitrogen is introduced to displace oxygen to a level no greater than 7%, which is below the oxygen ignition point for the volatile and semi-volatile contaminants. The nitrogen purge gas carries the volatilized contaminants from the dryer to the off-gas treatment train. Treatment time and temperature in the dryer are established for each process cycle following the characterization of the raw waste. The processed material discharge system is fully enclosed and consists of a hopper with a cooling jacket, a conveyor system, and a collection container. The system includes water spray nozzles to aid in cooling the processed material and to provide dust control. The dry processed material is collected in the discharge system after the process cycle is completed. An auger conveys the discharged solid to a metal receiving box. Post-treatment analytical samples are collected from the box or directly from the processed material discharge system and tested for all analyzable regulated constituents originally identified in the waste feed. Once successful verification results are received, the process material is land disposed at Energy *Solutions'* on-site mixed waste landfill. Off-gas is generated within the dryer and is purged with a nitrogen carrier gas. The off-gas treatment train, also called the air pollution control

(APC)system, consists of condensers in series, a vacuum pump, and a filtration adsorption system with a pre-filter, HEPA filter, and carbon adsorption beds. The nitrogen provides a relatively inert atmosphere (oxygen content less than 7%), which prevents combustion of the volatile or semi-volatile constituents. The gas stream then passes through the filtration system to remove the remaining SVOC and VOC. Hot gas from the dryer is fed to the condensers and the condensers cool the gas stream and the majority of the volatile and semi-volatile compounds are brought to a liquid phase. The condensate tank system consists of traps, for temporary storage, from which the liquid condensate can either be transferred to permanent tanks or to portable totes. Traps located in the liquid discharge line from the condensers collect the condensate. It is then sent off-site for incineration at a RCRA permitted facility. The liquid condensate is more amenable to combustion than the untreated waste. 12 Incineration of the liquid condensate optimizes the destruction of toxic organics and yields a smaller volume of post-incineration waste. The liquid condensate contains approximately 5% of the total amount of radionucliides in the untreated waste and presents a significantly lower potential for radioactive materials to be emitted to the atmosphere through the combustion process. 12 Analytical data on the organic condensate and solid process residuals from the VTD demonstration tests completed in August and September of 2004 and October of 2006 can be found in the docket supporting this rulemaking. The off-gas emission is vented to the atmosphere through a stack that discharges approximately 35 feet above ground level. The gas emission leaves the APC system and its exit velocity is boosted with outside air through a blower in order to provide good dispersion of any remaining emissions. The APC system also is designed to allow the carrier gas to be recycled back to the dryer. System data are displayed as an electronic process flow diagram that is continuously monitored by trained technicians. Dryer temperature, dryer pressure, oxygen level and off-gas exit temperature are included in the parameters that are measured. 13 13 More detailed information on the Energy *Solutions* ' VTD technology process can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. The facility currently ships separately the solid treatment residue, containing the majority of the radionucliides (over 95%) and negligible concentration of organics to its on-site hazardous mixed waste landfill, and the liquid condensate, containing the majority of the organic constituents, to an incinerator to meet the CMBST requirement. The incineration takes place in a unit permitted for both the radioactive component and for RCRA hazardous wastes. 14 14 There are only two permitted mixed waste incinerators in the U.S. These facilities, due to the operational design of their units, have greater available capacity to accept liquid condensate waste and have a backlog of solid mixed wastes. IV. EPA's Reasons for Granting This Variance EPA has determined that given the similarities in chemical and physical properties and separation characteristics between the SVOC and VOC mixed waste and the P- and U-listed mixed wastes, that processing the P- and U-listed mixed waste through the VTD unit will achieve the same level of treatment performance achieved for the SVOC and VOC mixed waste (i.e., 99.99% removal in the solid treatment residue). Furthermore, EPA has concluded that subsequent combustion of the solid treatment residue from the VTD unit will not substantially reduce its toxicity so that subsequent treatment by the required treatment standard of CMBST is unnecessary and will achieve no additional benefit. This is because the solid treatment residue has negligible concentrations of the residual organics. Put another way, EPA has determined that additional treatment with CMBST, as required by the treatment standard of CMBST, is technically inappropriate due to the effectiveness of the VTD treatment for the removal of organic constituents. Therefore, EPA is promulgating this final action to grant a site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* for an alternative treatment standard of VTD for the land disposal of the solid treatment residue from the treatment of certain P- and U-listed mixed waste. Not only would further treatment of the residue be technically inappropriate, but it could have environmentally detrimental effects. Under their state-issued Part B permit, Energy *Solutions* is required to operate the VTD unit so that most (generally over 95%) of the radioactive component remains in the solid treatment residue. 15 Combustion of that treatment residue could release some of the radioactive component to the atmosphere through the combustion process. To limit this potential, the Agency believes that processing the P- and U-listed hazardous wastes through the VTD unit followed by disposal of the solid treatment residue in the on-site mixed waste landfill is environmentally preferable. 15 Data relating to radiochemical properties of the condensate generated through the process is included in the docket supporting this rulemaking. V. Conditions of the Variance Although EPA believes the applicant has made a technically sound presentation, and believes further that the VTD process should continue to result in highly effective treatment, EPA (and the applicant, and the State of Utah (the authorized permit-issuer)) believes that conditions can and should be imposed on the treatment process to assure its continued effective operation. Therefore, as a condition of its RCRA permit, Energy *Solutions* is required to submit to the State of Utah all the appropriate data and documentation, as part of a RCRA Part B permit modification, addressing the treatment of these P- and U-listed mixed wastes using VTD. Most significantly for purposes of the treatment variance, this submission is to include a new WFDT plan for P- and U-listed mixed wastes developed by the facility and approved by the State of Utah. This plan identifies the surrogate compounds that reflect treatment of the most difficult to treat CMBST-coded organic compounds (e.g., those with the highest vapor pressures and boiling points). 16 Surrogates will have to be selected to measure the level of treatment of the organic compounds that do not have analytical methods of detection or quantification. The RCRA permit, when modified, will require compliance with this WFDT plan for each batch of P- and U-listed mixed waste that requires CMBST. 17 EPA's site-specific treatment variance is conditioned on Energy *Solutions* ' adhering to the WFDT plan specifically addressing the treatment of these P- and U-listed wastes. 16 The objectives of the WFDT are:

(1)Determine if the P- and U-listed hazardous wastes that have CMBST as the LDR treatment standard are amenable to VTD processing and that the processed material meets the LDR standards for all analyzable P and U hazardous organic constituents;

(2)identify and justify representative surrogate compounds for the demonstration for those P and U hazardous organic constituents that do not have an analytical method of detection;

(3)determine the optimal operational and system parameters for the new waste family that will ensure at least 99.99 percent removal efficiency is attained for such hazardous wastes;

(4)account for toxic waste constituents through material balances;

(5)verify compliance of the VTD unit with all applicable conditions of the Energy *Solutions* ' state-issued Part B Permit; and

(6)determine concentration levels for the hazardous organic constituents in treatment residuals to determine that they are below analytical reporting levels, including surrogate compounds chosen for non-analyzable or difficult to treat organics. 17 If the conditions outlined in the WFDT plan are not met for each batch of P- and U-listed mixed waste, Energy *Solutions* must re-treat the batch of waste to meet the conditions established in the plan or send the waste off-site for CMBST. A WFDT plan is required in the state-issued Part B permit for every new waste type to be treated in the Energy *Solutions* ' VTD unit. Because many of the organic chemicals in P- and U-listed hazardous waste do not have analytical methods for detection or quantification, the WFDT plan, as required by the permit, will need to identify individual surrogate compounds that reflect treatment of the non-analyzable organic compounds in the waste family. The volatility of each target contaminant is the most important factor in thermal desorption separation. 18 Most of these chemicals (99 of 139) have boiling points less than 200 °C, 28 have boiling points between 200 °C and 300 °C, seven have boiling points between 300 °C and 400 °C, four have boiling points between 400 °C and 500 °C, and only one of the compounds has a boiling point greater than 500 °C; at 534 °C. The VTD system is permitted to operate at temperatures up to 650 °C. Based on the volatility of the organic constituents in the boiling point table and the operational temperature of the VTD unit, processing these P- and U-listed hazardous waste through the VTD system can be expected to remove the organic constituents (especially those organics requiring CMBST) from the solid feed material and concentrate them within the liquid condensate, including the surrogates chosen to represent the non-analyzable P- and U-listed organic constituents. 18 The CMBST Code Boiling Point Table is included in the docket supporting this rulemaking. It provides boiling point data for those non-analyzable hazardous organics that require CMBST as the LDR treatment standard. Surrogates are also used to measure the performance of the VTD unit. Rather than test each specific organic constituent associated with each waste family, the facility chooses surrogate compounds to represent the most difficult to treat organic chemicals in the entire waste family matrix (i.e., highest boiling points and pressure vapors). The WFDT plan must identify these surrogate compounds to be spiked into the waste as indicators for the entire waste family performance in the VTD unit. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action grants a site-specific treatment variance to Energy *Solutions* for the treatment of certain P- and U-listed mixed wastes using their VTD unit instead of the treatment standard required under RCRA's LDR program, CMBST. However, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR 268.42 and 268.44 under the provisions of the *Paperwork Reduction Act* , 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0085. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This site-specific treatment variance does not create any new requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard for specific waste codes and applies to only one facility. Therefore, we hereby certify that this rule will not add any new regulatory requirements to small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, sections 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Energy *Solutions* will obtain from the State of Utah a RCRA permit modification for their VTD unit to treat these P- and U-listed wastes. This action, however, does not impose any new duties on the state's hazardous waste program. EPA has determined, therefore, that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” Policies that have “federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action finalizes a site-specific treatment variance applicable to one facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action is a site-specific treatment variance that applies to only one facility, which is not a tribal facility or located on tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The site-specific treatment variance being finalized applies to certain P- and U-listed mixed waste that is treated in an existing, permitted RCRA facility, ensuring protection to human health and the environment. Therefore, the rule will not result in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule as defined by U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective June 13, 2008. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Mixed waste and variances. Dated: May 8, 2008. Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924. 2. In § 268.42, Table 1 in paragraph

(a)is amended by adding in alphabetical order an entry for “VTD” to read as follows: § 268.42 Treatment standards expressed as specified technologies.

(a)* * * Table 1.—Technology Codes and Description of Technology-Based Standards Technology code Description of technology-based standards * * * * * * * VTD Vacuum thermal desorption of low-level radioactive hazardous mixed waste in units in compliance with all applicable radioactive protection requirements under control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. * * * * * * * 3. In § 268.44, the table in paragraph

(o)is amended by adding in alphabetical order an entry for “Energy *Solutions* LLC, Clive, UT” and adding a new footnote 14 to read as follows: § 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.

(o)* * * Table.—Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under § 268.40 Facility name 1 and address Waste code See also Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Concentration (mg/L) Notes Nonwastewaters Concentration (mg/kg) Notes * * * * * * * Energy *Solutions* LLC, Clive, UT 14 P- and U-listed hazardous waste requiring CMBST Standards under 268.40 NA NA NA CMBST or VTD NA * * * * * * * 1 A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7. 14 This site-specific treatment variance applies only to solid treatment residue resulting from the vacuum thermal desorption

(VTD)of P- and U-listed hazardous waste containing radioactive contamination (“mixed waste”) at the Energy *Solutions* ' LLC facility in Clive, Utah that otherwise requires CMBST as the LDR treatment standard. Once the P- and U-listed mixed waste are treated using VTD, the solid treatment residue can be land disposed at Energy *Solutions* ' onsite RCRA permitted mixed waste landfill without further treatment. This treatment variance is conditioned on Energy *Solutions* complying with a Waste Family Demonstration Testing Plan specifically addressing the treatment of these P- and U-listed wastes, with this plan being implemented through a RCRA Part B permit modification for the VTD unit. Note: NA means Not Applicable. [FR Doc. E8-10786 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 0612242903-7445-03 and 0612242886-7464-03] RINs 0648-AU48 and 0648-AU68 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act Sideboards AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: NMFS is correcting a final rule that appeared in the **Federal Register** on September 4, 2007. The final rule implemented Amendment 85 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(FMP)as partially approved by NMFS. In addition, NMFS is correcting another final rule that appeared in the **Federal Register** on September 14, 2007. This final rule implemented Amendment 80 to the FMP. DATES: Effective January 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Two final rules recently promulgated by NMFS contained several unintended errors that need to be corrected. A final rule published on September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50788) implemented Amendment 85 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). Amendment 85 modified the current allocations of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)Pacific cod total allowable catch, and seasonal apportionments thereof, among various harvest sectors. The final rule also included the allocation of Pacific cod to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program. All of the provisions of the Amendment 85 final rule were effective January 1, 2008 (September 4 rule). The final rule to implement Amendment 80 to the FMP was published on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668) (September 14 rule). Amendment 80 primarily allocated several BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries among fishing sectors, facilitated the formation of harvesting cooperatives in the non-American Fisheries Act trawl catcher/processor sector, and established a limited access privilege program for that sector. Most provisions of the Amendment 80 final rule were effective October 15, 2007, but some provisions were effective January 1, 2008, or January 20, 2008. Some errors in the amendatory instructions became apparent when the Office of the **Federal Register**

(OFR)tried to make certain revisions to the 50 CFR Part 679 regulations in several paragraphs. This notice corrects those errors. Need for Corrections Each of the requested corrections is necessary to properly codify several provisions of final rules for Amendments 80 and 85 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Tables follow the description for each needed correction in the September 4 or September 14 rule to provide a visual presentation of the problems. In the September 4 rule, revisions to § 679.20(b)(1)(i) were necessary to remove Pacific cod from the non-specified reserve for BSAI groundfish fisheries and were to be effective January 1, 2008. This section, however, was re-written under the September 14 rule which incorporated the change made by Amendment 85 with new language for Amendment 80 that included Pacific cod under “Amendment 80 species”, and the revisions in the September 14 rule were effective October 15, 2007. NMFS intended the revision made by the September 14 rule to be the final change to § 679.20(b)(1)(i) made by the two rules. The September 4 rule is corrected by revising § 679.20(b)(1)(i) by inserting the phrase “which includes Pacific cod,” in between “Amendment 80 species,” and “is automatically” from the regulatory language implemented under the September 14 rule. Revisions to § 679.20(b)(1)(i) Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph § 679.20 Instruction (72 FR 50788; September 4, 2007 [Amendment 85] Effective: January 1, 2008 50818, in Remove/Add table (b)(1)(i) Remove text: ″except pollock and the″ Replace text with: ″except pollock, Pacific cod, and the″ 72 FR 52668; September 14, 2007 [Amendment 80] Effective: October 15, 2007 52720, third column (b)(1)(i) Revise paragraph In the September 4 rule, changes to § 679.31 were necessary to revise three cross-references. Prior to the effective date of the September 4 rule, the September 14 rule revised and moved one of these cross-references, so that the cross-reference revision in the September 4 rule cannot be made as instructed. This action removes this cross-reference revision from the September 4 rule. The September 14 rule redesignated the paragraph containing the other two cross-reference revisions in the September 4 rule, so this action corrects the paragraph to be revised. Changes to § 679.31 Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph § 679.31 Instruction (72 FR 50788; September 4, 2007 [Amendment 85] Effective: January 1, 2008 50818, in Remove/Add table

(c)Remove: (See § 679.20(b)(1)(iii)) Replace with: (See § 679.20(a)(7)(i) and (b)(1)(iii).) 72 FR 52668; September 14, 2007 [Amendment 80] Effective: October 15, 2007 52725, column 1

(c)Instruction 12 a. Remove paragraphs (a)(2), (c), and (f); b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (d), and

(e)as paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4), respectively; e. Add and reserve paragraph (b); Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph § 679.31 Instruction (72 FR 50788; September 4, 2007 [Amendment 85] Effective: January 1, 2008 50818, in Remove/Add table

(e)Remove: (See § 679.21(e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(ii)) Replace : (See § 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A) and (e)(4)(i)(A)) 72 FR 52668; September 14, 2007 [Amendment 80] Effective: October 15, 2007 52725, column 1

(e)Instruction 12 b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (d), and

(e)as paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4), respectively; In the September 4 rule, amendment instruction 7.A concerning § 679.64(a)(1) inadvertently resulted in two paragraphs (a)(1)(ii). NMFS expected the new paragraph (a)(1)(ii) in amendment instruction 7.E to overwrite the original paragraph, but that is not what occurred. Therefore, this action revises amendment instruction 7.A so that it removes the original paragraph (a)(1)(ii). The intention to remove the original paragraph was noted in the preamble to the proposed rule for Amendment 85 published on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5654). The establishment of a separate Pacific cod allocation to the American Fisheries Act trawl catcher/processor sector eliminated the need for this sideboard. § 679.64(a)(1) Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph § 679.64 Instruction (72 FR 50788; September 4, 2007 [Amendment 85] Effective: January 1, 2008 50818, column 1 (a)(1)(ii) Instruction 7 Not redesignated nor removed 50818, column 1 (a)(3) introductory text Instruction 7 Redesignate as (a)(1)(ii) Result: Two (a)(1)(ii) In the September 14 rule, in amendment instruction 14.c., § 679.64 (a)(1)(iii) was redesignated as (a)(i)(iv). The instruction should have included the revision of this paragraph, and this notice corrects that error. The paragraph was correctly proposed for revision in the proposed rule to implement Amendment 80, and the revision was set out in both the proposed and final rules. Therefore, this notice corrects the instruction error. Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph § 679.64 Instruction 72 FR 52668; September 14, 2007 [Amendment 80] Effective: October 15, 2007 52725, column 3 (a)(1)(iii) Instruction 14 c. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as (a)(1)(iv); In the September 14 rule, amendment instruction 14.f. instructed that § 679.64 (a)(3) was to be revised. However, paragraph (a)(3) could not be revised because no corresponding text for that paragraph was set out. NMFS never intended to revise paragraph (a)(3), and this paragraph was not proposed for revision in the proposed rule to implement Amendment 80. Therefore, this notice removes that text from the instruction. Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph § 679.64 Instruction 72 FR 52668; September 14, 2007 [Amendment 80] Effective: October 15, 2007 52725 (a)(3) Revise paragraph Result: no corresponding text for that paragraph is set out on the following page after (a)(2), only five stars. In the September 14 rule, on page 52668 in the DATES section, § 679.64(a)(3) and § 679.64(a)(1)(vi) were listed to be effective January 1, 2008. However, paragraph (a)(3) was not revised in the September 14 rule, as noted above, and paragraph (a)(1)(vi) does not exist. These effective date citations were made inadvertently and, therefore, this notice removes that text from the DATES section. Federal Register Document Page number Paragraph Instruction 72 FR 52668; September 14, 2007 [Amendment 80] Effective: October 15, 2007 52668 DATES Says 679.64 (a)(1)(vi), to be effective on 1-1-08, but no such paragraph exists Classification Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator of Fisheries finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment otherwise required by the section. NOAA finds that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary because the changes to the amendatory instructions do not substantively change the requirements of these final rules. It was not the intention under Amendment 85 or Amendment 80 to retain obsolete language, incorrect cross-references, or incorrect instructions. Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 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. The rule does not make any substantive change in the rights and obligations of fishermen managed under Amendment 80 or Amendment 85. Because this action makes only non-substantive changes to Part 679 described above, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delay in effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Correction Accordingly, the final rule, FR Doc. E7-17140, published on September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50788) is corrected as follows: 1. On page 50818, in the Remove/Add table, first row, revise column two to read “Amendment 80 species, is automatically”; revise column three to read “Amendment 80 species, which includes Pacific cod, is automatically”; and revise column four to read “1”. This refers to paragraph 679.20(b)(1)(i). 2. On page 50818, in the Remove/Add table, revise the tenth row under the “Paragraph(s)” column, which refers to § 679.31(e), to read “§ 679.31(a)(4)”. 3. On page 50818, in the Remove/Add table, columns one, two, and three, remove the ninth row, which refers to paragraph 679.31(c). 4. On page 50818, first column, first paragraph, second and third lines, revise Instruction 7.A. to read “Remove paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraph (a)(1)(ii).” Accordingly, the final rule, FR Doc. 07-4358, published on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668) is corrected as follows: 5. On page 52668, column 1, DATES paragraph, remove “§ 679.64(a)(1)(vi)” and § 679.64(a)(3).” 6. On page 52725, column 3, revise Instruction 14.c. to read “Redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as (a)(1)(iv) and revise it.” 7. On page 52725, column 3, revise Instruction 14.f. to read “Revise paragraph (a)(2).” Dated: May 7, 2008. James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10645 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 94 Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 34 [Docket No. PRM-34-06; NRC-2005-0019] Organization of Agreement States, Inc., Consideration of Petition in Rulemaking Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Resolution and closure of petition docket. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)will consider the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking (PRM-34-06) submitted by Barbara Hamrick, Chair, Organization of Agreement States, Inc.

(OAS)in the NRC's rulemaking process. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that an individual receive at least 40 hours of radiation safety training before using sources of radiation for industrial radiography, to revise the requirements for at least two qualified individuals to be present at a temporary job site, and to clarify how many individuals are required to meet surveillance requirements. The petitioner also requested that NUREG-1556, Volume 2, be revised to reflect the proposed amendments. The NRC has determined that this petition will be considered through NRC's rulemaking process. DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM-34-06 is closed on May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition will be accessible at the Federal rulemaking portal, *http://www.regulations.gov* , by searching on rulemaking Docket ID: NRC-2008-0173. The NRC also tracks all rulemaking actions in the “NRC Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Report (NUREG-0936).” You can access publicly available documents related to this petition for rulemaking using the following methods: *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and search for documents filed under Docket ID: NRC-2005-0019. *NRC's Public Document Room (PDR):* The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public File Area O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. *NRC's Agency Wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS):* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-899-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Young, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-5795, e-mail: *Thomas.Young@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On December 28, 2005 (70 FR 76724), the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking filed by the OAS. The petitioner requested that 10 CFR 34.41, “Conducting industrial radiographic operations,” paragraph

(a)be amended to remove the requirement that the additional qualified individual shall observe the operations and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry. The petitioner requested that 10 CFR 34.43, “Training,” be amended to limit a licensee from permitting an individual to act as a radiographer or a radiographer's assistant until the individual has successfully completed an accepted course of at least 40 hours on the applicable subjects listed in paragraph (g), *e.g.* , concerning fundamentals of radiation safety, radiation detection instrumentation, and equipment. The petitioner requested that 10 CFR 34.51, “Surveillance,” be amended to clarify that only the radiographer is required to ensure direct visual surveillance of the operation to protect against unauthorized entrance into a high radiation area. The petitioner also requested that NUREG-1556, Volume 2, be revised to reflect the performance-based changes in the proposed amendments. The petitioner considers 10 CFR 34.41(a) to be an important safety requirement, but believes the surveillance component of that rule is more appropriately implemented and enforced as a performance-based requirement, rather than the NRC's prescriptive interpretation of the rule. The petitioner stated that at least six Agreement States are currently implementing this component differently than the NRC. The petitioner believes that a shift in the NRC's focus to a performance-based implementation of the final rule, based on its acceptance of the expertise in this arena derived from the States, would foster a regulatory partnership that benefits the licensed community by minimizing confusion for those licensees who operate in multiple jurisdictions. The petitioner stated that when 10 CFR 34.41(a) was developed, there was strong and sustained support from the States, licensees, and industry for the concept of having at least two qualified individuals present whenever radiography is performed at temporary job sites. The petitioner stated that Texas has had a requirement for a two-person crew since 1986, which was adopted at that time along with specific training requirements. The petitioner stated that by the effective date of the NRC final rule, seven States were already nationally recognized as having comparable industrial radiography program components and were issuing industrial radiographer certifications. The Texas program did not require two people to observe operations. The petitioner provided information to support their conclusion that there was no evidence of negative performance regarding the Texas program that warranted a different surveillance strategy. The petitioner stated that NRC's regulations require, “The additional qualified individual shall observe the operations and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry.” The petitioner believes that the expectation of the two-person rule, as expressed in the May 28, 1997, final rule, is that at a temporary job site the second qualified individual would be able to secure the restricted area and the source, and provide aid as needed. The petitioner stated that in the final rule, the Commission stressed that having a second qualified individual is particularly important when radiography is performed where a radiographer alone may not be able to control access to the restricted area. The petitioner also stated that, additionally, the second person should be trained to provide a safe working environment for radiography personnel, workers, and other members of the public at a temporary job site. The petitioner stated that safety was the basis for having two individuals at a job site. The petitioner believes that requiring a trainee/assistant to have more extensive training (e.g., completion of a 40-hour radiation safety training course) before handling radiographic equipment increases the probability that he or she would be able to observe the area and provide assistance if needed. The petitioner stated that while there were many comments on the desirability of the trainer/trainee or radiographer/assistant crew combination as opposed to the two radiographer crew, and an acceptance of the requirement that the trainee/assistant be under the direct supervision of the trainer/radiographer, the issue regarding whether both individuals of a two radiographer crew had to be physically present during actual exposures was never addressed by the NRC. The petitioner stated that in several States, if a two-person crew consists of two radiographers, one may be in the darkroom while the other is exposing film, provided the surveillance requirement is met. The petitioner stated that the apparent inconsistency in the surveillance component of §§ 34.41(a) and 34.51, along with the conflicting guidance found in NUREG-1556, Volume 2, raise substantial doubts as to whether the NRC's current interpretation of the rule is, in terms of safety, the most desired approach. The petitioner stated that the recommended language that amends § 34.51 puts the access control responsibility with a radiographer, but allows the radiographer the latitude to use additional personnel to control radiographic operations if needed. The petitioner believes that additional personnel may include persons not qualified as a radiographer or a radiographer's assistant, but capable of providing needed support to control access to the restricted area while remaining at the perimeter of the restricted area. The petitioner believes that, as the rule recommends, the rule does not require two persons to constantly monitor operations, nor does it limit it to two persons. The petitioner believes that the rule allows the radiographer in charge to make that decision. The petitioner stated that the final rulemaking has been interpreted in guidance document NUREG-1556, Volume 2, to mean, “Both individuals must maintain constant surveillance of the operations and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry to the restricted area.” The petitioner stated that if the temporary job site presents a situation in which the surveillance requirement of § 34.51 is met, the NRC interpretation means that even if a two-person crew consists of two certified radiographers, both must be with the camera. If one of the members is in the darkroom, then radiography cannot be performed. The petitioner believes that the impact of this interpretation on the industry is that companies must employ a third person to develop film in the darkroom while two individuals are exposing film and preventing unauthorized entry, regardless of what the situation warrants. The petitioner also believes that the licensee must use additional time at a job site to expose film and then develop it. Either situation results in added, unnecessary cost to the industry. The petitioner contends that in a temporary job site situation in which the crew consists of two qualified radiographers and the surveillance requirement can be met, the second individual is available to provide immediate assistance, whether in the darkroom or performing other job-related duties nearby. The petitioner stated there is no justification for imposing additional costs and negative impact on an industry that has not demonstrated performance that would warrant this cost and impact. Public Comments on the Petition The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit comments. The comment period closed on March 13, 2006. NRC received two comment letters; one from the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., and one from the Texas Department of State Health Services. These organizations approved the petitioner's request. The main reasons cited by these commenters were that the proposed changes would help to:

(1)Facilitate a better understanding of industrial radiography operational requirements,

(2)promote a safer work environment, and

(3)encourage the collaborative partnership with NRC and OAS for the development and implementation of uniform and consistent regulations that support public health and safety. The industrial radiography community did not comment on the petitioner's request. In the past, the industry strongly supported the two person requirement at 10 CFR 34.41(a) and indicated that the additional cost of safety would be borne by the customers, not necessarily by the licensees. The industry had not supported a requirement to specify the number of hours for radiation safety training that is required in 10 CFR 34.43. On August 15, 2007 (72 FR 35203), the NRC held an open meeting via a teleconference with the petitioner and members of the public. The meeting transcript is available in ADAMS (Accession No. ML080370403). The purpose of the meeting was to ensure full understanding of two specific issues, training and economic impact, which the NRC identified during evaluation of the petitioner's request. The meeting was attended by two members of the OAS Executive Board who represented the petitioner, three individuals from three Agreement State programs, and two members of the public who were consultants for industrial radiography licensees. Regarding the training issue, the petitioner indicated that a trainee in Texas is required to complete an approved, 40-hour course in basic radiation safety before the trainee would obtain on-the-job experience under the supervision of a certified trainer. Eventually a trainee may take an approved certification exam and become a certified radiographer if a passing score is obtained on the exam. The petitioner explained how the two person rule is implemented in the State of Texas to allow one radiographer to observe the area in certain situations. Regarding the issue of economic impact, the petitioner indicated there was no apparent economic impact from the two person rule in Texas since 1986 when the requirement was first implemented. However, since 10 CFR 34.41(a) was effective in 1997, assigning radiography personnel to jobs becomes more complicated for Texas licensees that operate in a non-Agreement State. For example, a licensee from Texas who has a job site in a non-Agreement State would most likely have to send additional radiography personnel or allow additional time to complete a job that could have been done by a team comprised of two certified radiographers if the job site had been in Texas. Of the State personnel in attendance, one of the three individuals assisted with the petitioner's presentation, the second individual was neutral and did not indicate approval of, or opposition to the petitioner's request, and the third individual indicated that the inspection program in their State should be more aggressive. The two consultants opposed the petition. The main reasons cited by the consultants were:

(1)An approved, 40-hour requirement should not be prescribed because various ways and means exist for a licensee to provide instructions to workers as required in 10 CFR 19.12;

(2)a 40-hour basic radiation safety training requirement for a radiographer's assistant would be a major economic impact on a licensee due to frequent and unexpected personnel turnover;

(3)the duration of basic radiation safety training need not be specified in the regulations because an individual's understanding of essential information can be readily determined during a performance-based safety inspection completed by a radiation safety officer or a regulatory agency;

(4)resources would be better spent to increase the number of performance-based safety inspections at temporary job sites and enforce the current requirements than to expend resources to revise the regulations as per the petitioner's request;

(5)the two person rule is necessarily prescriptive to require an additional qualified individual to observe operations during radiography because an individual radiographer working alone with an unshielded gamma radiation source of high energy and activity is unsafe even at a remote field site where the entire area is unobstructed;

(6)both the radiographer and the additional qualified individual must work together and be checking on each other to ensure safety during operations; and

(7)under the approach proposed by the petitioner even a certified radiographer will have problems at times because a second qualified individual is not checking against the radiographer in certain cases. Reasons for Closure The NRC is closing the petition because we have determined that issues and concerns raised in the petition merit further NRC consideration and inclusion in a future rulemaking. The NRC's rationale for closing the petition is based on the following points: • The Texas program has been in place for a number of years and appears to successfully regulate industrial radiography licensees. To date, there is no significant evidence that reveals the Texas regulations have failed to protect public health and safety. There is no apparent difference in the performance outcomes of the Texas approach or the NRC approach. • The NRC used the previous experience from Texas and other Agreement State programs and NRC and Agreement State licensees when it developed 10 CFR part 34. • The NRC analyzed the Agreement States' requirements equivalent to 10 CFR 34.41(a) and compared those regulations not compatible with a Compatibility Category B to the compatibility requirements for a Compatibility Category C and a Compatibility Category H & S. The NRC determined that a compatibility change to a Compatibility Category C would not resolve all the issues for the Agreement States that are non-compatible with Compatibility Category B. • Enforcement outcomes differ between the NRC and Texas. The NRC's Enforcement Policy indicates a violation of 10 CFR 34.41(a) as an example of a Severity Level III violation that would result in escalated enforcement action. Under the Texas approach, no violation would be cited if one radiographer is observing operations in the area and the additional radiography personnel is in the dark room and aware of operations in the area. • The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)has a requirement for Federal agencies to review regulations every 10 years that affect small businesses. As an independent regulatory agency, the NRC has voluntarily complied with some RFA provisions and the NRC believes it is reasonable to review 10 CFR part 34 because it affects small businesses. • The NRC could use an enhanced public participatory process to evaluate whether to revise 10 CFR part 34 into a more performance based regulation. • During the time and development of the rulemaking process, NRC could continue the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program reviews and if an Agreement State's regulations are found to be noncompliant for 10 CFR 34.41(a) then the finding(s) would be held in abeyance as indicated previously in the All Agreement States Letter dated March 25, 2005 (STP-05-025). The NRC will consider the issues raised by the petition in the rulemaking process; however, the petitioner's concerns may not be addressed exactly as the petitioner has requested. During the rulemaking process the NRC will solicit comments from the public and will consider all comments before finalizing the rule. Future actions for PRM-34-06 will be reported in NUREG-0936, “NRC Regulatory Agenda” which is publicly available on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0936/* . The regulatory agenda is a semiannual compilation of all rules on which the NRC has recently completed action, or has proposed action, or is considering action, and of all petitions for rulemaking that the NRC is working to resolve. Further information on this petition may also be tracked through *http://www.Regulations.gov* under Docket I.D. NRC-2008-0173. Existing NRC regulations provide the basis for reasonable assurance that the common defense and security and public health and safety are adequately protected. For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC closes this docket PRM-34-06. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E8-10819 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 35 [PRM-35-20; NRC-2006-0020] E. Russell Ritenour, PhD; Consideration of Petition Rulemaking Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Resolution of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)will consider the issues raised in the petition for rulemaking submitted by E. Russell Ritenour, PhD, on behalf of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), in the rulemaking process. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations that address training requirements for experienced Radiation Safety Officers

(RSOs)and Authorized Medical Physicists (AMPs). In its review and resolution of the petition, the NRC concluded that revisions made to the regulations in 2005 may have inadvertently affected a group of board certified professionals. DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM-35-20 is closed on May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition will be accessible at the federal rulemaking portal, *http://www.regulations.gov* , by searching on rulemaking docket ID: [NRC-2008-0175]. The NRC also tracks all rulemaking actions in the “NRC Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Report (NUREG-0936).” You can access publicly available documents related to this petition for rulemaking using the following methods: *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and search for documents filed under the following rulemaking docket ID: [NRC-2006-0020]. *NRC's Public Document Room:* The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC' Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area, Room O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. *NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS):* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward M. Lohr, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-0253, e-mail: *Edward.Lohr@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On November 1, 2006 (71 FR 64168), the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking filed by E. Russell Ritenour, PhD on behalf of the AAPM. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR 35.57 to recognize

(1)medical physicists certified by the American Board of Radiology

(ABR)or the American Board of Medical Physics

(ABMP)on or before October 25, 2005, the date when former 10 CFR Part 35, Subpart J, expired, as grandfathered for the modalities that they practiced as of October 24, 2005, independent of whether or not they have been named on an NRC or Agreement State license as of October 24, 2005; and

(2)all diplomates that were certified by named boards in former 10 CFR Part 35, Subpart J, for RSOs who have relevant timely work experience even if they have not been formally named as an RSO or as either Assistant or Associate RSO. These diplomates would be grandfathered as RSOs by virtue of certification providing the appropriate preceptor statement is submitted. Specific Issues Raised by the Petitioner The issues asserted by the petitioner can be summarized as follows: 1. Medical physicists have demonstrated their competence to practice through certification by the ABR or the ABMP. 2. There is no evidence to support a rulemaking assertion that Training and Experience (T&E) requirements for listing as an AMP or RSO acceptable before October 25, 2005, are no longer acceptable as of October 25, 2005. 3. As a result of the present rule, individuals certified prior to the effective date will have to use the alternate pathway for recognition. AAPM believes that requiring individuals to pursue the alternate pathway for recognition on an NRC or Agreement State license places an undue burden on the medical community without an increase in public or worker health safety and potentially results in an insufficient number of AMPs and RSOs. 4. The number of AMPs and RSOs available to provide preceptor statements are limited and may result in a shortage of AMPs and RSOs. 5. The regulation, as currently written, marginalizes specialty boards. Public Comments on the Petition The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit comments. The comment period closed on January 16, 2007. The NRC received 168 comments from professional organizations and individuals. The majority of the commenters supported approving the petition. The main reasons cited can be summarized as follows: 1. Board certifications establish credentials to qualify individuals to serve as RSOs and AMPs, regardless of when the certification was issued. 2. There is no evidence that individuals certified before October, 25, 2005, are less qualified, competent or capable to perform as RSOs or AMPs. Therefore, a board certified individual should not have to use the alternate pathway to qualify as RSO or AMP. 3. The current regulations pose a burden without a corresponding increase in health and safety. Petition Resolution In resolving the petition, the NRC determined that the current NRC regulations may inadvertently have an effect on a group of board certified professionals insofar as they may now have to use the alternate pathway option to demonstrate that they meet the T&E requirements in Part 35 rather than the certification pathway for recognition on an NRC license as a RSO or AMP. As a result of revisions of 10 CFR Part 35 T&E requirements in 2005, the requirements that medical specialty boards had to meet in order for their certification processes to be recognized by the NRC were changed. These new requirements applied to the certification processes of new boards and those listed in former 10 CFR Part 35, Subpart J, and affected the status of certifications that had been issued by boards prior to the effective date of the new regulations. Specifically, the previously issued certifications now have to align with the new requirements in order for diplomates holding these certifications to apply for authorized status via board certification pathways. A provision in the revised regulations “grandfathered” certain individuals. Under 10 CFR 35.57(a), only those individuals identified as an RSO, a teletherapy or medical physicist, or a nuclear pharmacist on a Commission or Agreement State license or permit before October 24, 2002, or an individual identified as a RSO, AMP, or an authorized nuclear pharmacist between October 24, 2002, and April 29, 2005, were “grandfathered;” *i.e.* , need not comply with the training requirements of 10 CFR 35.50, 35.51 or 35.55. The rationale for grandfathering these individuals was that their credentials had been reviewed and accepted during the licensing process and that they had been functioning in their positions and had established an acceptable record of performance. NRC's Advisory Committee on the Medical Use of Isotopes and other stakeholders agreed to this approach. The petitioner identified a group of board certified professionals that may have been inadvertently affected by the 2005 revisions to the T&E requirements in 10 CFR Part 35. Specifically, certain individuals certified by boards that had been listed in NRC's former Subpart J, who had not been named on an NRC or Agreement State license or permit prior to October 25, 2005, and therefore were not grandfathered under 10 CFR 35.57, cannot use their board issued certifications to qualify them as AMPs or RSOs. Many board certified individuals were working as medical physicists and in radiation safety positions when the T&E requirements were revised but were not named as the authorized individuals on the NRC or Agreement State licenses and, therefore, were not grandfathered under 10 CFR 35.57. These individuals, under the current regulations, may now have to use the alternate pathway option to demonstrate that they meet the T&E requirements in Part 35. Under the current 10 CFR Part 35 requirements, two individuals, one listed on an NRC or Agreement State license or permit prior to October 25, 2005, and one who was not, with identical certifications, are treated differently. The individual listed on the license is not required to comply with the T&E requirements in Part 35 and the individual not listed must meet the T&E requirements. In conclusion, the NRC has determined that the petitioner raised a valid concern regarding the impact of the revisions to the T&E requirements in 10 CFR Part 35. Although in the rulemaking process the NRC staff would need more data than was presented in the petition, sufficient information was presented for the NRC to conduct a review and to determine that the petitioner's concern may warrant relief for certain individuals. Therefore, in resolving the petition, the NRC concluded that the issues raised in the petition will be considered in the rulemaking process in the following way. The NRC will attempt to develop a technical basis to support a rulemaking that would address the issues raised in the petition. If a technical basis which supports rulemaking can be developed, the issues will be addressed in a future rulemaking. If a technical basis to support a rulemaking cannot be developed, the issues will not be further considered by the NRC. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of April, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E8-10736 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-141998-06] RIN 1545-BG13 Withdrawal of Regulations Under Old Section 6323(b)(10); Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-141998-06) that was published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20877) relating to the validity and priority of the Federal tax lien against certain persons under section 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra A. Kohn,

(202)622-7985 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under section 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-141998-06) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-141998-06), which was the subject of FR Doc. E8-8082, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 20879, column 2, under the title heading “PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION”, the second entry of Paragraph 2., the language “2. Paragraphs (d)(3) *Example 1* and *Example 3* are revised.” is corrected to read “2. Paragraphs (d)(3) *Example 1* and (d)(3) *Example 3* are revised.”. 2. On page 20879, column 2, under the title heading “PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION”, the third entry of Paragraph 2., the language “3. Paragraphs (g)(1), and (g)(2) *Example 1* through *Example 3* are revised.” is corrected to read “3. Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) *Example 1* through *Example 3* are revised.”. 3. On page 20881, column 1, the first entry of Paragraph 5., the language “1. Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (b)(3) *Example 1* , (b)(3) *Example 5* , and (c)(1) are revised.” is corrected to read “1. Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(3) *Example 1* , (b)(3) *Example 5* , and (c)(1) are revised.”. 4. On page 20881, column 1, the fourth entry of Paragraph 5., the language “4. Newly-designated paragraph (a)(3)(i) introductory text is revised.” is corrected to read “4. Newly-designated paragraph (a)(3)(i) is revised.”. 5. On page 20881, column 1, the seventh, eighth, and ninth entries of Paragraph 5. are re-designated as eighth, ninth, and tenth entries of Paragraph 5. respectively. 6. On page 20881, column 1, the language “7. Paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(1)(ii) are revised.” is added as the newly designated seventh entry of Paragraph 5. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-10692 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0027] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the boundaries of three anchorage grounds in Upper New York Bay adjacent to Ellis and Liberty Islands. This proposed action is necessary due to the proposed increase in size of the Safety and Security Zones surrounding Ellis and Liberty Islands. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0027 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone

(617)223-8355 or e-mail at *John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. * If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0027), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0027), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0027) in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can 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 the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Waterways Management Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose This proposed rule is intended to reduce confusion that would be caused by the proposed expansion of the adjacent safety and security zones surrounding Ellis and Liberty Islands (See Docket No. USCG-2007-0074). This proposed rule would decrease the western boundaries of Anchorage Grounds 20-A, 20-B, and 20-C. If these revised western anchorage ground boundaries were not proposed then the revised safety and security zones would overlap with the current Anchorage Ground boundaries. Without these proposed revisions mariners reading the Code of Federal Regulations may think that they were authorized to anchor within the revised Ellis and Liberty Island safety and security zones. The purpose of this proposed rule is to conform the Anchorage Ground boundaries to those of the proposed security zone. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would revise the western boundaries of Anchorage Grounds 20-A, 20-B, and 20-C located east of Ellis and Liberty Islands on Upper New York Bay. The revised boundary of Anchorage Grounds 20-A and 20-B would be revised to correspond to what is already depicted on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's navigation charts. The revised western boundary of Anchorage Ground 20-C would be moved eastward 375-790 yards. We are proposing to revise the western boundaries of these three Anchorage Grounds to reduce confusion that would be caused by the proposed expansion of the adjacent safety and security zones surrounding Ellis and Liberty Islands. Without these proposed revisions mariners navigating by the Code of Federal Regulations may think that they were authorized to anchor within the revised Ellis and Liberty Island safety and security zones. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to the changing security needs of the Port of NY/NJ, the three anchorage grounds are rarely used by commercial vessels due to the already limited available area in the anchorage grounds, and the availability of additional anchorage grounds in Upper New York Bay and the Hudson River. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational or commercial vessels intending to anchor, in a portion of Upper New York Bay in and around the anchorage grounds. However, decreasing the size of the three anchorage grounds would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons: Commercial vessels rarely use the three anchorage grounds due to the already limited size and the availability of other anchorage grounds in Upper New York Bay and the Hudson River. Recreational vessels may still anchor northwest of Ellis Island and southwest of Liberty Island. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro, Waterways Management Branch, First Coast Guard District Boston at

(617)223-8355 or e-mail at *John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil.* The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.155, by revising paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows: § 110.155 Port of New York.

(d)Upper Bay—(1) Anchorage No. 20-A. That area bound by the following coordinates: 40°41′53.8″ N, 074°02′11.6″ W; thence to 40°41′54.8″ N, 074°01′58.0″ W; thence to 40°42′05.0″ N, 074°01′57.0″ W; thence to 40°42′06.8″ N, 074°02′17.9″ W; thence to 40°42′06.2″ N, 074°02′18.8″ W; thence to 40°41′57.4″ N, 074°02′07.0″ W; thence to 40°41′54.4″ N, 074°02′11.2″ W.

(i)See 33 CFR 110.155(d)(6), (d)(16), and (l).

(2)Anchorage No. 20-B. That area bound by the following coordinates: 40°41′45.8″ N, 074°02′22.7″ W; thence to 40°41′42.3″ N, 074°02′00.5″ W; thence to 40°41′35.9″ N, 074°02′02.5″ W; thence to 40°41′30.2″ N, 074°02′06.5″ W; thence to 40°41′41.4″ N, 074°02′29.0″ W.

(i)See 33 CFR 110.155(d)(6), (d)(16), and (l).

(3)Anchorage No. 20-C. That area bound by the following coordinates: 40°41′25.6″ N, 074°02′09.4″ W; thence to 40°41′02.0″ N, 074°02′24.6″ W; thence to 40°41′09.2″ N, 074°02′39.7″ W; thence to 40°41′11.0″ N, 074°02′25.0″ W; thence to 40°41′27.0″ N, 074°02′20.8″ W; thence to 40°41′35.9″ N, 074°02′29.6″ W.

(i)See 33 CFR 110.155(d)(6), (d)(16), and (l). Dated: January 18, 2008. Timothy V. Skuby, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-10706 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 160 [USCG-2007-28648] RIN 1625-AB19 Crewmember Identification Documents AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to require each crewmember on a foreign commercial vessel en route to a U.S. port or place of destination or at a U.S. port or place, or on a U.S. commercial vessel coming from a foreign port or place of departure to a U.S. port or place of destination, to carry and present upon demand an acceptable identification when in U.S. navigable waters. The vessel operator would also be required to ensure that crewmembers comply with this requirement. This proposed rule would implement a Maritime Transportation Security Act mandate and help ensure that we can authoritatively identify crewmembers on vessels in U.S. waters. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before July 14, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)on collection of information must reach OMB on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-28648 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. You must also send comments on collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that the comments are received on time, the preferred method is by e-mail at *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or fax at 202-395-6566. An alternate, though slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, contact either Lieutenant Commander Derek A. D'Orazio, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, telephone 202-372-1405 and e-mail address *derek.a.dorazio@uscg.mil* , or Lieutenant Commander Jonathan H. Maiorine, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Activities, telephone 202-372-1133 and e-mail address *jonathan.h.maiorine@uscg.mil.* If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act D. Public Meeting II. Table of Abbreviations III. Background and Purpose IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule V. Regulatory Evaluation A. Executive Order 12866 B. Small Entities C. Collection of Information D. Federalism E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act F. Taking of Private Property G. Civil Justice Reform H. Protection of Children I. Indian Tribal Governments J. Energy Effects K. Technical Standards L. Environment I. Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. A. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking as USCG-2007-28648, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES , but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. B. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (“USCG-2007-28648”) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. Privacy Act Anyone can 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 the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* D. Public Meeting We do not currently plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . II. Table of Abbreviations CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT Department of Transportation FR Federal Register ILO International Labour Organization INA Immigration and Naturalization Act IMO International Maritime Organization MMC Merchant Mariner Credential MMD Merchant Mariner's Document MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act SID Seafarer's Identification Document TSA Transportation Security Administration TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential USC United States Code III. Background and Purpose In the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), Congress directed the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to require all crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports to carry and present on demand any identification the Secretary decides is necessary. The Act also directed the Secretary to develop forms and processes for the identification and verification of crewmembers. Sec. 102 of Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064, 2080-81. In section 103 of the MTSA, Congress indicated the objective of requiring crewmember identification is to be able to establish authoritatively, the identity of any seafarer aboard a vessel within U.S. jurisdiction, including U.S. territorial waters. 116 Stat. 2084, and 46 U.S.C. 70111, note. Congress directed the Secretary to consult with the Attorney General and Secretary of State when developing these crewmember identification requirements. 46 U.S.C. 70111. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security delegated this rulemaking authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard and directed the Commandant to develop these requirements in cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Section 2(97)(g) of DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, Delegation to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. A copy of this delegation is available in the docket. Accordingly, we have collaborated with CBP and TSA and we have consulted with the Attorney General and Secretary of State in the development of this proposed rule. On October 13, 2006, Congress revised 46 U.S.C. 70111 through the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) and established a deadline for these requirements to be in place not later than October 13, 2007. Sec. 110 of Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1891, 1893. Therefore, in this proposed rule, the Coast Guard seeks to fulfill Congress' mandate to require that crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports must carry and present on demand an identification that allows the identity of crewmembers to be authoritatively validated. IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to add a new subpart to the regulations in 33 CFR part 160 for ports and waterways safety. This new subpart, subpart D, would apply to the following vessels calling at a port or place of destination in the navigable waters of the United States: • Each foreign commercial vessel, and • Each U.S. commercial vessel coming from a foreign port or place of departure. In this proposed rule, we have included a force majeure exception for vessels that had not planned to visit a U.S. port or place, but are forced to do so because of unforeseen factors such as severe weather conditions. Vessels engaged in innocent passage through U.S. navigable waters do not require an exception because they would not be en route to a U.S. port or place of destination and therefore would not be subject to this proposed rule. Likewise, public vessels not engaged in commercial service would not be subject to this proposed rule. Under the requirements in new subpart D, each crewmember on a vessel to which this proposed rule would apply would be required to carry and present on demand an acceptable identification when the vessel is in the navigable waters of the United States. The term “navigable waters of the United States” is defined in 33 CFR 2.36(a). The operator of the vessel would be responsible for ensuring crewmembers comply with this requirement. We understand that crewmembers commonly secure their identification and other important documents on the vessel, typically with the master, and we consider this practice consistent with the requirements of this proposed rule if the identification is aboard and can be presented upon demand. Congress gave the Secretary discretion to determine what crewmember identification is necessary. In carrying out Congress's mandate, the Coast Guard considered the types of identification normally available and carried by crewmembers, recent developments such as the Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC)final rule (72 FR 3492, January 25, 2007), and existing regulations for the landing of alien crewmen in 8 CFR part 252. This proposed rule aligns with current practices for verifying the identification of crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports and meets our goal to improve maritime security while minimizing the burden placed on crewmembers and operators. Compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule would not relieve vessel crewmembers and operators of any requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA)(66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. 1101 *et seq.* ), or INA implementing regulations. Likewise, compliance with existing INA requirements would not relieve vessel crewmembers and operators of their requirements under this proposed regulation. We do not plan to institute a new enforcement program whereby Coast Guard personnel would routinely duplicate the efforts of CBP personnel, who already verify the identification of crewmembers on foreign and U.S. commercial vessels under existing regulations and policies. We would, however, rely on these proposed regulations to improve maritime domain awareness and control vessel and crewmember movement when warranted under our maritime security and law enforcement responsibilities. After considering the characteristics of identification accepted by CBP, existing types of identification required by other Coast Guard and DHS regulations, and applicable international conventions, we determined the following identifications to be acceptable means to authoritatively identify crewmembers: • A passport; • A U.S. Permanent Resident Card; • A U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document

(MMD)issued by the U.S. Coast Guard; • A Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC)issued by TSA under their credentialing and security threat assessments regulations in 49 CFR part 1572; and • A Seafarer's Identification Document

(SID)issued by or under the authority of the government of a country that has ratified the International Labour Organization Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO 185), meeting all the requirements of ILO 185. We chose the passport, U.S. Permanent Resident Card, MMD and TWIC, in addition to the SID, to authoritatively identify crewmembers because these documents have certain characteristics we have determined are necessary to ensure verifiable, uniform and reliable identification. The SID is the international standard for the desired characteristics of a seafarer's identification. The current SID was developed by the International Labour Organization

(ILO)(to find out more about ILO, visit *http://www.ILO.org)* and was adopted by that organization on June 19, 2003. ILO undertook updating the Seafarers' Identity Document Convention, 1958 (No. 108), partly at the International Maritime Organization's

(IMO)request, as a means of improving global maritime security through tighter controls on crewmember identification (to find out more about IMO, visit *http://www.IMO.org).* See IMO resolution titled, “Enhancement of Security in Co-operation with the International Labour Organization” which was adopted by the IMO Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security as Resolution 8 on December 12, 2002. Under Article 3 of the updated Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (No. 185) (ILO 185), the SID must include the following characteristics: • The identification must be designed in a simple manner, be made of durable material, with special regard to conditions at sea and be machine-readable. The materials used must:

(a)prevent tampering with the identification or falsification, as far as possible, and enable easy detection of alterations; and

(b)be generally accessible to governments at the lowest cost consistent with reliably achieving the purpose set out in

(a)above. • The identification must be no larger than a normal passport. • The identification must contain the name of the issuing authority, indications enabling rapid contact with that authority, the date and place of issue of the document. • Particulars about the holder included in the seafarer's identity document shall be restricted to the following:

(a)full name (first and last names where applicable);

(b)gender;

(c)date and place of birth;

(d)nationality;

(e)any special physical characteristics that may assist identification;

(f)digital or original photograph;

(g)signature; and • The identification must have a biometric feature. While the characteristics of the passport, MMD, U.S. Permanent Resident Card and TWIC are not identical to the SID, they all share some of the same essential characteristics as the SID: • Issued under government authority, indicated on the document; • Made of tamper resistant materials with appropriate security features; • Contains a photograph of the individual; • Shows the full name and date of birth of the individual; • Contains the date of issuance and the expiration date; • Contains a unique and traceable number that can be verified. Furthermore, we have determined that, like the SID, the underlying government systems supporting the passport, MMD, U.S. Permanent Resident Card and TWIC are reliable, secure and promote ready verification. Our proposed approach is consistent with current practices of accepting for crewmember identification purposes documents that are not strictly seafarer documents, such as a passport reported on a notice of arrival. Using the SID as a reference is also consistent with our longstanding practice of harmonizing, where appropriate, U.S. safety, security and environmental regulations with international standards. By doing so, we improve opportunities for U.S. industries in the global marketplace and reinforce the partnerships we enjoy with international and domestic industry and intergovernmental groups while working towards common goals. With regard to the MMD, the Coast Guard has proposed in a separate rulemaking entitled “Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials” (RIN 1625-AB02) that over a 5-year period, starting August 2008, it would replace the MMD with a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). 72 FR 3605, 3607, January 25, 2007. If an MMC effective rule is issued in that rulemaking before we issue an effective rule in this crewmember identification rulemaking, we propose to change the crewmember identification final rule by including the MMC in our 33 CFR 160.310 definition of “acceptable identification.” The MMC would be an addition to the list and would not be an immediate replacement of the MMD. We invite your comments on this proposed conditional inclusion of the MMC as an acceptable identification. We expect that nearly all U.S. crewmembers on vessels impacted by this proposed rule possess an acceptable identification because, under 46 U.S.C. 8701, every crewmember on almost every seagoing vessel of at least 100 GRT must have an MMD. We expect that nearly all foreign crewmembers carry a passport because, under the INA and implementing DHS regulations in 8 CFR 252.1(d), a passport is required for shore leave. In addition, under Coast Guard notice of arrival regulations, most operators subject to this proposed rule are already required to submit passport or mariner's document information for all crewmembers on the vessel. 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. Thus, we anticipate that very few mariners, U.S. or foreign, would be required to obtain a new identification to meet the requirements of this proposed rule. This approach would not require the United States to ratify ILO 185 because we are not attaching shore leave to the SID we propose to accept for purposes of this rule. Instead, the SID would be one type of identification that would satisfy the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 70111 and new 33 CFR part 160, subpart D. The SID will not, by virtue of this rule, confer any shore leave or admission status on the holder. The U.S. Government continues to require a passport and visa for shore leave, unless the crewmember is exempt. 8 U.S.C. 1181, 1185, 8 CFR 212.1, 8 CFR part 252, 33 CFR parts 41 and 53. To ensure vessel control options if a crewmember's identification is not acceptable or the identification is not presented on demand, we also propose to require the vessel operator to ensure that all crewmembers on the vessel have an acceptable identification by the time the vessel enters U.S. navigable waters. This would be enforceable under the authority of MTSA 2002, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. Chapter 25. V. Regulatory Evaluation We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. A. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and it does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect nearly every crewmember, U.S. and foreign, already possesses an acceptable identification. The characteristics of the acceptable identifications in this proposed rule are consistent with current identifications accepted by the Coast Guard and CBP to identify crewmembers. In addition, we expect that all crewmembers carry their identification with them and that vessel operators examine the identification because carriers are required under 19 CFR 4.7b(d) and 4.64(d) to view these documents when preparing crew manifests, and because vessel operators are required to record the document number on the notice of approval under 33 CFR 160.206. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Although the proposed rule requires vessel operators to ensure that all crewmembers on the vessel have acceptable identification, we expect that vessel operators already look for an acceptable identification from each crewmember in order to record the document number on the notice of arrival. Otherwise, the burdens proposed by this rule fall on crewmembers and not on “small entities” as that term in defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES . In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. C. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. *Title:* Crewmember Identification Documents. *Summary of the Collection of Information:* This collection of information comprises the recordkeeping necessary to possess, present on demand, and ensure compliance with requirements for identification of crewmembers on foreign and U.S. vessels in navigable waters of the United States. *Need for Information:* In the MTSA, Congress directed the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to require all crewmembers on vessels calling at U.S. ports to carry and present on demand any identification the Secretary decides is necessary. The acceptable identification required by this proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to authoritatively identify crewmembers on vessels within U.S. waters. *Proposed Use of Information:* The information collected would be used to authoritatively identify crewmembers on vessels within U.S. waters. *Description of the Respondents:* The respondents include all crewmembers on a foreign vessel in the navigable waters of the U.S. en route to a U.S. port or place of destination or at a U.S. port or place, and all crewmembers on a U.S. commercial vessel in the navigable waters of the U.S. coming from a foreign port or place of departure to a U.S. port or place of destination. The respondents also include the operators of those foreign and U.S. vessels. *Number of Respondents:* We estimate the number of respondents is 838,084 persons, comprising crewmembers and vessel operators. This figure is based on Coast Guard records of the number of affected vessels that enter U.S. ports, Coast Guard estimates of the number of crewmembers on vessels, and estimates of the frequency of crew rotation. Using Coast Guard Notice of Arrival data, we estimate 10,649,843 responses per year from all crewmembers and operators. *Frequency of Response:* We estimate, on average, a typical crewmember would respond 13 times per year. Vessel operators would respond each time a vessel submits a notice of arrival. *Burden of Response:* Coast Guard records indicate the burden imposed on the respondents is negligible. From our records, we expect nearly all crewmembers already possess and carry an acceptable identification. We also expect vessel operators already check crewmembers' identifications since the type and number must be reported on the Notice of Arrival. *Estimate of Total Annual Burden:* According to our Notice of Arrival records for the 12 months between June 2006 and June 2007, 10,328,992 (97.0 percent) of responses were passport, U.S. Permanent Resident Card, or MMD numbers. This period predates TWIC cards and, at this time, few nations are issuing the SID. The figure includes U.S. crewmembers sailing on coastal voyages to whom this proposed rule would not apply and who might have presented some other form of identification that would not be accepted under this proposed rule. Therefore, the percentage of crewmembers that already possess an acceptable identification under this proposed rule is likely higher than 97 percent. In the worst case, this would leave 320,851 (3.0 percent) responses reporting other identifications. Based on an average of 13 visits per crewmember per year, this translates to 24,681 crewmembers reporting an identification other than passports, U.S. Permanent Resident Cards, and MMDs. Therefore, in the worst case, the total cost burden of response is estimated to be $2,714,910, using $97 as the cost of obtaining an acceptable ID, and $13 as the opportunity cost. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for its review of the collection of information. We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the burden of collection. If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated under ADDRESSES , by the date under DATES . You need not respond to a collection of information unless we have published a currently valid control number from OMB for that collection in the **Federal Register** . Before the requirements for this collection of information become effective, we will publish notice in the **Federal Register** of OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection. If OMB approves the collection, our publication of that control number in the **Federal Register** or the CFR will constitute display of that number; see 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3), as required under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B). D. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. G. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. H. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. I. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. J. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. K. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. L. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 160 Administrative practice and procedure, Harbors, Hazardous materials transportation, Identification, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 160 as follows: PART 160—PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY—GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Subpart C is also issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 46 U.S.C. 3715. 2. Add subpart D, consisting of §§ 160.300 through 160.320, to read as follows: Subpart D—Crewmember Identification Sec. 160.300 Applicability. 160.305 Exceptions. 160.310 Definitions. 160.315 Crewmember identification requirement. 160.320 Sanctions and vessel control. § 160.300 Applicability.

(a)This subpart applies to crewmembers on the following vessels in the navigable waters of the United States en route to a U.S. port or place of destination or at a U.S. port or place:

(1)A foreign vessel engaged in commercial service, and

(2)A U.S. vessel engaged in commercial service and coming from a foreign port or place of departure.

(b)This subpart also applies to the operators of the vessels listed in paragraph

(a)of this section. § 160.305 Exceptions. Requirements in this subpart will not be enforced against crewmembers and operators on a vessel bound for a U.S. port or place of destination under a claim of *force majeure.* § 160.310 Definitions. As used in this subpart, and only for purposes of this subpart— *Acceptable identification* means a:

(1)Passport;

(2)U.S. Permanent Resident Card,

(3)U.S. merchant mariner's document;

(4)Transportation Worker Identification Credential issued by the Transportation Security Administration under 49 CFR part 1572; or

(5)Seafarer's Identification Document

(SID)issued by or under the authority of the government of a country that has ratified the International Labour Organization Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (Revised), 2003 (ILO 185), meeting all the requirements of ILO 185. *Commercial service* means any type of trade or business involving the transportation of goods or individuals, except service performed by a combatant vessel. *Crewmember* means all persons carried on board a vessel to provide: Navigation services; maintenance of the vessel, its machinery, or systems; arrangements essential for propulsion or safe navigation; or services for other persons on board. *Foreign vessel* means a vessel of foreign registry or operated under the authority of a country except the United States. *Navigable waters of the United States* means the same as this term is defined in 33 CFR 2.36(a). *Operator* means any person including, but not limited to, an owner, a charterer, or another contractor who conducts, or is responsible for, the operation of a vessel. *Passport* means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country. *Port or place of departure* means any port or place in which a vessel is anchored or moored. *Port or place of destination* means any port or place in which a vessel is bound to anchor or moor. § 160.315 Crewmember identification requirement.

(a)A crewmember subject to this subpart must carry and present on demand an acceptable identification. An operator subject to this subpart must ensure that every crewmember on the vessel has an acceptable identification in his or her possession when the vessel is in the navigable waters of the United States. For purposes of this section, a crewmember may secure his or her acceptable identification with the vessel's master, so long as the identification can be presented on demand.

(b)Compliance with the requirements in this section does not relieve vessel crewmembers and operators of any requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA)or INA implementing regulations. Likewise, compliance with INA requirements does not relieve vessel crewmembers and operators of the requirements in this section. § 160.320 Sanctions and vessel control. Failure to comply with this subpart will subject the crewmember and operator to a civil penalty under 46 U.S.C. 70119 and the vessel to control under 33 U.S.C. 1223(b). Dated: April 24, 2008. Brian M. Salerno, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship. [FR Doc. E8-10707 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178; FRL-8565-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Columbia County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area. I. Background Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:

(1)An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for a 10-year maintenance period, from a base-year chosen by the state;

(2)a maintenance demonstration, which demonstrates how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for a period of 10 years following the effective date of designation unclassifiable/attainment (June 15, 2004);

(3)an ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;

(4)a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be implemented as promptly as possible;

(5)a verification of continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. *Attainment Emission Inventory:* An attainment emissions inventory includes emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions inventory for VOCs and NO X , using 2002 as the base-year from which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance, is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOCs and NO X , and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and NO X emissions inventories for the Columbia County Area. In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NO X (e.g., “stationary sources,” “stationary area sources,” “highway vehicles,” and “nonroad sources”). Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the VOCs and NO X emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Table 1.—VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.32 0.35 0.45 Stationary Area Sources 4.72 4.50 4.67 Highway Vehicles 4.47 2.52 1.47 Nonroad Sources 1.83 1.83 1.72 Total 11.34 9.20 8.31 Table 2.—NO X Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.42 0.44 0.46 Stationary Area Sources 0.38 0.40 0.41 Highway Vehicles 8.89 4.84 2.13 Nonroad Sources 1.72 1.37 0.83 Total 11.41 7.05 3.83 EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and NO X emissions in the Columbia County Area will improve due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. Maintenance demonstration: As Table 1 and 2 indicate, the Columbia County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NO X remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year 2018. Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002 base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained in the Columbia County Area. Further details of Columbia County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document

(TSD)prepared for this rulemaking. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring: With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the existing network unless pre-approved by EPA. Contingency Plan: Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Since the Columbia County Area does not have a monitor, contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in Columbia County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance plan. *Verification of continued attainment:* PADEP will track the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Columbia County by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, Subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 5, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-10811 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181; FRL-8565-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Somerset County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area. I. Background Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:

(1)An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for a 10-year maintenance period, from a base-year chosen by the state;

(3)an ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;

(4)a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be implemented as promptly as possible;

(5)a verification of continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. *Attainment Emission Inventory:* An attainment emissions inventory includes emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions inventory for VOCs and NO X , using 2002 as the base-year from which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance, is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOCs and NO X , and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and NO X emissions inventories for the Somerset County Area. In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NO X (e.g., “stationary sources,” “stationary area sources,” “highway vehicles,” and “nonroad sources”). Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the VOCs and NO X emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Table 1.—VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.21 0.18 0.24 Stationary Area Sources 5.63 5.09 5.24 Highway Vehicles 6.10 3.11 1.81 Nonroad Sources 3.05 3.04 2.29 Total 14.99 11.42 9.58 Table 2.—NO X Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.62 0.66 0.74 Stationary Area Sources 0.54 0.57 0.57 Highway Vehicles 15.44 8.15 3.14 Nonroad Sources 5.39 4.22 3.25 Total 21.99 13.60 7.70 EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and NO X emissions in the Somerset County Area will improve due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. *Maintenance demonstration:* As Table 1 and 2 indicate, the Somerset County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NO X remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year 2018. Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002 base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained in the Somerset County Area. Further details of Somerset County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document

(TSD)prepared for this rulemaking. *Ambient Air Quality Monitoring:* With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the existing network unless pre-approved by EPA. *Contingency Plan:* Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Since the Somerset County Area does not have a monitor, contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the Cambria County Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in Somerset County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance plan. *Verification of continued attainment:* PADEP will track the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Somerset County by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Cambria County Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 1, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 2 3 11 [FR Doc. E8-10813 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182; FRL-8565-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Susquehanna County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. * E-mail:* *fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area. I. Background Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:

(1)An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for a 10-year maintenance period, from a base-year chosen by the state;

(3)an ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;

(4)a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be implemented as promptly as possible; and

(5)a verification of continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. *Attainment Emission Inventory:* An attainment emissions inventory includes emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions inventory for VOCs and NO X , using 2002 as the base-year from which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance, is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOCs and NO X , and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and NO X emissions inventories for the Susquehanna County Area. In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NO X (e.g., “stationary sources,” “stationary area sources,” “highway vehicles,” and “nonroad sources”). Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the VOCs and NO X emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Table 1.—VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources * 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stationary Area Sources 6.21 6.15 6.92 Highway Vehicles 3.17 1.71 1.00 Nonroad Sources 2.36 2.14 1.63 Total 11.74 10.00 9.55 * Values are greater than zero. Values appear as zero due to rounding. Table 2.—NO X Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.10 0.10 0.11 Stationary Area Sources 0.24 0.26 0.28 Highway Vehicles 8.56 4.87 1.90 Nonroad Sources 1.37 1.16 0.85 Total 10.27 6.39 3.14 EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and NO X emissions in the Susquehanna County Area will improve due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. *Maintenance demonstration:* As Table 1 and 2 indicate, the Susquehanna County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NO X remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year 2018. Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002 base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained in the Susquehanna County Area. Further details of Susquehanna County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document

(TSD)prepared for this rulemaking. *Ambient Air Quality Monitoring:* With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the existing network unless pre-approved by EPA. *Contingency Plan:* Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Since the Susquehanna County Area does not have a monitor, contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in Susquehanna County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance plan. *Verification of continued attainment:* PADEP will track the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Susquehanna County by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 5, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-10809 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0180; FRL-8565-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Crawford County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0180 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0180, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0180. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area. I. Background Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:

(1)An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for a 10-year maintenance period, from a base-year chosen by the state;

(3)an ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;

(4)a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be implemented as promptly as possible;

(5)a verification of continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. *Attainment Emission Inventory:* An attainment emissions inventory includes emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions inventory for VOCs and NO X , using 2002 as the base-year from which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance, is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOCs and NO X , and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and NO X emissions inventories for the Crawford County Area. In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NO X ( *e.g.* , “stationary sources,” “stationary area sources,” “highway vehicles,” and “nonroad sources”). Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the VOCs and NO X emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Table 1.—VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 0.50 0.63 0.85 Stationary Area Sources 5.44 5.25 5.79 Highway Vehicles 4.51 2.42 1.39 Nonroad Sources 5.87 4.63 3.12 Total 16.32 12.93 11.15 Table 2.—NO X Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [Tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 7.87 9.59 11.96 Stationary Area Sources 0.74 0.79 0.83 Highway Vehicles 8.44 4.61 1.84 Nonroad Sources 3.05 2.51 1.80 Total 20.10 17.50 16.43 EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and NO X emissions in the Crawford County Area will improve due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. *Maintenance demonstration:* As Table 1 and 2 indicate, the Crawford County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NO X remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year 2018. Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002 base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained in the Crawford County Area. Further details of Crawford County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document

(TSD)prepared for this rulemaking. *Ambient Air Quality Monitoring:* With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the existing network unless pre-approved by EPA. *Contingency Plan:* Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Since the Crawford County Area does not have a monitor, contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the Erie Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in Crawford County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance plan. *Verification of continued attainment:* PADEP will track the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Crawford County by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Erie Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, Subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq* . Dated: May 5, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-10815 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 73 94 Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Health for All Seasons LLC of Mountain View, California, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/641,318, “Extruded Legumes,” filed on December 18, 2006. DATES: ( **Federal Register** .) Comments must be received within thirty

(30)days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Health for All Seasons LLC of Mountain View, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty

(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-10828 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Nawgan Products, LLC of Chesterfield, Missouri, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/387,312, “Food-Grade Formulations for Long-Term Stabilization of Lycopene,” filed on March 26, 2006. DATES: **Federal Register** comments must be received within thirty

(30)days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Nawgan Products, LLC of Chesterfield, Missouri has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty

(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-10826 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 5 of the Plum Creek Watershed, Hays County, Texas AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 5 of the Plum Creek Watershed, Hays County, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 101 South Main, Temple, Texas 76501-7682, Telephone

(254)742-9800. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project. The project will rehabilitate Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 5 to maintain the present level of flood control benefits and comply with the current performance and safety standards. Rehabilitation of the site will require the dam to be modified to meet current performance and safety standards for a high hazard dam. The modification will consist of raising the top of dam 3.5 feet, extending the back toe of the embankment to maintain a 3:1 slope, installation of an additional principal spillway (24″ hooded inlet type), installation of a foundation drain system along the back toe of the embankment, lowering the crest elevation of the auxiliary spillway 0.4 feet, installing a splitter dike in the auxiliary spillway and realigning the entrance section of the auxiliary spillway. An impact basin that will serve both principal spillway outlets will be added to replace the existing plunge pool. All disturbed areas will be planted to adapted native and/or introduced species. The proposed work will not have a significant affect on any prime farmland, endangered or threatened species, wetlands, or cultural resources. Federal assistance will be provided under authority of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (Section 313, Pub. L. 106-472). Total project cost is estimated to be $2,383,400, of which $1,693,800 will be paid from the Small Watershed Rehabilitation funds and $689,600 from local funds. The notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist. No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . Dated: April 28, 2008. Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E8-10698 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service West Tarkio Creek Watershed, Montgomery, Fremont and Page Counties, Iowa and Atchison County, MO AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision. SUMMARY: Al Garner, responsible Federal official for projects administered under the provisions of Public Law 83-566, 16 U.S.C. 1001-1008, and the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, PL-109-97, in the State of Iowa, is hereby providing notification that a record of decision to proceed with the installation of West Tarkio Creek Watershed project is available. Copies of this record of decision may be obtained from the Iowa NRCS Web site *http://www.ia.nrcs.usda.gov/,* or from Al Garner at the address shown below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Garner, Acting State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 693 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, Iowa, 50309, telephone 515-284-6655. Dated: April 30, 2008. Al Garner, Acting State Conservationist. (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and Local officials.) [FR Doc. E8-10699 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Correction of 2007 Expected Non-Market Economy Wage Calculation. SUMMARY: On May 9, 2008 the Department published finalized 2007 expected NME wage rates. *See* 2007 Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 26363, (May 9, 2008). However, those results inadvertently omitted observation #1 (the data for Albania) from the regression analysis. That error has been corrected. DATES: These expected NME wage rates are finalized on the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** and will be in effect for all antidumping proceedings for which the Department's final decision is due after the publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Hill, Economist, Office of Policy, or Juanita Chen, Special Assistant to the Senior Enforcement Coordinator, China/NME Group, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1843 and

(202)482-1904, respectively. Correction of Clerical Error The Department inadvertently omitted observation #1 (the data for Albania) from the regression analysis. That error has now been corrected. Results After correction of the clerical error, the regression results are: Wage = 0.257585 + 0.000448* GNI. The final expected NME wage rates, as calculated after this correction, are shown in Attachment 1. Dated: May 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Attachment 1 Country Expected NME 2005 GNI (USD per annum) Wage rate (USD per hour) Armenia 1,470 0.92 Azerbaijan 1,270 0.83 Belarus 2,760 1.49 China 1,740 1.04 Georgia 1,300 0.84 Kyrgyz Republic 450 0.46 Moldova 960 0.69 Tajikistan 330 0.41 Uzbekistan 530 0.50 Vietnam 620 0.54 The World Bank did not publish a GNI for Turkmenistan. The final results and underlying data for the 2007 calculation have been posted on the Import Administration Web site at ( *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* ). [FR Doc. E8-10903 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-808] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the Russian Federation; Final Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation SUMMARY: On February 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of an administrative review of the suspension agreement on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the Russian Federation (the Agreement). *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Russia; Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement* , 73 FR 6929 (February 6, 2008) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The period of review is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. No interested parties submitted comments. Therefore, for these final results, we have made no changes to our preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon or Jay Carreiro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202)482-0162 or

(202)482-3674, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 20, 2002, the Department signed an agreement under section 734(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), with Russian steel producers/exporters, including J.S.C. Severstal (Severstal), which suspended the antidumping duty investigation on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Russia. *See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation* , 68 FR 3859 (January 27, 2003). On January 31, 2007, Nucor submitted a request for an administrative review pursuant to *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 99 (January 3, 2007). On February 28, 2007, the Department initiated a review of the Agreement. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 8969 (February 28, 2007). On March 14, 2007, and October 5, 2007, the Department issued its Questionnaire and Supplemental Questionnaire, respectively, to Severstal. Severstal submitted its responses on April 20, 2007, and October 26, 2007, respectively. On October 1, 2007, the Department postponed the preliminary results of this review until January 31, 2008. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Russia* , 72 FR 55744 (October 1, 2007). On February 6, 2008, the Department published its preliminary results of review. *See Preliminary Results.* We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. No interested parties submitted comments, and we have made no changes to our preliminary results. Scope of Review The products covered by the Agreement are hot-rolled iron and non-alloy steel 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 thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)under item numbers 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. Excluded from the subject merchandise within the scope of this Agreement is grade X-70 plate. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review

(POR)is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Final Results of Review Our review of the information submitted by Severstal indicates that the company has adhered to the terms of the Agreement, as indicated in our preliminary results. *See Preliminary Results* . The Department finds no evidence in the information submitted by Severstal of any discrepancies in Severstal’s exports to the United States, either directly or through third countries, which would constitute a violation of the Agreement. Furthermore, the Department has not received any comments on the matter from Nucor nor any other interested party, either prior or subsequent to the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, we continue to find that Severstal has been in compliance with the Agreement. This notice serves as the only 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 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 this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10816 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Announcing a Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, June 4, 2008 from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., Thursday, June 5, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., and Friday, June 6, 2008 from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. All sessions will be open to the public. The Advisory Board was established by the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235) and amended by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347) to advise the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of NIST on security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer systems. Details regarding the Board's activities are available at *http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/index.html/* . DATES: The meeting will be held on June 4, 2008 from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., June 5, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. and June 6, 2008, from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at George Washington University, 1918 F Street, NW., Dining Room Conference, Washington, DC on June 4, 2008 and the George Washington University Cafritz Conference Center 800 21st Street, NW., Room 310, Elliott Room, Washington, DC on June 5-6, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pauline Bowen, Board Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone:

(301)975-2938. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda —Welcome and Overview; —Federal Initiatives Due in June; ( Trusted Internet Connection, Federal Desktop Core Configuration, Homeland Security Policy Directive 12, & Internet Protocol version 6); —FISMA Report Briefing; —FISMA Metrics Efficacy Discussion; —Privacy Technology Report Review; —NIST FISMA Program Phase II Discussion; —FISMA Implementer Panel; —CSIS Commission Briefing; —ISPAB Work Plan Discussion; —Telecommuting Security Discussion; —VA Data Breach Follow-up Briefing; —Chief Privacy Officer Training; —Cryptographic HASH; —Authentication of the Future—Looking Ahead To Advise NIST and OMB. Note that agenda items may change without notice because of possible unexpected schedule conflicts of presenters. The final agenda will be posted on the Web site indicated above. *Public Participation:* The Board agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments and questions from the public (Friday, June 6, 2008 at 3:15-3:45 p.m.). Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are asked to contact the Board Secretariat at the telephone number indicated above. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Board at any time. Written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Approximately 15 seats will be available for the public and media. Dated: May 6, 2008. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-10762 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH90 Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Southeastern Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Steering Committee; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of SEDAR Steering Committee Meeting. SUMMARY: The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet via conference call to discuss assessment updates to be completed during 2009. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . DATES: The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, from 12 noon to 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via conference call. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for available listening stations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Carmichael, Science and Statistics Program Manager, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone:

(843)571-4366 or toll free

(866)SAFMC-10; fax:

(843)769-4520. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Listening stations are available at the following locations: 1. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive #201, North Charleston, SC 29405; 2. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; and 3. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Ave., Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918. The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks. The SEDAR Steering Committee provides oversight of the SEDAR process, establishes assessment priorities, and provides coordination of assessment and management activities. During this conference call the Steering Committee will follow-up on activities from its May 5, 2008 meeting to finalize assessment update priorities for 2009. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office at the address listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10719 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH68 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a revision of a public meeting agenda. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a joint meeting of The Standing and Special Reef Fish SSCs (SSC). DATES: The Joint Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC meeting will begin at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 and conclude by 3 pm on Thursday, May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Quorum Hotel, 700 N. Westshore Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609; telephone:

(813)289-8200. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original notice published in the **Federal Register** on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 24953). The notice adds the following agenda item to that notice: Finally, the SSC will discuss the red snapper stock assessment update. Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling

(813)348-1630. All other previously-published information remains unchanged. Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10714 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH89 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held June 2-5, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Hilton Hobby Hotel, 8181 Airport Drive, Houston, TX 77061. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL, 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Committees Monday, June 2, 2008-CLOSED SESSION 1 pm-5:30 pm-CLOSED SESSION-Budget/Personnel Committee and Full Council will interview and select an Executive Director. Tuesday, June 3, 2008 8 am-12 pm&1:30 pm-5:30 pm-The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to discuss Draft of Reef Fish Amendment 30B; Approval of Public Hearing Draft of Reef Fish Amendment 29, including IFQ Referendum Language; Ad Hoc Recreational Red Snapper AP Management and Bycatch Reduction Ideas; Review of NMFS Guidelines for ACL/AMs (if available); SEDAR TOR for Hogfish; and Ecosystem Workshop Report. 5:30 pm-6:30 pm-Informal Question and Answer Session on Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Issues. Wednesday, June 4, 2008 8:30 am-9:30 am-The Reef Fish Management Committee continued. 9:30 am-10:30 am-The Administrative Policy Committee will meet to discuss Report on Lenfest Annual Catch Limits (ACL's). 10:30 am-12 pm-The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Management Committee will meet to discuss the Generic Aquaculture Amendment. 1:30 pm-2:30 pm-The Outreach and Education Committee will meet to discuss Proposed Activities. 2:30 pm-4:30 pm-The Ad Hoc Allocation Committee will meet to discuss Development of Guidelines and Principles for Allocations. 4:30 pm-5:30 pm-The Stone Crab/Spiny Lobster Committee will meet to discuss the Spiny Lobster Scoping Meeting Document. Council Thursday, June 5, 2008-The Council meeting will begin at 8:30 am with a review of the agenda and minutes. From 8:45 am-9:45 am on Proposed Rule Integrating Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA; From 9:45 am-10:45 am public testimony on exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any; An Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue of concern will be immediately following completion of public testimony for one hour. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. The Council will review and discuss reports from the previous two days' committee meetings as follows: 1 pm-3 pm-Reef Fish Management; 3 pm-3:15 pm-Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum; 3:15 pm -3:45 pm-Administrative Policy; 3:45 pm-4 pm-Outreach & Education; 4 pm-4:30 pm-Ad Hoc Allocation; 4:30 pm-4:45 pm-Stone Crab/Spiny Lobster. The Council will discuss Other Business items from 4:45 pm-5:45 pm. The Council will conclude its meeting at 5:45 pm. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the M-SFCMA, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the M-SFCMA, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10748 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH93 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Oversight Committee in June, 2008 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This meeting will be held on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: *Meeting address* : The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone:

(207)775-2311; fax:

(207)772-4017. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will meet to review Draft Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)and its accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This amendment is being developed to continue groundfish rebuilding plans. The Committee will also receive reports from the Groundfish Advisory Panel and the Recreational Advisory Panel. After considering the advice of the Advisory Panels and reviewing the draft amendment and DEIS, the Committee may identify preferred management measure alternatives from the options in the document. The Committee may also suggest modifications to the measures text or the analyses of impacts. The Committee decisions will be reported to the full Council at a meeting on June 4, 2008. There is a possibility that this meeting may be cancelled. The Committee is also scheduled to meet May 13, 2008 to discuss Amendment 16. If the Committee decides that it has completed its work on the amendment at that meeting, the meeting on June 2, 2008 may be cancelled. Notice to the public will be provided via the **Federal Register** and on the Council's web page ( *www.nefmc.org* ) if this occurs. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10750 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH86 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) and Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel (HMSAS) will hold work sessions, which are open to the public. DATES: The HMSMT work session will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008; the HMSMT and HMSAS will begin meeting jointly at 1:30 p.m. on the same day and continue until 5:30 p.m. The joint meeting of the HMSMT and HMSAS will resume on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. and continue until the two committees finish their joint discussions. The committees will then meet separately until business is completed. ADDRESSES: The work sessions will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Offices, Conference Rooms 1 & 2, 6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone:

(760)431-9440. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HMSMT/HMSAS work sessions will discuss preparation of the HMS stock assessment and fishery evaluation

(SAFE)report, 2009-10 HMS biennial harvest specifications, Magnuson-Stevens Act re-authorization implementation, international fisheries issues, management concepts for the high seas shallow-set longline fishery, and research and data related issues. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at

(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10716 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH87 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Standard Operating, Policy and Procedure (SOPPs) Committee, Advisory Panel Selection Committee (Closed Session), Ecosystem-based Management Committee, Shrimp Committee, Spiny Lobster Committee, Limited Access Privilege

(LAP)Program Committee, Allocation Committee, SSC Selection Committee (Closed Session), Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Committee, Snapper Grouper Committee, Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel, and a meeting of the full Council. The Council will also hold a public comment session regarding Amendment 15B to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)addressing the sale of bag limit snapper grouper species, methods to reduce the effects of incidental hooking on sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish, commercial permit renewal periods and transferability requirements, implementation of a plan to monitor and access bycatch, establishment of reference points, such as Maximum Sustainable Yield

(MSY)and Optimum Yield

(OY)for golden tilefish, and establishment of allocations for snowy grouper and red porgy. In addition, the Council will hold a public comment session regarding Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing measures to end overfishing for gag grouper and vermilion snapper and interim allocations of these two species for commercial and recreational fisheries. The Council will also hold a public comment for emergency or interim measures to address overfishing of red snapper if the Council proposes such. A presentation on the Lenfest Ocean Report regarding Annual Catch Limits will be given as part of the Council meeting. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional details. DATES: The meetings will be held in June 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Renaissance Orlando Airport Hotel, 5445 Forbes Place, Orlando, FL, 32812; telephone: (1-800) 228-9290 or

(407)240-1000. Copies of documents are available from Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone:

(843)571-4366 or toll free at

(866)SAFMC-10; fax:

(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Dates 1. Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting: June 8, 2008, 3 p.m. until 6 p.m.; June 9, 2008 from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., and June 10, 2008 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m (Concurrent Sessions) The Scientific and Statistical Committee will review and provide recommendations for the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan

(FEP)and the Comprehensive Ecosystem Amendment (CEA). The FEP will act as a source document for subsequent CEAs to various species-based management plans. The first CEA updates existing Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH)and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

(HAPC)information to address the EFH Final Rule and to meet the 5-year review required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and addresses the designation of deepwater coral HAPCs. The SSC will also review and provide recommendations for Amendment 7 to the Shrimp FMP addressing rock shrimp endorsement requirements for the South Atlantic, the Shrimp Review Panel Report addressing the status of pink shrimp, and the multi-council Spiny Lobster Import Amendment. In addition, the SSC will review and provide recommendations regarding Snapper Grouper Amendment 15B (bag limit sales and other measures), Snapper Grouper Amendment 16 (measures to end overfishing for gag grouper and vermilion snapper), Snapper Grouper Amendment 17 (addressing overfishing levels and Allowable Biological Catch recommendations), SEDAR assessments on red snapper, greater amberjack, and mutton snapper, and Snapper Grouper Amendment 18 addressing overfishing for red snapper. 2. SOPPs Committee Meeting: June 9, 2008, 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. The SOPPs Committee will receive an update on the review of the Council's SOPPs by the Secretary of Commerce and develop changes if necessary. 3. Advisory Panel Selection Committee Meeting (Closed Session): June 9, 2008, 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. The Advisory Panel Selection Committee will meet in Closed Session to review applications and develop recommendations for appointment. 4. Ecosystem-based Management Committee Meeting: June 9, 2008, 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. and June 10, 2008 from 8 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. The Ecosystem-based Management Committee will review comments received during public hearings and from the SSC regarding the Fishery Ecosystem Plan and the Comprehensive Ecosystem Amendment, and modify as necessary. *Note: From 6 p.m. until 7 p.m. on June 9, 2008* , a presentation will be given on the Lenfest Ocean Program Report regarding Annual Catch Limits. 5. Shrimp Committee Meeting: June 10, 2008, 10:30 a.m. until 12 noon The Shrimp Committee will review the Shrimp Review Panel report regarding pink shrimp overfishing and take action as appropriate. The Committee will also receive a report regarding the economic impacts associated with Amendment 7 to the Shrimp FMP. 6. Spiny Lobster Committee Meeting: June 10, 2008, 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m. The Spiny Lobster Committee will review a three-Council amendment to address management issues regarding the import of spiny lobster. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council has administrative lead for this amendment. The Committee will review and approve the amendment for public hearings and develop a public hearing schedule. The Committee will also receive a report on the status of State of Florida actions on spiny lobster, and develop a timeline for the next amendment to the Spiny Lobster FMP. 7. LAP Program Committee: June 10, 2008, 3 p.m. until 4 p.m. The LAP Program Committee will review the results of staff contacts with golden tilefish fishermen relative to the development of a LAP Program and provide guidance to staff. The Committee will also receive a presentation of a proposal for a Property Rights Based Management Program and discuss outreach activities for LAP Programs. 8. Allocation Committee Meeting: June 10, 2008, 4 p.m. until 6 p.m. The Allocation Committee will receive a presentation on the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), review a list of alternatives for allocations, and provide guidance to staff. 9. Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel Meeting: June 11, 2008, 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. (Concurrent Session) The Council's Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel

(AP)will receive a presentation of analysis of new data on economic impacts regarding the bag limit sales of snapper grouper species as outlined in Snapper Grouper Amendment 15B. The AP will then review and provide comment on Amendment 15B, Amendment 16 addressing overfishing for gag grouper and vermilion snapper, and Amendment 17 addressing Annual Catch Limits and other management issues. The AP will then join the Snapper Grouper Committee meeting to hear presentations on SEDAR and the report from the SSC. In addition, the AP will review and comment on Amendment 18 addressing overfishing for red snapper, receive a presentation on the results of the LAP Program consultation with golden tilefish fishermen and AP comments, and receive a presentation for a proposal for a Property Rights Based Management Program. 10. SSC Selection Committee Meeting (Closed Session): June 11, 2008, 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. The SSC Selection Committee will meet in Closed Session to review the results of recent SSC appointments and modify as necessary. The Committee will also make appointments to Technical Committees. 11. SEDAR Committee Meeting: June 11, 2008, 10 a.m. until 12 noon The SEDAR Committee will review recommendations from the SEDAR Steering Committee and take action as necessary. The Committee will also approve the Terms of Reference and schedule SEARs 18 and 19. 12. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: June 11, 2008, 1:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. and June 12, 2008, 8 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive presentations on SEDAR assessment results for red snapper, greater amberjack, and mutton snapper, and a presentation on a Snapper Grouper Catch Characterization Study. The Committee will receive an SSC report on SEDAR assessments, and Snapper Grouper Amendments 15B, 16 and 17. In addition, the Committee will receive presentations on Oculina monitoring updates, a Pre-Amendment 14 (marine protected areas) Survey, and review the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary research area and spearfishing request. The Committee will receive a presentation on new data regarding the economic impacts of bag limit sales as addressed in Amendment 15B, review comments received on Amendment 15B, review the document, make modifications if necessary, and recommend approval for formal review by the Secretary of Commerce. For Amendment 16, the Committee will review comments, review the document, modify if necessary, and if no significant changes are made, recommend approval for formal review by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee will also receive an overview of the Amendment 17 options paper, review a summary of AP comments, and provide direction to staff for options to be developed. The Committee will review comments regarding Amendment 18 and consider emergency or interim measures from red snapper. The Committee will provide direction to staff for options to be developed for Amendment 18. 13. Council Session: June 12, 2008, 4 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. and June 13, 2008, 8 a.m. until 12 noon Council Session: June 12, 2008, 4 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. *4 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.* , The Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the March 2008 meeting minutes. *4:15 p.m.* , Public Comment Session: the Council will take public comment on Amendment 15B to the Snapper Grouper FMP. Immediately following, the Council will take public comment on Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper FMP. Immediately following, the Council will take public comment on any proposed emergency actions or interim rule measures for red snapper to end overfishing. *4:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* , The Council will hear a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee. The Council will consider recommendations and approve Amendment 15B and Amendment 16 for submission to the Secretary of Commerce, and consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate. *5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.* , The Council will receive a Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)briefing on the proposed rule for authorizing the use of green-stick gear, update on the HMS FMP Amendment 2 regarding sharks, and the status of the Florida east coast experimental longling fishery. Council Session: June 13, 2008, 8 a.m. until 12 noon *8 a.m. - 8:15 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the SOPPs Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *8:15 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the AP Selection Committee, consider recommendations, and appoint new AP members as necessary. *8:30 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *8:45 a.m. - 9 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the Shrimp Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *9 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the Spiny Lobster Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the LAP Program Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the Allocation Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the SSC Selection Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *10 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.* , The Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider recommendations, and take action as appropriate. *10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.* , The Council will review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary. *10:30 a.m. - 12 noon* , The Council will receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business including upcoming meetings. Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ). Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal final Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305

(c)of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by June 6, 2008. Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10717 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH92 Fisheries of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 16 King Mackerel Assessment Panel Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 16-South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico King Mackerel Post-Assessment Workshop Conference Call. SUMMARY: The SEDAR 16 Assessment Panel will be holding a conference call to review preliminary assessment model results, select a preferred assessment model, and discuss future analysis needs. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . DATES: The SEDAR 16 Assessment Workshop Panel will meet on Friday, May 30, 2008, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. (EST). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via conference call. Listening stations are available at the following locations: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive #201, North Charleston, SC 29405; and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone

(843)571-4366 or toll free

(866)SAFMC-10; FAX

(843)769-4520. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils; in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks. During this conference call the SEDAR 16 King Mackerel Assessment Panel will follow-up on activities from its May 5-9, 2008 meeting to review preliminary assessment model results, select a preferred assessment model, and discuss future analysis needs. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office at the address listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Dated: May 9, 2008, Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10749 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH43 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings; Correction AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of cancellation of a public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will postpone a meeting of the Hawaii Archipelago Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee in Honolulu, HI scheduled for Friday, May 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:

(808)522-8220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original notice published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2008 (73 FR 22137). The Hawaii Archipelago Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committee meeting that was scheduled for Friday, May 16, 2008 has been postponed until further notice. The Council will publish a **Federal Register** notice when dates for this meeting are set. All other previously-published information remains unchanged. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10715 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH88 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The 98th meeting of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)will convene Tuesday, June 10, 2008, through Thursday June 12, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda items. DATES: The SSC meeting will be held will be held between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, and between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, June 11-12, 2008. ADDRESSES: The SSC meeting will be held at the Council Office Conference Room, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI; telephone:

(808)522-8220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone:

(808)522-8220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 9 a.m. 1. Introductions 2. Approval of Draft Agenda and Assignment of Rapporteurs 3. Status of the 97th SSC Meeting Recommendations 4. Report from the Pacific Fisheries Science Center Director 5. Program Planning A. Annual Catch Limits (Action Item) B. Barter, Trade, Subsistence Management Options (Action Item) C. Background on Barter, Trade and Subsistence in Pacific Fisheries D. Hawaii Archipelago Advisory Panel Report E. Public Comment F. Discussion and Action 6. Insular Fisheries A. Bottomfish Risk Assessment Model (Action Item) B. Hawaii Archipelago Advisory Panel Report C. Hawaii Archipelago Plan Team Report D. Public Comment E. Discussion and Action Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 8:30 a.m. 7. Pelagic Fisheries A. Longline Management 1. Hawaii Swordfish Fishery Effort (Action Item) 2. Susceptibility Quasi-Extinction Analysis B. Non-Longline Management 1. Non-Longline Pelagic Fishery Management (Action Item) 2. FAD Management Options (Action Item) C. American Samoa and Hawaii Longline Quarterly Reports D. International Fisheries/Meetings 1. Tuna Round Table 2. North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Organization Science Committee meeting 3. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission meeting E. Hawaii Archipelago Advisory Panel Report F. Pacific Pelagic Plan Team Report G. Public Comment H. Discussion and Action 8. Protected Species A. Council's Turtle Advisory Committee meeting B. Public Comment C. Discussion and Action Thursday, June 12, 2008, 8:30 a.m. 9. Other Business A. Marine Protected Area update B. 99th SSC Meeting 10. Summary of SSC Recommendations to the Council Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds,

(808)522-8220 (voice) or

(808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 9, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10718 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) May 9, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Request for Public Comments concerning a request for modification of the NAFTA rules of origin for certain woven jacquard acetate rayon fabric for use in certain men's apparel. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Oxford Industries, Inc., alleging that certain woven jacquard acetate rayon fabrics, of the specifications listed below, classified under subheading 5408.23.2930 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the NAFTA rule of origin for certain men's apparel, classified under certain HTSUS Chapter 62 subheadings (6203.11, 6203.12, 6203.19, 6203.22, 6203.23, 6203.29, 6203.31, 6203.32, 6203.33, and 6203.39), should be modified to allow the use of non-North American woven jacquard acetate rayon fabric. The President may proclaim a modification to the NAFTA rules of origin only after reaching an agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether certain woven jacquard acetate rayon fabrics, of the specifications listed below, classified under subheading 5408.23.2930, can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by **June 13, 2008** to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Walsh or Maria Dybczak, International Trade Specialists, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 USC 1854); Section 202(q) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 USC 3332(q)); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. BACKGROUND: Under the NAFTA, NAFTA countries are required to eliminate customs duties on textile and apparel goods that qualify as originating goods under the NAFTA rules of origin, which are set out in Annex 401 to the NAFTA. The NAFTA provides that the rules of origin for textile and apparel products may be amended through a subsequent agreement by the NAFTA countries. See Section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. In consultations regarding such a change, the NAFTA countries are to consider issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the free trade area and whether domestic producers are capable of supplying commercial quantities of the good in a timely manner. The Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)that accompanied the NAFTA Implementation Act stated that any interested person may submit to CITA a request for a modification to a particular rule of origin based on a change in the availability in North America of a particular fiber, yarn or fabric and that the requesting party would bear the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted. NAFTA Implementation Act, SAA, H. Doc. 103-159, Vol. 1, at 491 (1993). The SAA provides that CITA may make a recommendation to the President regarding a change to a rule of origin for a textile or apparel good. SAA at 491. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification. See section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. On May 2, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Oxford Industries, Inc., alleging that certain woven jacquard acetate rayon fabrics, of the specifications listed below, classified under subheading 5408.23.2930 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the NAFTA rule of origin for certain men's apparel, classified under certain HTSUS Chapter 62 subheadings, should be modified to allow the use of non-North American woven jacquard acetate rayon fabric. CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the woven jacquard acetate rayon fabrics described above can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than **June 13, 2008** . Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that these woven jacquard acetate rayon fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces fabric that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3001 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary. Specifications: HTS Classification: 5408.23.2930 Overall fiber content: 55% Acetate (warp), 45% Rayon (filling) Yarn size: Warp: 75 denier; Filling: 120 denier Yarn number: Warp: 146 single threads/inch (57.5 single threads/cm) Filling: 80 single threads/inch (31.5 single threads/cm) Weight: 2.59 ounces/square yard (88 grams/square meter) Width: 55 inches (including selvedge) Weave type: Jacquard of 2 or more color yarns Finish: Yarn dyed and not coated R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-10807 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning “Article of Footwear with Temperature Regulation Means” AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 7,344,751 entitled “Article of Footwear with Temperature Regulation Means” issued April 29, 2008. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey DiTullio at U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, Phone;

(508)233-4184 or E-mail: *Jeffrey.Ditullio@natick.army.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10784 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Expansion of an Existing Sand and Aggregate Mining Operation Proposed by Aggregate Industries in a Backwater Area of the Mississippi River in Cottage Grove, MN AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Aggregate Industries is proposing a project that will require a St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit for excavation within a navigable water and to discharge dredged material into waters and wetlands during an aggregate mining operation. Specifically, Aggregate Industries is proposing to dredge and excavate sand and gravel in approximately 230 acres of backwater area adjacent to the main channel of the Mississippi River. A berm would be constructed in the river upstream of the mine area to minimize current velocity in the mining area and to reduce turbidity. Sand and gravel would be excavated using a clamshell-type dredge to a maximum depth of approximately 200 feet. Dredged material would be transported via a conveyor system from the dredge to an existing sand and gravel processing plant located on Grey Cloud Island. Excess sand not used for berm construction would be returned to the mined area. A specific compensatory mitigation plan has not yet been developed for the project. Aggregate Industries intends to work with interested federal and state agencies to develop an acceptable plan that would meet federal and state compensatory mitigation requirements. The project requires Corps of Engineers approval under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The final environmental impact statement will be used as a basis for the permit decision and to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DATES: A public meeting will be held on May 15, 2008 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, MN. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)can be addressed to Mr. Tom Hingsberger, Corps Regulatory Branch, by letter at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638, by telephone at

(651)290-5367, or by e-mail at *thomas.j.hingsberger@usace.army.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corps and the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota will jointly prepare the DEIS. The Corps is the lead federal agency and the City of Cottage Grove

(City)is the lead state agency under the State of Minnesota's Environmental Policy Act. A Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet

(EAW)and Draft Scoping Decision Document will be available for review on or after April 21, 2008 on the Internet at *http://www.eqb.state.mn.us.* The Corps and the City will conduct a public meeting (see DATES and ADDRESSES ). Additional meetings will be conducted as needed. We anticipate that the DEIS will be available to the public in summer 2008. The DEIS will assess impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives, identify and evaluate mitigation alternatives, and discuss potential environmental monitoring. Significant issues and resources to be identified in the DEIS will be determined through coordination with responsible federal, state, and local agencies; the general public; interested private organizations and parties; and affected Native American Tribes. Anyone who has an interest in participating in the development of the DEIS is invited to contact the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers. Significant issues that will be addressed in the DEIS include: 1. Natural resources, including: Fisheries, mussels, waterfowl, riparian areas, and waters of the U.S. 2. Water quality, groundwater, erosion, and sedimentation. 3. Navigation, flood impacts, hydrology. 4. Historic and Cultural Preservation. 5. Air Quality. 6. Traffic. 7. Noise. 8. Social and economic resources. 9. Downstream resources. Additional issues of interest may be identified through the public scoping meeting and agency meetings. Issuing a permit for the excavation and dredging of a 230-acre area of the Mississippi River, and discharging material into the river and adjacent wetlands to construct berms and to dispose of excess dredged material, is considered to be a major Federal action with the potential to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The project:

(1)Has the potential to significantly affect habitat for fish and threatened or endangered species of mussels,

(2)has the potential to affect navigation and flood impacts,

(3)would be conducted in an area with potential cultural and historic significance. Our environmental review will be conducted to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Council of Environmental Quality Regulations, Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. Dated: April 29, 2008. Jon L. Christensen, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer. [FR Doc. E8-10782 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-CY-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Record of Decision for 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Actions at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice of record of decision. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(c), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the Department of the Navy

(DON)NEPA regulation (32 CFR part 775), the DON announces its decision to implement 2005 Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC)Actions at the National Naval Medical Center

(NNMC)in Bethesda, MD. The implementation of BRAC 2005 at NNMC will be accomplished as set out in the Preferred Alternative and described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Officer in Charge—BRAC, NNMC, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889. Telephone 301-319-4561. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510 directs the implementation of the BRAC Commission recommendations. The BRAC Commission recommendations affect NNMC in Bethesda, MD by relocating certain Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) activities from Washington, DC to NNMC, establishing it as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC). The specific BRAC 2005 recommendation is to realign WRAMC, Washington, DC, as follows: Relocate all tertiary (sub-specialty and complex care) medical services to NNMC, Bethesda, MD, establishing it as the WRNMMC Bethesda, MD; relocate Legal Medicine to the new WRNMMC Bethesda, MD; relocate sufficient personnel to the new WRNMMC Bethesda, MD, to establish a Program Management Office that will coordinate pathology results, contract administration, and quality assurance and control of Department of Defense

(DoD)second opinion consults worldwide; relocate all non-tertiary (primary and specialty) patient care functions to a new community hospital at Fort Belvoir, VA. The BRAC law requires the completion of the realignment actions by 15 September 2011. The purpose for the Proposed Action is to establish a single premier military medical center at the NNMC Bethesda site in accordance with the BRAC legislation. The need for the Proposed Action is to implement the BRAC law, which requires development of both new and improved facilities to accommodate the projected additional patients and staff on account of the known shortfall of facility space and associated infrastructure to support them at the existing NNMC. The BRAC-directed relocations from WRAMC will result in movement of medical and medical support services to NNMC and implementation of BRAC Commission recommendations would result in an increase of approximately 2,200 personnel or staff. Similarly, additional visitors and patients entering NNMC could average approximately 1,862 on a typical weekday. These facilities would support the following military medical tertiary care functions: Additional inpatient and outpatient care; traumatic brain injury and psychological health care; additional medical administration space; transitional health care spaces for patients requiring aftercare following successful inpatient treatment, to include appropriate lodging accommodations on campus for these patients and their supporting aftercare staff; a fitness center for patients and staff; and additional parking for patients, staff, and visitors. The Proposed Action is to provide necessary facilities to implement the BRAC 2005 realignment actions. To implement the actions directed by the 2005 BRAC law, the Navy proposes to provide:

(a)Additional space for inpatient and outpatient medical care as well as necessary renovation of existing medical care space to accommodate the increase in patients;

(b)a National Intrepid Center of Excellence for Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health diagnosis, treatment, clinical training, and related services to meet an urgent need for traumatic brain injury and psychological health care;

(c)medical administration space;

(d)clinical and administrative space for the Warrior Transition Unit to deliver transitional aftercare and associated patient education programs;

(e)Bachelor Enlisted Quarters to accommodate the projected increase in permanent party enlisted medical and support staff as well as provide transitional lodging required to support aftercare patients receiving treatment on an extended basis;

(f)a fitness center for the rehabilitation of patients and for staff;

(g)parking for the additional patients, staff, and visitors; and

(h)two Fisher Houses TM to provide patients with transitional homelike lodging. *Public Involvement:* From the initial stages of the NEPA process, the Navy has actively engaged and encouraged public participation. The Navy published a Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare an EIS in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 71, No. 224, Page 67343) on November 21, 2006, which initiated a 45-day scoping period ending on January 4, 2007. The Navy held four public scoping meetings in Bethesda, MD between December 12, 2006 and December 20, 2006. The Navy notified key federal, state, and local officials and the public of the scoping meetings via various avenues, including: Direct contact, leading local newspapers, notification flyers, and an announcement on publicly accessible NNMC and Montgomery County Web sites. In response to requests for additional time for public participation, the Navy continued to accept comments until February 3, 2007, and held two additional public information meetings in Bethesda, MD on January 30, 2007 and on February 1, 2007. All comments received were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIS. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a Notice of Availability

(NOA)for the Draft EIS in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No. 240, Page 71138) on December 14, 2007. The publication of the NOA initiated the 45-day public review period, which ended on January 28, 2008. The Navy published the NOA and Notice of Public Hearing

(NOPH)in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No. 240, Page 71126) on December 14, 2007. To notify key federal, state, and local officials and the public, the Navy used similar channels for the Draft EIS NOA/NOPH as for the public scoping period. The Navy held two public hearing meetings in Bethesda, MD on January 9 and 10, 2008. Attendees included representatives of federal, state, and local agencies, and the general public. The Navy received approximately 1,200 comments with the majority of the comments focusing on transportation, external coordination issues, compatibility with other community planning efforts, and other environmental issues and factors. The Navy reviewed and addressed all comments received in the Final EIS. The Navy published the NOA for the Final EIS in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 73, No. 65, Page 18262) on April 3, 2008. The USEPA published the NOA for the Final EIS in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 73, No. 66, Page 18527) on April 4, 2008, which initiated a 30-day Wait Period (no action period). *Alternatives Considered:* The Navy evaluated alternatives that would meet the purpose and need of the action and applied screening criteria to identify alternatives that were “reasonable”. The screening process and selection criteria were set out in the EIS (Section 2.10). The result of the screening process was the evaluation of two BRAC action alternatives, referred to in the Final EIS as the Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two, and the evaluation of the No Action Alternative. Both BRAC action alternatives would provide the new WRNMMC with approximately 1,652,000 square feet

(SF)of new building construction and renovation, as well as a net gain of approximately 1,800 parking spaces. The Final EIS alternatives assume that there would be 1,862 additional patients and visitors each weekday and a conservative estimate of 2,500 additional personnel. The two BRAC action alternatives have a common concept for the major medical care facilities, siting them in proximity to the existing medical care facilities on the western side of the installation. The alternatives differ in their siting of the required facilities within the installation and in their use of new construction versus renovation of existing buildings to obtain some of the needed administrative space. Both alternatives would implement state of the art features in medical design and environmental best management practices

(BMPs)such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED)Silver certifications for new construction. *Preferred Alternative.* The Preferred Alternative would implement the Proposed Action with the facilities described above by adding to NNMC approximately 1,144,000 SF of new building construction; approximately 508,000 SF of renovation to existing building space; and approximately 824,000 SF of new parking facilities. The Navy selected the Preferred Alternative because of superior functional efficiency with regard to the placement of the National Intrepid Center of Excellence and two Fisher Houses TM , lower costs associated with employing more renovation to provide needed facilities, and lower environmental impacts. *Alternative Two.* Alternative Two would implement the Proposed Action by providing the same facilities for the same requirements as for the Preferred Alternative. However, the location and the choice of new construction versus renovation of some facilities would differ from the Preferred Alternative. Alternative Two would add to NNMC approximately 1,230,000 SF of new building construction; approximately 423,000 SF of building renovation to existing building space; and approximately 824,000 SF of new parking facilities. *No Action Alternative.* The No Action Alternative was required by statute and evaluated the impacts at NNMC in the event that additional growth from BRAC actions would not occur. Under the No Action Alternative, NNMC would continue to maintain and repair facilities in response to requirements from Congressional action or revisions to building codes. The No Action Alternative would not implement the Proposed Action and would not achieve legal compliance with the BRAC law. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline alternative against which environmental impacts of the two action alternatives are measured. *Environmentally Preferred Alternative.* The No Action Alternative maintains the status quo and therefore does not impact the existing environment. It is the environmentally preferred alternative. However, it does not meet the purpose and need of the action, however, and does not comply with BRAC law. Therefore, a further environmental comparison of the two action alternatives, which meet purpose and need, is provided below. The Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two provide an equal amount of new space for the BRAC requirements; however, the Preferred Alternative provides this space with 85,000 SF more renovation than Alternative Two and 85,000 SF less new construction than Alternative Two with resultant reduced use of resources. The Preferred Alternative uses more area already developed for its facilities, converting 28 percent less area into impervious surface (3.4 acres versus 4.7 acres), a potentially lesser impact to water resources. However, appropriate stormwater management BMPs would reduce impacts for either alternative. The renovation of Building 17 and potential renovation of Buildings 18 and 21 under the Preferred Alternative could have positive impacts on unused historic resources, while the demolition of historic Building 12, which is an option under the Preferred Alternative, would have an adverse effect. Appropriate mitigation determined under Section 106 consultation would compensate for demolition of Building 12, should it occur. The location of the Fisher Houses TM under Alternative Two are potentially within 150 feet of Woodlands 6, which could provide habitat for the federally-endangered Delmarva Fox Squirrel, necessitating further Section 7 investigations and consultation under the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. No facilities under the Preferred Alternative are within 150 feet of potential habitat for this species and Section 7 consultation is not required. Impacts for other resource areas, including transportation, are essentially the same for the two action alternatives. On balance, the Preferred Alternative is considered environmentally preferred among the two action alternatives. *Decision:* After considering the potential environmental consequences of the action alternatives (Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two), and the No Action Alternative, the Navy has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative. *Environmental Impacts:* In the EIS, the Navy analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of implementing each of the alternatives, as well as the No-Action Alternative. Chapters 2 and 4 of the Final EIS provide a detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures. This ROD, however, focuses on the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. *Geology, Topography and Soils.* Approximately 12.2 acres would be disturbed by the construction of new facilities at NNMC, with 8.8 acres of construction on existing impermeable surfaces requiring demolition and 3.4 acres of new construction on open space. This would increase the current 98 acres of impermeable surface area at NNMC by approximately 3.5 percent. Prior to construction at NNMC, a General Permit for Construction Activity would be obtained which would include an approved sediment and erosion control plan. Application of soil erosion and sediment control measures would likely result in minor adverse impacts to soils from construction occurring on open areas and no impacts to soils from construction occurring on sites covered by existing manmade structures such as pavement. *Water Resources.* Approximately 3.4 acres of existing pervious soil surfaces at NNMC would be converted to impervious development. Implementation of a sediment and erosion control plan and a state-required stormwater management plan would control any increases in sediment and surface stormwater runoff during construction and operation. The construction would be designed to avoid all floodplains. Wetland habitats would not be affected as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative. The only proposed structure in the vicinity of the unnamed tributary to Stoney Creek is the Southern Parking facility which would be located at least 75 feet from the tributary. An investigation of this site was conducted and found that there are no wetlands present (Appendix E). *Biological Resources.* The proposed projects would convert existing developed land or landscaped areas into developed facilities with landscaped vegetation. Impacts to vegetation could be adverse but not significant because areas considered for the projects are located in areas with existing structures or pavement, or in areas of grassy meadow and lawn with thinly scattered trees and shrubs commonly found within the region. Although no rare, threatened, and endangered species have been identified at NNMC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the federally endangered Delmarva Fox Squirrel could be present in mature pine and hardwood forests in Maryland. No effect to this federally endangered species would be expected because none of the proposed projects require development of mature forest habitat and no activities are proposed within 150 feet of mature forest habitat. *Air Quality.* NNMC is in an air quality control region that is in moderate nonattainment for ozone and in nonattainment for particulate matter with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ), and is in maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO). It is also in an ozone transport region. Federal actions located in nonattainment and maintenance areas are required to demonstrate compliance with the general conformity guidelines. The Final EIS has completed a General Conformity Rule applicability analysis for the ozone precursor pollutants nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, for PM 2.5 , and the PM 2.5 precursor pollutant sulfur dioxide, and for CO to analyze impacts to air quality. It determined that annual project emissions do not exceed the *de minimis* levels for moderate ozone nonattainment, PM 2.5 nonattainment, or CO maintenance levels established in 40 CFR 93.153

(b)for NO X , PM 2.5 , CO, and SO 2 of 100 tons per year or for VOCs of 50 tons per year and are not regionally significant. Therefore, full conformity determination is not required and impacts from these pollutants are not significant. A Record of Non-Applicability was included in the Final EIS. A hot spot evaluation of vehicle CO emissions was also performed both in the parking garages and at the five intersections adjacent to NNMC. The analysis determined that CO concentrations remain below allowable ambient standards. *Noise.* Demolition, construction, and renovation noise would occur at NNMC under the Preferred Alternative. The noise would be short-term, typical of construction activities, and would be managed to meet State and Montgomery County criteria. Construction noise near sensitive receptors within and outside NNMC would require careful planning and potential implementation of noise reduction measures. Noise caused by additional traffic would be primarily from passenger cars and would not be expected to change existing noise levels noticeably to receptors along roadways. The potential increase in helicopter activities, primarily for medical emergencies, is expected to increase flights into NNMC by one to two flights per month and is not considered a significant increase from existing conditions. *Infrastructure.* Based on initial estimates of utility demands and provider capacity, no major issues are anticipated. The new BRAC projects that add to utility demands at NNMC reduce demands at WRAMC as functions move from older, less efficient buildings at WRAMC to LEED Silver certified buildings at NNMC. As designs are finalized, additional utility studies will be conducted to identify whether improvements to any utility lines or pipes within or outside NNMC are appropriate and these improvements would be implemented as part of the construction. The NNMC systems have adequate redundancy to assure an ability to provide continued service while any line is shut down. *Transportation.* The BRAC movement of added staff and patient workload to the existing NNMC campus to create the directed WRNMMC will occur in an already congested urban environment. Results from the Traffic Study analysis show that the additional traffic expected during operation of the BRAC facilities would increase overall traffic in the vicinity of the future WRNMMC during peak hours. The analysis of peak hours provides the worst condition to be expected and includes both new employees and the projected daily patients and visitors in its estimates of peak traffic. The Traffic Study of 27 intersections near NNMC indicated that 5 intersections near the NNMC campus are projected to operate in excess of the Montgomery County standards during peak hours under the Preferred Alternative. One of these intersections exceeds standards specifically because of the additional traffic under the Preferred Alternative; the remaining four would already operate in excess of County standards under background conditions in 2011, independent of the BRAC Action's added traffic. As noted, the BRAC Alternative traffic adds to volumes at all intersections, including those above standards. Construction traffic volumes are significantly lower than the commuter and patient or visitor volumes expected during operations; therefore, construction traffic would be expected to have less of an impact on area roadways. The construction crew commuting will be constrained by limiting parking spaces (currently 200 spaces); contractors are committed contractually to (and gain LEED points by) subsidizing mass transit and bussing from designated parking lots for other construction workers. With the area in front of Building 1 being provided for contractor use, contractors will be able to conduct their material staging on the NNMC campus and the entrance to NNMC for this site would be managed to minimize potential effects to Rockville Pike from queuing. *Cultural Resources.* Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Navy is pursuing formal Section 106 consultation to resolve all adverse effects to historic properties. The Navy letter of intent and Maryland Historical Trust concurrence with the Navy approach is included in the FEIS, Appendix A, Part I. In accordance with this agreement, Section 106 consultation for all projects which impact cultural resources will be completed before construction begins on those projects. The construction of new buildings in the NNMC Bethesda Historic District, particularly the two Medical Additions, impacts the setting of the historic Central Tower Block, its Front Lawn, and protected view shed. The Maryland Historic Trust State Historical Preservation Office (MD SHPO) has concurred with the Navy's determination that Buildings A and B will have no adverse effects to Building 1, under the conditions:

(1)The state agency will be provided samples of proposed exterior materials for review and approval and

(2)the Navy will ensure that no significant historic landscape features will be permanently damaged by the temporary use of lawns and courtyards for construction staging and management. The Navy is continuing to consult with Maryland Historical Trust to complete a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA)for the adverse impact to Building 12. This MOA will be signed before Building 12 is demolished. *Land Use.* Land use is consistent with plans and precedence. The proposed facilities within NNMC are compatible with adjacent facilities. No direct effects outside the NNMC boundaries to land use are expected. BRAC actions would increase traffic in the area adjacent to NNMC and community planners believe that traffic congestion in the region could cause land development plans to be altered. *Socioeconomics.* Major beneficial economic effects to the surrounding economy would be expected resulting from the large investment in construction and renovation of facilities. No relocation of off-base personnel is expected as a result of the proposed action, as staff would be coming from WRAMC, located 6 miles away, within the Region of Influence. Therefore, no significant effects on demographics are expected. The increase in patients and visitors will increase the need for services within NNMC; however, WRNMMC will be designed to have adequate services and adequate lodging for the additional staff and visitors. Therefore, the increase in patients and visitors is unlikely to adversely affect the immediate local area off installation economically, except indirectly as additional traffic. The additional patients and visitors have been incorporated into the analysis of peak hour traffic, which provides the most severe impact on area intersections and roadways. *Human Health and Safety.* Although there would be an increase in hazardous material storage, generation of hazardous waste and regulated medical waste, and a potential need for asbestos abatement in older buildings to be demolished or renovated, adherence to standard operating procedures and applicable regulations would insure impacts are avoided. There will be adequate capacity to process the increase in regulated medical waste. Several buildings or areas proposed for construction, demolition, or renovation activities are designated as Solid Waste Management Units and Areas of Concern under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)Corrective Action Program. The RCRA Facility Assessment for NNMC must be completed in Calendar Year 2010 and all sites will be administratively closed before the end of Calendar Year 2010. *Cumulative Impacts.* The conservative use of an estimated 2,500 new employees versus the actual new employee estimate of 2,200 is expected to address potential cumulative impacts for additional employees (currently estimated as 136) for other ongoing and foreseeable future on installation projects not associated with BRAC. Future projects off installation add traffic; the analysis of transportation for the Preferred Alternative was assessed with projected growth and approved roadway improvements off installation for 2011 included in the baseline. The actions of the Preferred Alternative are not expected to result in significantly greater incremental impacts when added to the actions of other projects, except as has been already discussed for each environmental resource area above. *Mitigation:* The Final EIS determined that implementing the Preferred Alternative will result in adverse impacts on some environmental resources, as described in the previous section. The EIS identified mitigation to minimize, avoid, or compensate for such effects. All practicable means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts from the preferred alternative will be adopted. The Navy has identified potential mitigation measures to reduce impacts to surface waters from potential soil erosion and runoff, for control of fugitive emissions to air, for construction noise, for traffic impacts that will be generated by the action alternatives, and for potential impacts to cultural resources. Each of the measures listed for sediment and erosion control, stormwater management, air quality during construction, and noise reduction during construction, will be considered at the appropriate time during design and construction of the BRAC facilities and implementation will be monitored by the Navy's BRAC construction management team. The traffic mitigation measures constitute a broad commitment by the Navy to cooperate with the state and local transportation agencies in their efforts to improve local conditions and to pursue funding and program those improvements under the purview of the Navy. The cultural resources mitigation will be implemented in accordance with agreements reached in Section 106 consultation with the State of Maryland. Section 106 consultation for all projects which impact cultural resources will be completed before construction begins on those projects. *Sediment and Erosion Control Measures.* Mitigation will be implemented through a Maryland construction permit. Recommended measures to be considered include, but are not limited to:

(1)Using erosion containment controls such as silt fencing and sediment traps to contain sediment onsite where necessary;

(2)covering disturbed soil or soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting, jute matting, erosion netting, straw, or other suitable cover material, where applicable;

(3)inspecting erosion and sediment control BMPs on a regular basis and after each measurable rainfall to ensure that they are functioning properly, and maintain BMPs (repair, clean, etc.) as necessary to ensure that they continue to function properly;

(4)sequencing BMP installation and removal in relation to the scheduling of earth disturbance activities, prior to, during and after earth disturbance activities; and

(5)phasing clearing to coincide with construction at a given location to minimize the amount of area exposed to erosion at a given time. *Stormwater Management Measures.* A stormwater management plan approved by the State with BMPs will be prepared and implemented. Nonstructural stormwater management practices would be considered and applied to minimize increases in new development runoff. Low Impact Development

(LID)measures would be among those considered and implemented when practical. Structural stormwater management practices would be considered and designed to satisfy applicable minimum control requirements. To decrease the overall erosion potential of the site and improve soil productivity, areas disturbed outside of the footprints of the new construction would be aerated and reseeded, replanted, and/or re-sodded following construction activities. *Air Quality Construction Measures.* NNMC operates under a Title V permit that requires the installation to take reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter due to construction and demolition activities from becoming airborne. During construction and demolition, fugitive dust would be kept to a minimum by using control methods. These precautions could include, but are not limited to:

(1)Using, where possible, water for dust control;

(2)installing and using hoods, fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials;

(3)covering open equipment for conveying materials;

(4)promptly removing spilled or tracked dirt or other materials from paved streets and removing dried sediments resulting from soil erosion; and

(5)employing a vehicle wash rack to wet loads and wash tires prior to leaving the site. *Noise Reduction During Construction.* Construction and demolition contractors will adhere to State of Maryland and Montgomery County noise criteria requirements. Potential measures to control airborne noise impacts that would be considered and implemented as appropriate include:

(1)Source limits and performance standards to meet noise level thresholds at sensitive land uses (Montgomery County Standards);

(2)designated truck routes;

(3)establishment of noise monitoring stations for measuring noise prior to and during construction;

(4)design considerations and project layout approaches including measures such as construction of temporary noise barriers, placing construction equipment farther from noise-sensitive receptors, and constructing walled enclosures/sheds around especially noisy activities such as pavement breaking;

(5)sequencing operations to combine especially noisy operations to occur in the same time period;

(6)alternative construction methods, using special low noise emission level equipment, and selecting and specifying quieter demolition or deconstruction methods; and

(7)a construction phasing plan coordinated with patient moves to avoid impacts to patients. Compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)standards for occupational noise exposure associated with construction (29 CFR 1926.52) would address the construction workers' hearing protection. *Potential Measures to Address Traffic Impacts from NNMC Actions.* The Navy has identified potential traffic improvements for the 2011 implementation of the alternatives. These measures are both external and internal to NNMC. As discussed below, potential funding sources for these improvements measures vary. *Potential External Roadway and Intersection Improvements.* Potential improvement measures were identified and evaluated for those intersections external to NNMC that would operate above the intersection capacity. These improvement measures would remedy impacts from additional traffic caused by the BRAC alternatives. Each of these potential improvements is under the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland and would require funding and implementation through the appropriate State of Maryland Transportation Organizations. The Navy has coordinated the traffic analysis and these potential improvements with the State and local transportation agencies. The Navy remains committed to cooperate to the maximum extent allowed by law with these agencies in the implementation of any or all of the proposed improvement measures. *Recommended Internal Improvements for NNMC.* The EIS also identifies potential internal traffic improvement measures for the 2011 implementation of the alternatives. These improvements are within the purview of the Navy for implementation. The Navy has programmed funding for recommended improvements at all gates that would be expected to speed vehicle access and egress, improve circulation, and reduce queuing at the gate. A safety and security analysis is being conducted by DOD at the NNMC gates to improve security and safety and reduce queuing on and off installation. This analysis includes potential improvements or queuing mitigation measures at all of the access gates, to include: North Wood Road Gate, South Wood Road Gate, Gunnell Road Gate, Grier Road Gate, and University Road Gate (USUHS' Gate). Other projects include:

(1)Widen and improve Perimeter Road on NNMC;

(2)conduct a study at the NIH Commercial Vehicle Inspection Station on Rockville Pike to determine if a traffic signal is warranted and suitable for submission of a request to state and local transportation authorities for funding and implementation; and

(3)improve the intersection of Brown Road/Palmer Road North. *Potential External Improvements For NNMC Access.* Several potential improvements external to NNMC that could directly enhance access to NNMC are also being evaluated and the Navy is submitting a request for Defense Access Road

(DAR)certification for those that are recommended for implementation. These are further discussed below. The Navy is evaluating potential improvements at each NNMC gate, to include potential improvements to reduce queuing off installation. The evaluation off installation includes potential improvements at the gate access intersection of Rockville Pike and North Wood Road. The Navy has submitted a request for DAR certification for the following projects: 1. Install new left turn lane along northbound Rockville Pike at North Wood Road Gate and add storage in the left turn lane along southbound Rockville Pike at North Wood Road Gate, and provide a signal at this intersection. This improvement measure would be intended to move turning traffic out of the travel through lanes on Rockville Pike, minimize base traffic from backing up onto local roadways and blocking through traffic, and address incoming employees resulting from the BRAC action without degrading the quality of nearby intersections; 2. Install a bank of elevators on the east side of Rockville Pike to provide direct pedestrian access from NNMC to the Medical Center Metro Station. This project would enhance public safety, by reducing the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts that result from crossing Rockville Pike and would also improve the South Wood Road and Rockville Pike intersection. This project would require close cooperation with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Agency (WMATA). For each project that is certified by the DAR program, the Navy commits to seek funding from DoD. Execution will be subject to availability of funding through the DoD budget process. *Additional Potential Measures.* In addition to the measures listed above, other measures within the Navy's purview include the Navy's decision to update the existing NNMC Transportation Management Plan

(TMP)in conjunction with a master plan update. The goals of the existing 1997 TMP are to reduce traffic congestion, conserve energy, and improve air quality by seeking to reduce the number of employee Single Occupant Vehicle

(SOV)trips in the workday commute, to better utilize existing parking spaces, and to maximize the use of alternative transportation options. The existing TMP is currently implemented at NNMC and the Navy remains committed to promoting the use of mass transit for its employees and will continue to promote alternatives to single occupant vehicle commuting. Current TMP strategies in use at NNMC include:

(1)Shuttle services,

(2)Mass Transportation Fringe Benefit

(MTFB)Program,

(3)parking measures, and

(4)TRANSHARE—a NNMC clean-air program that sets goals to increase the percentage of employees using commuting options other than single-occupant vehicles. It is the Navy's intent that the update to the TMP will reflect the changes that have taken place in the intervening years. It will include recommendations for such physical or operational changes as telecommuting, transit subsidies, shuttle bus services, pedestrian improvements, and bicyclist improvements. A transportation coordinator has been added to the NNMC staff to facilitate implementation of TMP strategies. *Cultural Resources Measures.* The Navy is pursuing formal Section 106 consultation to resolve all adverse effects to historic properties. As stipulated in MD SHPO concurrence on the Navy's determination of no adverse effects on Building 1 from Buildings A and B, the Navy will provide the state agency samples of proposed exterior materials for its review and approval and will ensure that no significant historic landscape features will be permanently damaged by the temporary use of lawns and courtyards for construction staging and management. The Navy is continuing to consult with Maryland Historical Trust to complete a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA)for the adverse impact to Building 12. The mitigation measures proposed in this MOA will include proper documentation of Building 12 including photographs, drawings and a written history; rehabilitation of Building 17; retention of Buildings 18 and 21; and treatment of the landscape in front of Building 1. This MOA will be signed before demolition begins on Building 12. The other BRAC projects which pose potential adverse affects to cultural resources will have individual Section 106 consultation completed before construction commences on those projects. For each of these consultations, the Navy agrees to implement mitigation as required by the Section 106 consultation process. *Responses to Comments Received on the Final EIS:* Public comments on transportation questioned the use of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Local Area Transportation Review

(LATR)Guidelines for the EIS traffic study, the accuracy of the traffic analyses for the intersection of Cedar Lane and Rockville Pike, and the inclusion of an additional westbound left-turn lane at that intersection as a potential improvement for further study. The application of the Guidelines was stipulated by the BRAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, including representatives from the M-NCPPC, Montgomery County, and the Maryland State Highway Administration, which have jurisdiction over the intersections analyzed. The accuracy of the traffic analyses in question has been verified. Implementation of the additional westbound left-turn lane is acknowledged to be very difficult given existing constraints at this location and is therefore not recommended for further study. *Conclusions:* In implementing this proposed action at NNMC, Bethesda, MD, I considered the potentially differing impacts to water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two, as well as the impacts to the other resource areas such as traffic and transportation. I also considered important differences in mission effectiveness and costs between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two. The Preferred Alternative emphasizes renovation, the use of developed areas, reduced environmental impacts, and estimated cost. The Preferred Alternative includes the renovation of Building 17 and the potential renovation of Buildings 18 and 21, which would result in positive impacts on unused historic resources. The Preferred Alternative would demolish Building 12, which would constitute an adverse effect to be mitigated under historic preservation law, but would optimize the medical care services associated with the National Intrepid Center of Excellence. The Preferred Alternative sites the two Fisher Houses TM in a more spacious and functionally superior site that does not represent any potential impact to the federally endangered Delmarva Fox Squirrel. On behalf of the Department of the Navy, and based on all relevant factors addressed in the Final EIS, I have selected the Preferred Alternative for the implementation of BRAC 2005 at NNMC, Bethesda, MD. In reaching this determination, I have considered the superior functional efficiency, lower costs, and lower environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. I have taken into account the consultation process with the Maryland Historic Trust and the National Capital and Planning Commission regarding cultural resources. I have taken into account that Section 106 consultations will be complete for each project before construction commences on that project. I have taken into account the consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding endangered species. I have taken into account input from the local and state transportation agencies regarding improvements to traffic conditions. I have considered recommendations and comments provided by federal, state, and local agencies and committees, and the general public throughout the NEPA process, including during formal comment and review periods. I have considered the mitigation and improvement measures identified in the Final EIS. I also took into account the fact that the Proposed Action is required by law and that the No Action Alternative would result in non-compliance with the law. The Preferred Alternative reflects a balance between the protection of the environment, appropriate mitigation, and improvements, and the actions necessary and required to implement the Proposed Action. Consistent with this record of decision, and the Final EIS, the action proponent will implement the Preferred Alternative and address all mitigation measures. Dated: May 6, 2008. B.J. Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). [FR Doc. E8-10752 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 14, 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: May 8, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Vocational and Adult Education *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Strengthening Adult Reading Instructional Practices (SARIP). *Frequency:* Learner respondents will report twice; instructor respondents will report once for two instruments and weekly for 15 weeks. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 4,734. *Burden Hours:* 1,431. *Abstract:* The SARIP Study is an initial investigation of whether the Study Achievement in Reading

(STAR)training and materials are effective in developing adult basic education

(ABE)instructors' capability to deliver evidence-based reading instruction and consequently, in improving intermediate-level (4th-8.9th grade equivalence) adult learners' reading skills. The study will employ a quasi-experimental design to examine whether learners who are taught by ABE instructors that have been trained in the STAR methods and materials and have become proficient in these methods make greater gains in developing their reading skills compared to learners who have been taught by ABE instructors that have not participated in STAR. The treatment learners will be compared to data from a matched sample of adult learners that have not participated in STAR. The comparison group will be drawn from extant data from two previous studies on adult learners' development of reading skills. The learner data collected in the SARIP study will be used by the U.S. Department of Education to assess the preliminary learner reading outcomes from the STAR intervention and to determine whether a more rigorous evaluation of STAR should be undertaken at this point in the implementation of STAR. The data collected in the SARIP study about the delivery of instruction by teachers trained in STAR will be used by the U.S. Department of Education to review the STAR training and to determine whether modifications may be needed in the STAR training. The information about ABE programs collected in the study will be used by the U.S. Department of Education and state adult education offices to provide guidance to local ABE providers about the types of ABE program practices that may support the delivery of effective reading instruction. 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 3681. 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. E8-10756 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Overview Information; Training and Advisory Services Program—Equity Assistance Centers

(EACs)(Formerly Desegregation Assistance Centers (DACs)) Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year

(FY)2008. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number: 84.004D. *DATES: Applications Available:* May 14, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* June 30, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* August 27, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The Training and Advisory Services Program is authorized under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c-2000c-2, 2000c-5, and the implementing regulations at 34 CFR parts 270 and 272. This program awards grants through cooperative agreements to operate 10 regional EACs that provide technical assistance (including training) at the request of school boards and other responsible governmental agencies in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools—which in this context means plans for equity (including desegregation based on race, sex, and national origin)—and in the development of effective methods of coping with special educational problems occasioned by desegregation. *Priorities:* Under this competition we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priorities. *Invitational Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets these invitational priorities a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. These priorities are: Invitational Priority One The Secretary is interested in projects that will assist school boards and other responsible governmental agencies in addressing the over-representation of minorities in special education, the under-representation of minorities in gifted and talented programs, or both, through technical assistance products, services, training, and other informational resources. Invitational Priority Two The Secretary is interested in projects that will provide, to school boards and other responsible governmental agencies, resource materials, services, and training on successful strategies for providing limited English proficient students with equitable access to a high-quality education. Invitational Priority Three The Secretary is interested in projects that will ensure equal access to highly qualified teachers for students, including students who are economically disadvantaged or are racial and ethnic minorities, by providing information on effective strategies, training, and other resources in that area to school boards and other responsible governmental agencies. Invitational Priority Four The Secretary is interested in projects that will provide (to school boards and other responsible governmental agencies) information, training, and other technical assistance on effective approaches to school dropout prevention and reentry, that promote equity by addressing the special needs of high-risk students, including students from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. *Program Authority:* 42 U.S.C. 2000c-2000c-2, 2000c-5. *Applicable Regulations:*

(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99, except that 34 CFR 75.232 does not apply to grants under 34 CFR part 272.

(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR parts 270 and 272. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR parts 86 apply to institutions of higher education only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. *Estimated Available Funds:* $6,970,736. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $500,000-$800,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $697,000. *Maximum Award:* We will not fund any application that requests more than $800,000. The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Estimated Number of Awards:* 10. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 36 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:*

(a)A public agency (other than a State educational agency or a school board) or a private, non-profit organization. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other:* (Definitions): The definitions applicable to this program are found in the authorizing statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000c and in the regulations at 34 CFR parts 77, 270, and 272, and will be included in the application package. 4. *Geographical Regions:* Ten EACs will be funded under this grant program in ten different geographical regions in accordance with 34 CFR 272.12. Our reviewers will read the proposals according to the region from which the proposal originates. One award will be made in each region to the highest ranking proposal from that region. The geographic regions served by the EACs are: Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Region II: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. Region III: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. Region IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee. Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin. Region VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska. Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. Region IX: Arizona, California, Nevada. Region X: Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, The Federated States of Micronesia, The Republic of the Marshall Islands, and The Republic of Palau (the three proceeding entities were formerly known as the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands), Washington. 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: *http://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 this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.004D. 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 this program. 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. You must limit the application narrative [Part III] to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, 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). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. 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; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III]. Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications Available: May 14, 2008. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 30, 2008. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, 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: August 27, 2008. 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 this program. 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 must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under the Training and Advisory Services Program, CFDA Number 84.004D, must be submitted electronically using 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. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the Training and Advisory Services Program 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 84.004, not 84.004D). Please note the following: • 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 accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include

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

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

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf).* You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • 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). • 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. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Sandra H. Brown, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E116, Washington, DC 20202-6400. FAX:

(202)205-5870. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. 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 84.004D), 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 84.004D), 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You 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 84.004D), 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 Selection Criteria The following selection criteria for this program are from the program regulations in 34 CFR 272.30. The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parenthesis with the criterion. Non-Federal peer reviewers will review each application. They will be asked to evaluate and score each program narrative against the selection criteria. The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate applications for EAC grants:

(a)*Mission and Strategy.* (30 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which the applicant understands effective practices for addressing problems in each of the desegregation assistance areas, including the extent to which the applicant—

(1)Understands the mission of the proposed EAC;

(2)Is familiar with relevant research, theory, materials, and training models;

(3)Is familiar with the types of problems that arise in each of the desegregation assistance areas;

(4)Is familiar with relevant strategies for technical assistance and training; and

(5)Is familiar with the desegregation needs of responsible governmental agencies in its designated region.

(b)*Organizational Capability.* (15 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the ability of the applicant to sustain a long-term, high-quality, and coherent program of technical assistance and training, including the extent to which the applicant—

(1)Demonstrates the commitment to provide the services of appropriate faculty or staff members from its organization;

(2)Selects project staff with an appropriate mixture of scholarly and practitioner backgrounds; and

(3)Has had past successes in rendering technical assistance and training in the desegregation assistance areas, including collaborating with other individuals and organizations.

(c)*Plan of Operation.* (25 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the plan of operation for the project, including the extent to which—

(1)The design of the project is of high quality;

(2)The plan of management ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;

(3)The applicant plans to use its resources and personnel effectively to achieve each objective; and

(4)The applicant will ensure that project participants who are otherwise eligible to participate are selected without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, age, or handicapping condition.

(d)*Quality of Key Personnel.* (15 points)

(1)The Secretary reviews each application to determine the qualifications of the key personnel that the applicant plans to use on the project, including—

(i)The qualifications of the project director;

(ii)The qualifications of the other key personnel to be used in the project;

(iii)The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and

(ii)of this section 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 handicapping condition.

(2)To determine personnel qualifications, under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and

(ii)of this section, the Secretary considers—

(i)Experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project; and

(ii)Any other qualifications that pertain to the quality of the project.

(e)*Budget and Cost Effectiveness.* (5 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which—

(1)The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and

(2)Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project.

(f)*Evaluation Plan.* (5 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the evaluation plan for the project, including the extent to which the methods of evaluation—

(1)Are appropriate for the project; and

(2)To the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable.

(g)*Adequacy of Resources.* (5 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the adequacy of the resources that the applicant plans to devote to the project, including facilities, equipment, and supplies. 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 may also 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: The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA)performance measures for the Training and Advisory Services Program (Equity Assistance Centers), adapted from a set of common measures developed to help assess performance across the Department's technical assistance programs: Program Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve equity problems in education related to race, gender, and national origin. Objective 1 of 2: Provide high-quality technical assistance and training to public school districts in addressing equity in education. Measure 1.1 of 4: The percentage of customers of EACs that develop, implement, or improve their policies or practices, or both, in eliminating, reducing, or preventing harassment, conflict, and school violence. Measure 1.2 of 4: The percentage of customers of EACs that develop, implement, or improve their policies or practices, or both, ensuring that students of different race, sex, and national origin have equitable opportunity for high-quality instruction. Measure 1.3 of 4: The percentage of customers of EACS that report the products and services they received from the EACs are of high quality. Measure 1.4 of 4: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they received from the EACs are of high usefulness to their policies and practices. All grantees will be expected to submit, as part of their annual and final performance reports, quantitative data documenting their progress with regard to these performance measures. Note: A strong evaluation plan should be included in the application narrative and should be used, as appropriate, to shape the development of the project from the beginning of the grant period. The plan should include benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific project objectives and outcome measures to assess the impact on teaching, learning, or other important outcomes for project participants. More specifically, the plan should identify the individual, organization, or both that have agreed to serve as evaluator for the project and describe the qualifications of that evaluator. The plan should describe the evaluation design, indicating—(1) What types of data will be collected;

(2)when various types of data will be collected;

(3)what methods will be used;

(4)what instruments will be developed and when;

(5)how the data will be analyzed;

(6)when reports of results and outcomes will be available; and

(7)how the applicant will use the information collected through the evaluation to monitor progress of the funded project and to provide accountability information about both success at the initial site and effective strategies for replication in other settings. Applicants are encouraged to devote an appropriate level of resources to project evaluation. Furthermore, the Department will provide information to grantees about the client satisfaction survey, which will be used to evaluate progress on these performance measures. The grantees will be expected to cooperate with the administration of the survey. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Sandra H. Brown, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E116, Washington, DC 20202-6400. Telephone:

(202)260-2638 or by e-mail: *sandra.brown@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(202)260-7485 no later than May 23, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Records are kept of all Council proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of Indian Education, United States Department of Education, Room 5C140, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may 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/index.html.* 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.* Kerri L. Briggs, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. E8-10763 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 May 9, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP95-408-070. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Report of Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Filed Date:* 05/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080507-5061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP96-320-089. *Applicants:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. *Description:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits capacity release agreements containing negotiated rate provisions executed by Gulf South and the following replacement shippers, Total Gas & Power North America Inc *et al.* *Filed Date:* 05/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080508-0207. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-309-001. *Applicants:* Northern Border Pipeline Company. *Description:* Northern Border Pipeline Company submits Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet 271 to become effective May 5, 2008 in compliance with the Letter Order dated May 2, 2008. *Filed Date:* 05/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080508-0208. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-106-014. *Applicants:* TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC. *Description:* TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC submits its Annual Revenue Sharing Report in compliance with the April 24, 2002 Commission Order. *Filed Date:* 05/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080508-0206. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-368-000. *Applicants:* MarkWest New Mexico, L.L.C. *Description:* MarkWest New Mexico, LLC submits Original Sheet 160 *et al.* to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080508-0217. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-369-000. *Applicants:* Chandeleur Pipe Line Company. *Description:* Request for Waiver of Chandeleur Pipe Line Company. *Filed Date:* 05/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080508-5089. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-370-000. *Applicants:* Sabine Pipe Line LLC. *Description:* Request for Waiver of Sabine Pipe Line LLC. *Filed Date:* 05/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080508-5090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 20, 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. E8-10767 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0023; FRL-8565-3] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Health Effects of Microbial Pathogens in Recreational Waters: National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2081.04, OMB Control No. 2080-0068 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0023, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail* : *ord.docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax* : 202-566-9744. • *Mail* : EPA Docket Center, ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, *Mailcode* : 2822 iT, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery* : EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0023. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Sams, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Human Studies Division, Epidemiology and Biomarkers Branch, MD 58 C, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: 919-843-3161; fax number: 919-966-0655; e-mail address: *sams.elizabeth@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2004-0023, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Office of Research and Development Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPAIDC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is 202-566-1752. Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i)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;

(ii)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;

(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv)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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are families frequenting fresh and marine water beaches in the United States and territories. *Title:* Health Effects of Microbial Pathogens in Recreational Waters: National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study. *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR No. 2081.04, OMB Control No. 2080-0068. *ICR Status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9, and are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9. *Abstract:* The purpose of this study is to examine the health effects associated with swimming exposure at beach sites designated as recreational areas. This study will be conducted, and the information collected, by the Epidemiology and Biomarkers Branch, Human Studies Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Participation of adults and children in this collection of information is strictly voluntary. The identity of all participants is considered strictly confidential, thus; all data collected are stored without identifiers. This information is being collected as part of a research program consistent with the section 3(a)(v)(1) of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 and the strategic plan for EPA's Office of Research and Development and the Office of Water entitled “Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Water” available at *http://www.epa.gov/ord/htmldocuments/600r98079.pdf.* The Beaches Act and ORD's strategic plan has identified research on effects of microbial pathogens in recreational waters as a high-priority research area with particular emphasis on developing new water quality indicator guidelines for recreational waters. The EPA has broad legislative authority to establish water quality criteria and to conduct research to support these criteria. This data collection is for a series of epidemiological studies to evaluate exposure to and effects of microbial pathogens in marine and fresh recreational waters as part of the EPA's research program on exposure and health effects of microbial pathogens in recreational waters. Health effects data collection was previously conducted in a pilot study, four freshwater coastal sites, and three marine sites under OMB number 2080-0068. The results will be used to help inform the development of develop of new national water quality and monitoring guidelines. The questionnaire health data will be compared with routinely collected water quality measurements. The analysis will focus on determining whether any water quality parameters are associated with increased prevalence of swimming-related health effects. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: i. 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; ii. 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; iii. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and iv. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 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. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about fifteen minutes per response. If a single household participant completes all three interviews of the data collection, a total of 45 minutes is used. The interview process consists of three interviews; Two Beach Interviews and one Telephone Follow-up: Based on consultation with the individuals listed in Section 3(c) of the ICR, and our experience with similar types of information collection, we estimate that each family will spend an average of 30 minutes completing the beach interview and will require no recordkeeping. This includes the time for reviewing the information pamphlet and answering the questions. We estimate that each family spends an average of 15 minutes completing the home telephone interview. The telephone interviews will require no recordkeeping. All human health data collection will be recorded utilizing computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI). The telephone interview incorporates the same concept of direct data collection in a desk personal computer

(PC)setting. The tablet notebooks and desk PCs are used by interviewers to collect human health data. Screens on these tablets and PCs only display current activated questions. All human health data is stored in secured locations to maintain confidentiality. *The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:* *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 21,000. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 3. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 15,750. *Estimated total annual costs:* $236,250. This includes an estimated burden cost of $0 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is an increase of 10,500 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is required to provide the science necessary to help inform the development of new public health standards for recreational water. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: May 1, 2008. Harold Zenick, Director, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. [FR Doc. E8-10735 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058; FRL-8566-2] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection Effort for Facilities With Combustion Units, EPA ICR Number 2286.01, OMB Control No. 2060-New AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058, to

(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to a-and-r- *docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Eddinger, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Program Division, (D243-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:

(919)541-5426; fax number:

(919)541-5450; e-mail address: *eddinger.jim@epa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69213), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 11 comments during the comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* Information Collection Effort for Facilities with Combustion Units. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 2286.01, OMB Control No. 2060-New. *ICR Status:* This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This information collection will be conducted by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR)to assist the Administrator of EPA, as required by sections 112(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), in determining the current population of affected combustion units and to develop emission standards for these source categories. There will be two components to the information collection. To obtain the information necessary to identify and categorize all boilers and process heaters potentially affected by the revised standards, the first component of this ICR will solicit information from all potentially affected units in the format of an electronic survey under authority of section 114 of the CAA. The survey will be submitted to all facilities that either submitted an initial notification for the vacated standard (40 CFR Part 63, subpart DDDDD, which was vacated by the Courts on June 8, 2007), or if initial notification data is not available, it will be sent to all facilities identified by States as being subject to the vacated standard, or facilities that are classified as a major source in their Title V permit that have a boiler or process heater listed in their permit. The survey will also be sent to units covered by the 2000 emissions standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart CCCC) (2000 CISWI standard) and to facilities that have incineration units that were listed as exempt under the 2000 CISWI standard. A facility will complete the survey for all combustion units located at the facility. If a facility receiving the survey also has an incinerator at the same source, they will be required to complete a separate survey section to classify their incinerator design, operations, air pollution control, emissions, and fuel. The second component will consist of requiring, if deemed necessary, again under the authority of section 114 of the CAA, the owners/operators of up to a total of 350 combustion units to conduct emission testing for hazardous air pollutants

(HAP)and HAP surrogates. The Agency will analyze the results of the survey to determine if sufficient data exist to develop emission standards under sections 112(d) and 129 of the CAA for all subcategories of fuel and combustor types. If data are not sufficient, then the Agency will design a statistical sample to select pools of candidates to conduct emission testing. The Agency will submit a list of candidates within each category to stakeholders for their review and comment. The Agency will make a random selection of test sites, within each category, after taking into account stakeholders comments. The testing results will be required to be submitted to the Agency. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 24 hours per response for the survey and 85 hours per response for the stack testing. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Respondents affected by this action may be owners/operators of industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters as defined under the vacated boiler and process heater NESHAP. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,396. *Frequency of Response:* One time. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 37,328. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $13,118,852. This includes estimated O&M costs of $1,133 for the electronic survey component and $10,507,117 for the stack testing component. There are no capital or start-up costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* Because this is a new ICR, there is no burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Dated: May 8, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-10827 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179; FRL-8565-8] Extension of the Period for Preparation of Regional Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Recommendation Concerning the Use of Wetlands and Other Waters in the Yazoo River Basin as Disposal Sites, Issaquena County, MS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On March 19, 2008, EPA published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 14806) a Notice of a Proposed Determination, under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, 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 notice established a public comment period, which ended on May 5, 2008. On April 17, 2008, a public hearing concerning the Proposed Determination was held in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Over 500 interested stakeholders participated in the five-hour hearing including approximately 65 stakeholders who provided oral statements. EPA has also received over 45,000 written comments, including substantial additional information, which needs to be evaluated. In order to allow full consideration of the extensive administrative record, the time period provided in 40 CFR 231.5(a) for the preparation of the Regional Recommendation, the next step in the 404(c) process, is being extended until no later than, July 11, 2008. This time extension is made under authority of 40 CFR 231.8. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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.* Dated: May 7, 2008. Lawrence E. Starfield, Regional Decision Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10832 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0343; FRL-8363-3] Naphthalene Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability and Risk Reduction Options AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk assessments, and related documents for the pesticide naphthalene, and opens a public comment period on these documents (Phase 3 of 4-Phase Process). The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for naphthalene through a modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0343, 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

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0343. 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: Molly Clayton, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)603-0522; fax number:

(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *clayton.molly@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 A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents for naphthalene and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or proposals. Naphthalene is an insecticide used primarily as a moth repellant. EPA developed the risk assessments and risk characterizations for naphthalene through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Naphthalene is an insecticide used as a moth repellant for the protection of wool clothing and as an animal repellant against nuisance vertebrate pests. Naphthalene products are formulated as moth balls, flakes, dusts, and granules. All pesticidal uses of naphthalene are residential; no food or occupational uses are registered. EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessments for naphthalene. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as ambient exposure data related to the pesticidal uses of naphthalene, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide. Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for naphthalene, specifically, measures for mitigating risk from episodic ingestion (i.e. toddlers eating a mothball product). The Agency is soliciting information on effective and practical risk reduction measures. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to naphthalene, compared to the general population. EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the **Federal Register** on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For naphthalene, a modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its limited risk concern. All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for naphthalene. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: May 7, 2008. Steven Bradbury, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-10830 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002; FRL-8364-4] Battelle Memorial Institute and Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc.; Transfer of Data AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information

(CBI)by the submitter, will be transferred to Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2) Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., have been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., to fulfill the obligations of the contract. DATES: Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., will be given access to this information on or before May 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-0786; e-mail address: *croom.felicia@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action applies to the public in general. As such, 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0002. 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. Contractor Requirements Under Contract No. EP-C-04-027, Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc. will perform the task to review and analyze published and unpublished studies of six conazoles: Fenbuconazole, Diniconazole, Cyproconazole, Uniconazole, Hexaconazole, and Propiconazole. Under this task the contractor shall: 1. Search the scientific literature from 1950 forward for dermal absorption studies of Fenbuconazole, Diniconazole, Cyproconazole, Uniconazole, Hexaconazole, and Propiconazole. 2. Obtain the dermal absorption studies for Fenbuconazole, Diniconazole, Cyproconazole, Uniconazole, Hexaconazole, and Propiconazole submitted to OPP from the OPP Registration Division. 3. Critically evaluate the studies obtained in IIA and IIB to determine the physical and chemical factors that govern dermal absorption and the influence of measurement methods on the reported dermal absorption values. The OPP has determined that access by Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., to information on all pesticide chemicals is necessary for the performance of this contract. Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the contract with Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the *FIFRA Information Security Manual* . In addition, Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., by EPA for use in connection with this contract will be returned to EPA when Battelle Memorial Institute and its subcontractor, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Quality Environmental Professional Associate, and Horn Engineering Services, Inc., have completed their work. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government contracts, Government property, Security measures. Dated: May 1, 2008. Kathryn S. Bouve, Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-10289 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: BLOUNT COUNTY BROADCASTING SERVICE INC., Station WKLD, Facility ID 5885, BPH-20080409ACP, From ONEONTA, AL, To UNION GROVE, AL; CARTIER COMMUNICATIONS INC., Station WICY, Facility ID 36122, BP-20080321ABX, From MALONE, NY, To MOOERS, NY; CITICASTERS LICENSES, L.P., Station KATZ-FM, Facility ID 48958, BPH-20080313ABN, From ALTON, IL, To BRIDGETON, MO; COCHISE BROADCASTING, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 171027, BMPH-20080319ADW, From SINCLAIR, WY, To RED BUTTE, WY; COLLEGE CREEK MEDIA, LLC, Station KRFD, Facility ID 164154, BMPH-20080404AEE, From THAYNE, WY, To SOUTH PARK, WY; EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOUNDATION, Station KCAI, Facility ID 90917, BMPED-20080411ABL, From KINGMAN, AZ, To DOLAN SPRINGS, AZ; GAP BROADCASTING BILLINGS LICENSE, LLC, Station KMHK, Facility ID 1315, BPH-20080327AFQ, From HARDIN, MT, To WORDEN, MT; GEORGIA-CAROLINA RADIOCASTING COMPANY, LLC, Station WLVX, Facility ID 84470, BPH-20070413AGU, From ELBERTON, GA, To TIGNALL, GA; GREELEY BROADCASTING CORPORATION, Station KFVR-FM, Facility ID 81305, BPH-20080311ACG, From LA JUNTA, CO, To BEULAH, CO; HUNT BROADCASTING, INC., Station KJKB, Facility ID 855, BPH-20080402ACC, From JACKSBORO, TX, To SCOTLAND, TX; JER LICENSES, LLC, Station NEW, Facility ID 170963, BNPH-20070502AEZ, From FLAGLER, CO, To LOG LANE VILLAGE, CO; LARAMIE MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING, LLC, Station KRGQ, Facility ID 164299, BPH-20080317AFC, From YUMA, CO, To MERINO, CO; LKCM RADIO LICENSES, L.P., Station KKAJ-FM, Facility ID 11181, BPH-20080402ABY, From ARDMORE, OK, To DAVIS, OK; LKCM RADIO LICENSES, L.P., Station KFWR, Facility ID 31062, BPH-20080402ABZ, From MINERAL WELLS, TX, To JACKSBORO, TX; MICHAEL RADIO GROUP, Station KRKI, Facility ID 89114, BPH-20080408AEH, From NEWCASTLE, WY, To BLACK HAWK, SD; MILLER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Station WWHM, Facility ID 43833, BP-20080404ACC, From SUMTER, SC, To WEDGEFIELD, SC; MILLER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Station WIBZ, Facility ID 55268, BPH-20080404ACE, From WEDGEFIELD, SC, To QUINBY, SC; MILLER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Station WIGL, Facility ID 54576, BPH-20080411AAS, From ST. MATTHEWS, SC, To WINNSBORO, SC; PACIFIC WEST BROADCASTING, INC., Station KNCU, Facility ID 81725, BPH-20080331ACV, From NEWPORT, OR, To GLENEDEN, OR; PATHFINDER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Station WBYR, Facility ID 55659, BPH-20080324AAW, From VAN WERT, OH, To WOODBURN, IN; SCOTT POWELL, Station KHNY, Facility ID 161192, BMP-20080401AQR, From BIG HORN, WY, To HUNTLEY, MT; STEPHANIE LINN, Station KSHL, Facility ID 63205, BPH-20080331ACW, From GLENEDEN BEACH, OR, To COBURG, OR; YOUNGERS COLORADO BROADCASTING LLC, Station KEZZ, Facility ID 165959, BMPH-20080312ADS, From WALDEN, CO, To BERTHOUD, CO. DATES: Comments may be filed through July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Bui, 202-418-2700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, *http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm* . A copy of this application may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* Federal Communications Commission. James D. Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-10761 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2008-08] Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) Notice AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission

(FEC)is providing notice to its employees, former employees and applicants for Federal employment about the rights and remedies available to them under the applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws and whistleblower protection laws. This notice fulfills the FEC's notification obligations under the Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act or the Act), as implemented by the Office of Personnel Management regulations at 5 CFR part 724. The FEC's No FEAR Act notice is available on the FEC's Web site at *http://www.fec.gov/eeo/nofear/nofear.html* . EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn S. Mackey-Bryant, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Suite 507, Washington, DC 20463,

(202)694-1229. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, which is now known as the No FEAR Act. *See* Public Law 107-174, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301 note. One purpose of the Act is to “require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” Public Law 107-174, Summary. In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.” Public Law 107-174, sec. 101(1). The Act also requires the FEC to provide this notice to Federal employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Antidiscrimination Laws The FEC cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation. Generally, discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity

(EEO)counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination against the FEC. *See* 29 CFR part 1614. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC)within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel

(OSC)(see contact information below). Whistleblower Protection Laws A Federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have been the victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint (Form OSC-11) with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 or online through the OSC Web site at *http://www.osc.gov* . Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity The FEC cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws sections, or, if applicable, the administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy. Disciplinary Actions Under the existing laws, the FEC retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a Federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits the FEC to take unfounded disciplinary action against a Federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a Federal employee who has been accused of discrimination. Additional Information For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, or contact the EEOC, 999 E Street, NW., Suite 507, Washington, DC 20463,

(202)694-1229. Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found on the EEOC Web site at *http://www.eeoc.gov* and on the OSC Web site at *http://www.osc.gov* . Existing Rights Unchanged Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). Dated: May 8, 2008. David M. Mason, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. E8-10691 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreement Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement 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 Web site ( *http://www.fmc.gov* ) or contacting the Office of Agreements (202)-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011579-012. *Title:* Inland Shipping Service Association Agreement. *Parties:* Crowley Liner Services, Inc.; and Seaboard Marine, Ltd. and Seaboard Marine of Florida, Inc. *Filing Party:* Gerald A. Malia, Esq.; 1660 L Street, NW., Suite 506; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment would add five countries in Central America to the scope, add APL Co. PTE Ltd. as a party to the agreement, provide for coastal ranges within the Inland Transportation section of the agreement, and make miscellaneous changes in the agreement. Dated: May 9, 2008. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10789 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Meeting *Agency Holding the Meeting:* Federal Maritime Commission. *Time and Date:* May 14, 2008—10 a.m. *Place:* 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC. *Status:* A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session. Matters To Be Considered Open Session 1. FMC Agreement No. 201180: SSA Terminals (Seattle) Cooperative Working Agreement. Closed Session 1. Direction to Staff Regarding Budget Hearing Committee Requests. 2. FMC FY 2008 Budget Status. *Contact Person for More Information:* Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary,

(202)523-5725. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10560 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-M 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 Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant EZ Logistics LLC, 120 Sylvan Avenue, Ste. 3, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. *Officer:* Yong Zhao, Member (Qualifying Individual). Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicant A&A Contract Customs Brokers USA, Inc., 2-12th Street, Blaine, WA 98230. *Officer:* Carlos Verduzoo, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant Allcargo International Shipping, Inc., 12808 Panhandle Road, Hampton, GA 30228. *Officer:* Ella J. Davis, President (Qualifying Individual). Dated: May 9, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10787 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515, effective on the corresponding date shown below: *License Number:* 019152F. *Name:* Accel Product Company dba Accel International. *Address:* 8888 Keystone Crossing, Ste. 1300, Indianapolis, IN 46240. *Date Revoked:* April 4, 2008. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 019764N. *Name:* Altorky Group Inc. dba In & Out Cargo. *Address:* 2323 S. Voss, #203-C1, Houston, TX 77057. *Date Revoked:* April 28, 2008. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 020379F. *Name:* AMR Investments Inc. dba AMR. *Address:* 547 Boulevard, Kenilworth, NJ 07033. *Date Revoked:* April 30, 2008. *Reason:* Surrendered license voluntarily. *License Number:* 017061F. *Name:* COR Logistics, Inc. *Address:* 17950 Dix Toledo Rd., Brownstown, MI 48192. *Date Revoked:* April 30, 2008. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 003213F. *Name:* Fracht FWO Inc. *Address:* 633 West Century Blvd., Ste. 670, 6th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90045. *Date Revoked:* April 30, 2008. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 017275NF. *Name:* Hoosier Forwarding, LLC. *Address:* 3580 Blackthorn Court, South Bend, IN 46628. *Date Revoked:* April 17, 2008. *Reason:* Surrendered license voluntarily. *License Number:* 020534N. *Name:* Quisqueyana Express, Inc. *Address:* 4468 Broadway, New York, NY 10040. *Date Revoked:* April 8 2008. *Reason:* Surrendered license voluntarily. *License Number:* 016784N. *Name:* 7M Transport, Inc. *Address:* 18602 Spring Heather Ct., Spring, TX 33739-2778. *Date Revoked:* April 17, 2008. *Reason:* Surrendered license voluntarily. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. [FR Doc. E8-10788 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 29, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco** (Kenneth Binning, Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579: *1. Linda Louise Yanke* , Meridian, Idaho, and Brian Scott Norby, Daniel Ronald Yanke, Nathan Daniel Yanke, and Carl Ron Yanke, all of Boise, Idaho, to retain voting shares of Silver State Bancorp, and thereby indirectly control its subsidiary, Silver State Bank, both of Henderson, Nevada. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 9, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-10738 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S 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 website 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 June 9, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston** (Richard Walker, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 55882, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204: *1. Hyde Park Bancorp, MHC* , Hyde Park, Massachusetts, to become a bank holding company in connection with the reorganization of Hyde Park Savings Bank, Hyde Park, Massachusetts into a mutual bank holding company structure. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. Hometown Banking Company, Inc.* , Ft. Pierce, Florida, to retain control of 31.26 percent of the voting shares of all classes of common stock of Hometown of Homestead Banking Company, and its subsidiary, 1st National Bank of South Florida, both of Homestead, Florida. **C. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco** (Kenneth Binning, Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579: *1. Carpenter Fund Manager GP, LLC* , Carpenter Fund Management, LLC, Carpenter Community Bancfund-A, L.P., Carpenter Community Bancfund, L.P., and Carpenter Community Bancfund CA, L.P., all of Irvine, California, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 24.3 percent of the voting shares of Mission Community Bancorp, and thereby acquire its subsidiary, Mission Community Bank, both of San Luis Obispo, California. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 9, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-10737 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Monday, May 19, 2008. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov* for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 9, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 08-1262 Filed 5-9-08; 4:10 pm]

Connectionstraces to 108

Traces to 108 documents

U.S. Code